Page 1 of 6 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Comments June 2, 2003 Proposed 8 Hour Ozone Standard Implementation Rulemaking ATTACHMENT A Comments of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on EPA's Proposed Rulemaking to Implement the 8 Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard ( 68 FR 32802 32870, June 2, 2003)

General Comments Failure to address transport. Massachusetts' concerns with the proposal as it applies to the issue of transport are threefold:   EPA has not demonstrated that existing and anticipated control programs in upwind states will solve the transport problem for northeastern states despite EPA's assertion that interstate transport has already been addressed.   EPA should create a framework for addressing ozone transport issues over the long term. Public health and economic viability must be addressed in a fair and equitable manner.   The proposal provides so much flexibility to non attainment areas that many areas upwind of Massachusetts will be a source of continuing transported pollution for years to come.

In support of its position that transport has been addressed ` upfront,' EPA asserts that the NOx SIP Call and the Section 126 Rules were developed based on the level of reductions needed to address transport under both the 1 hour and 8 hour standards. However, the NOx SIP Call was based largely on the work of the Ozone Transport Assessment Group ( OTAG), which was not designed to address 8 hour issues. With respect to the Section 126 petitions filed by Massachusetts and other states, EPA deferred making findings on those petitions with respect to the 8 hour standard.

EPA has not cited any technical analysis to support its position that the NOx SIP and 126 rules will solve the problem of transported ozone " upfront." If such an analysis exists, we request that EPA make it available to the states so that we may fairly assess EPA's assertions that the transport problem has been solved. With respect to the EPA's discussion of the benefits of proposed Clear Skies legislation, EPA's own analysis of the proposed Clear Skies legislation shows that Massachusetts would experience little, if any, improvement in background ozone concentrations under this legislation.

EPA's assertion that national programs already adopted will address the transport problem overlooks the need to establish a framework for addressing ongoing, recurring transport. If subsequent to the full implementation of these programs, northeastern states are unable to attain the standard due to overwhelming transport, no mechanism will have been established to address Page 2 of 6 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Comments June 2, 2003 Proposed 8 Hour Ozone Standard Implementation Rulemaking this situation. As under the 1 hour standard, downwind states will have no recourse, other than section 126 petitions and that remedy may be lost if the Clear Skies Act is enacted.

EPA expresses an intent to investigate the extent, severity and sources of interstate ozone transport that will exist after the NOx SIP Call and the Section 126 Rule implementation in 2004. The results of any such investigation are likely to come too late for downwind areas with an 8 hour attainment date of 2010 or earlier. These areas will be required to submit SIPs with local control measures long before EPA is likely to enact requirements arising out of an investigation that will not begin until 2004 or later.

Massachusetts' overall concerns about transport are compounded by lack of performance standards, which significantly diminishes the likelihood that the standard will be attained expeditiously. A likely consequence of the flexibility that EPA proposes to extend to a significant number of non attainment areas, many of them upwind of Massachusetts, is that these areas will continue to be a source of transported pollutants for years to come and well beyond the timeframe within which Massachusetts will likely be required to come into attainment of the standard.

EPA expresses its willingness to consider input from states as to how to deal with ozone transport effectively and equitably. The Ozone Transport Commission provided extensive input to EPA on this issue in 2002. We refer EPA to the OTC's April 2002 " Principles and Proposal for Implementing the Eight Hour Standard," which is being submitted to the docket as an attachment to comments being submitted by NESCAUM. In that April 2002 document, the OTC states urged EPA to consider contribution to downwind area non attainment when designating 8 hour non attainment areas. Massachusetts again urges EPA to utilize this approach in order to deal with transport " up front," that is before 8 hour attainment plans are submitted.

Form of Proposal. EPA's proposal is a series of options without any proposed regulatory language. We believe that an opportunity to review and comment on proposed regulatory language is of critical importance to all interested parties. The current proposal is difficult to comprehend and comment upon, in part because of the numerous options and possible combinations of options that are presented. The failure to propose regulatory language makes the proposal even more difficult to assess as the regulatory implications of the final rule will, in no small part, turn on the exact language adopted. EPA has represented that it will issue regulatory text for comment. We strongly encourage and respectfully request that EPA issue draft regulatory text for public comment as a notice of proposed rulemaking and provide adequate time for review.

Specific Comments on Proposal Options 1. Classifications. Massachusetts supports Option 1, which would classify all non attainment areas under subpart 2 of the Clean Air Act, rather than Option 2, which would allow more than Page 3 of 6 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Comments June 2, 2003 Proposed 8 Hour Ozone Standard Implementation Rulemaking one half of the 8 hour non attainment areas to be treated under subpart 1. Consistent with Option 1, classifications should be based on 8 hour values, not 1 hour values. EPA's preferred Option 2 raises the transport issues noted above. Areas subject only to subpart 1 requirements are less likely to attain the standard expeditiously. As many of those areas are upwind of Massachusetts, their classification under subpart 1 will have an adverse impact on Massachusetts' ability to attain the standard. This classification scheme would create an inequitable situation for states like Massachusetts that will fall under subpart 2 but will continue to receive pollution from subpart 1 areas subject to less stringent requirements.

2. Early Attainment Incentive Feature. Under this feature, an area classified under subpart 2 would receive a classification one level lower than its design value would require under the Clean Air Act if it demonstrates through modeling that it can attain the standard by a date consistent with that required for the lower classification. Massachusetts believes that this is an inappropriate use of modeling. Modeling is an imprecise tool; it is proposed here in lieu of a planning process and in lieu of enforceable SIP commitments to adopt measures that would result in attainment by the prescribed date. If EPA includes this Early Incentive Feature based on modeled attainment in the final rule, local attainment demonstrations rather than regional scale modeling should be required.

3. Reasonably Available Control Technology ( RACT)

For areas covered under subpart 2, EPA is proposing RACT requirements as currently defined for subpart 2 areas. Massachusetts supports this proposal.

For areas covered under subpart 1, EPA is proposing two alternatives. The first option is to treat subpart 1 areas similarly to subpart 2 areas ( different RACT requirements based on the degree of the ozone problem). Under the second option, if the area is able to demonstrate attainment of the standard as expeditiously as practicable with emission control measures in the SIP, then RACT will be met, and additional measures would not be required as being reasonably available. Massachusetts prefers the first option, which simplifies the rule by minimizing the inequities between subpart 1 and subpart 2 areas.

Massachusetts disagrees with EPA's approach for NOx RACT determinations in areas affected by the NOx SIP Call. For these areas EPA states: " all States submitting SIP revisions to meet the NOx SIP Call have elected to require all large boilers and turbines to comply with an emissions cap and trade program consistent with EPA's model cap and trade rule. As a result, all these sources are already subject to stringent control requirements." While it is accurate that the SIP Call cap is based upon an equivalent emission rate for all facilities that in the aggregate would be more stringent than that required if all facilities were to only comply with RACT, by design under " Cap and Trade" systems, individual facilities are not required to make any reductions at all. Instead any facility may opt to purchase and apply allowances to achieve compliance. Page 4 of 6 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Comments June 2, 2003 Proposed 8 Hour Ozone Standard Implementation Rulemaking Massachusetts believes that requiring RACT in addition to the requirements of the NOx SIP Call would effectively create a floor, or minimum control requirement, for all facilities while still providing flexibility and incentives to those facilities where it makes economic sense to use additional controls. NOx controls to RACT required levels are readily available and economically feasible. In addition, the NOx SIP Call requirements are seasonal, where RACT requirements are year round. Although the proposed rule concerns ozone attainment, EPA should also consider non ozone related nitrogen issues, including fine particles, visibility, nitrification and acidification of watersheds and eutrophication of coastal waters all of which would be reduced with year round controls.

4. Transition/ Conformity The proposed rule addresses the requirements for transportation conformity during the transition from the 1 hour to the 8 hour standard. Specifically, EPA proposes that transportation conformity requirements will no longer apply for the purposes of the 1 hour standard once this standard is revoked. Emission budgets established for conformity would be revoked in both non attainment areas and maintenance areas. This proposal is troubling and unacceptable for several reasons.

  We anticipate that Eastern and Western Massachusetts will be designated as moderate areas under the 8 hour standard. Following EPA's schedule under the proposal, 8 hour conformity requirements would apply in 2005 and attainment SIPs would be due in 2007. If EPA revokes the 1 hour standard, there will be no conformity budget in place from 2005, when EPA will designate 8 hour ozone areas, until 2007. Instead, conformity would be demonstrated using other yet undefined tests that may result in emission increases above emission levels that would be allowed if the 1 hour budgets remained in place. For example, a build/ no build test would not prevent emissions growth in the out years of a transportation plan or TIP.   It is more than likely that existing 1 hour non attainment areas that are designated as 8 hour non attainment areas will have to further reduce emissions to meet the more protective standard. As such, allowing any period of time when mobile source emission levels are not capped by a mobile source emissions budget is inconsistent with the goal of cleaner air and represents a weakening of transportation conformity. To prevent backsliding, we recommend that for conformity purposes, 1 hour mobile source budgets remain in place at least until an 8 hour budget is submitted and found adequate.   EPA is also proposing to eliminate the conformity requirement for 1 hour maintenance areas when the 1 hour standard is revoked. Without conformity in place, there will be no tool to ensure that growth in emissions from the transportation sector do not increase to levels that result in backsliding. This result is of particular concern in areas currently in non attainment or maintenance of the 1 hour standard that are not projected to be in non attainment of the 8 hour standard. Page 5 of 6 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Comments June 2, 2003 Proposed 8 Hour Ozone Standard Implementation Rulemaking Finally, we note that it is difficult at best to comment on the transportation conformity implications of the proposed rule without the benefit of specific regulatory language to review, both in the case of the proposed rule and in the amendments to the transportation conformity rule to be proposed later this summer. Massachusetts will submit detailed comments on the conformity rule once it is proposed, including the appropriate conformity test that should apply during the period from designation to such time that an 8 hour conformity budget is in place. As noted above, we urge EPA to keep the 1 hour budgets in place.

5. Rate of Progress Requirements ( ROP)

EPA has proposed 2 options with respect to ROP requirements for areas classified under subpart 2. Option 1 would continue to require 15% VOC reductions within six years after the 2002 baseline for areas classified as moderate and above. Option 2 provides that those areas with an approved 15% plan under the 1 hour ozone standard do not have to do an additional 15% VOC plan. These areas would be required to achieve only whatever further reductions are needed to meet by their attainment date pursuant to the requirements of subpart 1. Massachusetts supports Option 2. The imposition of an additional 15% VOC reduction in Massachusetts would inequitably necessitate costly new controls on stationary sources in Massachusetts where there is already an approved 15% plan in place.

6. New Source Review ( NSR)

As a general principle, Massachusetts does not support EPA's use of the 8 hour implementation rule as a way to further revise the federal NSR program. To the extent EPA wants to propose further revisions to federal NSR it should do so in a separate rulemaking.

As noted above, Massachusetts supports classification of all 8 hour non attainment areas under subpart 2, thereby making them subject to the requirements of that subpart, including subpart 2 NSR requirements.

With respect to the specific options relating to NSR that EPA has proposed, Massachusetts has the following comments:

  EPA's " transitional" and " Clean Air Development Areas" options represent a substantial departure from traditional NSR as mandated by the Clean Air Act. In our view, adopting either of these approaches will substantially relax existing NSR requirements, likely causing significant increases in emissions. Massachusetts does not believe that Congress intended for EPA to relax NSR requirements, or any of the Act's requirements, as a consequence of issuing a revised NAAQS. This is particularly true when the revision has resulted in a more stringent standard that will undoubtedly require the States to adopt additional, more stringent control measures. Page 6 of 6 Commonwealth of Massachusetts Comments June 2, 2003 Proposed 8 Hour Ozone Standard Implementation Rulemaking   There is no sound legal basis for EPA's option 2, the " transitional option," in the current CAA. Once areas are designated either as attainment or non attainment under the new standard, traditional NSR should apply as required by the Act. For attainment areas this means applying federal, or SIP approved federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration ( PSD) requirements. For non attainment areas this means applying federal " major" NSR requirements.

  EPA's reliance on Appendix S, § VI as legal justification for the " transitional" approach is incorrect. This section is intended to apply only to new and modified sources located in areas where a secondary NAAQS is not yet attained. It applies only in situations where a secondary attainment date has not yet passed. It should not be modified to accommodate the " transitional" approach.

  For new 8 hour non attainment areas which were previously part of a 1 hour nonattainment designation, under 40 CFR 52.24( k) full Appendix S requirements should apply to NSR eligible sources for the 18 month interim period until NSR part D SIPs can be submitted and approved by EPA. 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix S. The Commonwealth does not support any revision to 40 CFR 52.24 ( k) which would alter Appendix S requirements to allow for EPA's proposed " transitional" approach. Under the revised 8 hour ozone standard, we believe the CAA requires that each States' non attainment SIP must include the full suite of NSR requirements, including Lowest Achievable Emission Rate ( LAER) and offsets for new or modified major stationary sources.

  The Commonwealth does not support the Clean Air Development Communities ( CADC) concept in the context of the 8 hour implementation rule. Like the " transitional" approach, this option represents a major relaxation of existing NSR requirements, allowing sources located in CACD areas to opt out of some NSR requirements provided the States adopt so called " growth or land use controls." This represents an even more radical departure from traditional NSR as required by the Act. While some of the ideas outlined in EPA's CADC proposal may have merit as new control measures, they should not be presented as a substitute for traditional NSR. We believe EPA should develop the CADC concept in a separate rulemaking, or in guidance to the states, as an additional control measure available to the States to meet the new 8 hour ozone standard.


IMPORTANT NOTE TO USER:

This OMB form has been recreated in WP6.0 by OPPTS staff. The margins and lines are NOT block protected, so you must fill the form with caution, paying attention to any shifting of the existing text. The following tips should make this a simple task:

 Fill in the spaces by using the type over command. Otherwise you'll have to delete a space for each letter you add.

 Use the same font ( Times New Roman 8pt).

 Do not change table lines ( although you can delete an extra space line to provide more space elsewhere.

 It is not recommended that you convert this form to WP5.1, some of these features are not available in WP5.1, so the text will scramble.

If you have any problems or questions, please call your RID Desk Officer @ 260 2706. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA/ Office of Air and Radiation\ Office of Atmospheric Programs 2. OMB control number b. G None a 2060 0328 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title: EPA's Natural Gas STAR Program 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) ICR # 1736.03 9. Keywords: Clean Air Act, Environmental Protection , Air Pollution Control 10. Abstract Natural Gas STAR is a voluntary program sponsored by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) that encourages natural gas companies to adopt cost effective methods for reducing methane emissions. Companies interested in joining the program submit a Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) to EPA. As partners in the program, companies agree to submit an Implementation Plan within six to twelve months of joining and an Annual Report that document their accomplishments each year thereafter. EPA collects initial information in the MOU to formally establish participation in the program. The Implementation Plan and Annual Report are necessary to evaluate a Partner's progress and performance, assess overall program results, and develop technical materials to facilitate implementation.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. P Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. G Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 98 b. Total annual responses 120 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 40 % c. Total hours requested 4059 d. Current OMB inventory 3692 e. Difference 367 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2. Adjustment 367 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 1 c. Total annualized cost requested 1 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 1 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 1 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. X Program planning or management b. P Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. __ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. Q Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. X Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. X Other ( describe) Initial Application 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Paul M. Gunning Phone: 202 564 9736 ( gunning. paul@ epa. gov)

OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Kathleen Hogan, Director Climate Protection Partnership Division Office of Atmospheric Programs Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95 Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions 5 CFR 1320.9 reads " As part of the agency submission to OMB of a proposed collection of information, the agency ( through the head of the agency, the Senior Official or their designee) shall certify ( and provide a record supporting such certification) that the proposed collection of information

"( a) is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including that the information to be collected will have practical utility;

"( b) is not unnecessarily duplicative of information otherwise reasonably accessible to the agency;

"( c) reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act 5 U. S. C § 601( 6)), the use of such techniques as:

"( 1) establishing differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to those who are to respond; "( 2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements; or collection of information , or any part thereof; "( 3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or any part thereof;

"( d) is written using plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology and is understandable to those who are to respond;

"( e) is to be implemented in ways consistent and compatible, to the maximum extent practicable, with the existing reporting and recordkeeping practices of those who are to respond;

"( f) indicates for each recordkeeping requirement the length of time persons are required to maintain the records specified;

"( g) informs potential respondents of the information called for under § 1320.8( b)( 3); [ see below]

"( h) has been developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected, including the processing of the information in a manner which shall enhance, where appropriate, the utility of the information to agencies and the public;

"( I) uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology appropriate to the purpose for which the information is to be collected; and "( j) to the maximum extent practicable, uses appropriate information technology to reduce burden and improve data quality, agency efficiency and responsiveness to the public."

NOTE: 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3) requires that each collection of information:

"( 3) informs and provides reasonable notice to the potential persons to whom the collection of information is addressed of: "( I) the reasons the information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( ii) the way such information is planned to be and/ or has been used to further the proper performance of the functions of the agency; "( iii) an estimate, to the extent practicable, of the average burden of the collection ( together with a request that the public direct to the agency any comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and any suggestions for reducing this burden); "( iv) whether responses to the collection of information are voluntary, required to obtain or retain a benefit ( citing authority), or mandatory ( citing authority); "( v) the nature and extent of confidentiality to be provided, if any ( citing authority); and "( vi) the fact that any 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."

OMB 83 I ( Instructions) 10/ 95


[Federal Register: July 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 138)]
[Notices]
[Page 35882-35883]
[DOCID:fr21jy09-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2009-0661]

National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee; Vacancies

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Request for applications.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard seeks applications for membership on the
National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee (NOSAC). NOSAC provides
advice and makes recommendations to the Coast Guard on matters
affecting the offshore industry.

DATES: Application forms should reach the Coast Guard on or before
November 30, 2009.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the application form, as well as this notice, is
available in our online docket, USCG-2008-0799 at http://
www.regulations.gov and at the Coast Guard's Advisory Committee
homeport Web page at: https://homeport.uscg.mil/nosac. You may request
an application form by writing Mr. James Magill, Assistant Designated
Federal Officer of NOSAC, Commandant (CG-5222), ATTN: Vessel and
Facility Operations Standards, U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street,
SW., STOP 7126, Washington, DC 20593-7126; by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
by faxing<PHONE_NUMBER>. Send your completed application to the
Assistant Designated Federal Officer at the street address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commander Patrick W. Clark, Designated
Federal Officer (DSO) of NOSAC, or James M. Magill, Assistant
Designated Federal Officer, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NOSAC is a Federal advisory committee
established under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), (codified at 5 U.S.C.). It consists of 15 regular members who
have particular knowledge and experience regarding offshore technology,
equipment, safety and training, as well as environmental expertise in
the exploration or recovery of offshore mineral resources. It provides
advice and makes recommendations to the Assistant Commandant for Marine
Safety, Security and Stewardship regarding safety, security and
rulemaking matters relating to the offshore mineral and energy
industries. This advice assists the Coast Guard in developing policy
and regulations and formulating the positions of the United States in
advance of meetings of the International Maritime Organization.
    NOSAC meets approximately twice a year, with one of these meetings
being held at Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington, DC. It may also
meet for extraordinary purposes. Its subcommittees and working groups
may meet to consider specific issues or topics as required.
    We will consider applications for five positions. These positions
will begin in January 2010. Applications should reach the Coast Guard
by November 30, 2009. If we do not receive sufficient qualified
applicants by the deadline we may consider applications received later
if they arrive within a reasonable time before we make our
recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
    To be eligible, applicants should have experience in one of the
following categories: (1) Offshore operations, (2) diving services
associated with offshore activities, (3) general public, (4) pipelaying
services, or (5) deepwater ports. Please state on the application form
which of the five categories you are applying for. Each member normally
serves a term of 3 years or until a replacement is appointed. A few
members may serve consecutive terms. All members serve at their own
expense and receive no salary, reimbursement of travel expenses, or
other compensation from the Federal Government.
    In support of the Coast Guard policy on gender and ethnic
nondiscrimination, we encourage qualified men and women and members of
all racial and ethnic groups to apply. The Coast Guard values
diversity; all the different characteristics and attributes of persons
that enhance the mission of the Coast Guard.
    If you are interested in applying to become a member of NOSAC, send
a completed application form to Mr. James Magill, Assistant Designated
Federal Officer of NOSAC, Commandant (CG-5222), Attn: Vessel and
Facility Operations Standards, U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second Street,
SW., STOP 7126, Washington, DC 20593-7126; by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
by faxing<PHONE_NUMBER>. Send the application form in time for it to be
received by the Assistant DFO on or before November 30, 2009.
    A copy of the application form is available in the docket for this
notice. To visit our online docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
enter the docket number for this notice (USCG-2009-0661) in the Search
box, and click ``Go''.

    Dated: July 14, 2009.
Howard L. Hime,
Acting Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, Assistant
Commandant for Marine Safety, Security and Stewardship.
[FR Doc. E9-17288 Filed 7-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS:

Notice of intent to form a negotiated rulemaking committee; supplemental notice and clarification

PAGES:  1


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32712-32713]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13249]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0070]

Technical Report: Evaluation of the Enhancing Vehicle-to-Vehicle
Crash Compatibility Agreement: Effectiveness of the Primary and
Secondary Energy-Absorbing Structures on Pickup Trucks and SUVs

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Request for comments on technical report.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces NHTSA's publication of a Technical
Report reviewing and evaluating the Enhancing Vehicle-to-Vehicle Crash
Compatibility Agreement. The report's title is: Evaluation of the
Enhancing Vehicle-to-Vehicle Crash Compatibility Agreement:
Effectiveness of the Primary and Secondary Energy-Absorbing Structures
on Pickup Trucks and SUVs.

DATES: Comments must be received no later than October 1, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Report: The technical report is available on the Internet
for viewing in PDF format at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811621.pdf. You may obtain a copy of the report free of charge by
sending a self-addressed mailing label to Nathan K. Greenwell (NVS-
431), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room W53-440,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    Comments: You may submit comments [identified by Docket Number
NHTSA-2012-0070] by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may call Docket Management at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments, see
the Procedural Matters section of this document. Note that all comments
received will be posted without change

to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan K. Greenwell, Mathematical
Statistician, Evaluation Division, NVS-431, National Center for
Statistics and Analysis, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Room W53-440, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For information about NHTSA's evaluations of the effectiveness of
existing regulations and programs: You may see a list of published
evaluation reports at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/cats/listpublications.aspx?Id=226&ShowBy=Category and if you click on any
report you will be able to view it in PDF format.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Enhancing Vehicle-to-Vehicle Crash
Compatibility Agreement (EVC) was established in 2003 as a voluntary
measure to reduce occupant fatalities of passenger cars in crashes with
light trucks and vans, including pickup trucks, SUVs, minivans, and
full-size vans, generically abbreviated as LTVs. Manufacturers agreed
upon voluntary standards for LTVs to reduce the height mismatches
between these LTVs and passenger cars. NHTSA statistically compared
car-occupant fatality risk in crashes with pickup trucks and SUVs,
referred throughout the report as light trucks, built just before and
just after self-certification to the agreement based on FARS and Polk
data from 2002 to 2010. Overall, there was a statistically significant
8-percent reduction in car-occupant fatalities of passenger cars after
light trucks self-certified to the agreement. However, for pickup
trucks and SUVs separately, the effectiveness is inconsistent. Pickup
trucks experienced a non-significant increase of 5-percent likelihood
of occupant fatalities of passenger cars, while SUVs were associated
with a significant 17-percent reduction. Furthermore, a supplementary
non-parametric analysis does not show fatality reduction for
significantly more than 50 percent of the makes and models. Overall,
these results provide some evidence that the EVC has reduced fatalities
but are not sufficiently strong to permit an unequivocal conclusion
that it has been effective in reducing fatality risk to car occupants.

Procedural Matters

How can I influence NHTSA's thinking on this subject?

    NHTSA welcomes public review of the technical report. NHTSA will
submit to the Docket a response to the comments and, if appropriate,
will supplement or revise the report.

How do I prepare and submit comments?

    Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your
comments are correctly filed in the Docket, please include the Docket
number of this document (NHTSA-2012-0070) in your comments.
    Your primary comments must not be more than 15 pages long (49 CFR
553.21). However, you may attach additional documents to your primary
comments. There is no limit on the length of the attachments.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477) or you may visit http://www.regulations.gov.
    Please send two paper copies of your comments to Docket Management,
fax them, or use the Federal eRulemaking Portal. The mailing address is
U. S. Department of Transportation, Docket Management Facility, M-30,
West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. The fax number is 1-202-493-2251. To use the
Federal eRulemaking Portal, go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
    We also request, but do not require you to send a copy to Nathan K.
Greenwell, Mathematical Statistician, Evaluation Division, NVS-431,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room W53-440, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590 (or email them to
nathan.greenwell@dot.gov). He can check if your comments have been
received at the Docket and he can expedite their review by NHTSA.

How can I be sure that my comments were received?

    If you wish Docket Management to notify you upon its receipt of
your comments, enclose a self-addressed, stamped postcard in the
envelope containing your comments. Upon receiving your comments, Docket
Management will return the postcard by mail.

How do I submit confidential business information?

    If you wish to submit any information under a claim of
confidentiality, send three copies of your complete submission,
including the information you claim to be confidential business
information, to the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Include a cover letter supplying the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR part 512).
    In addition, send two copies from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information to U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Management Facility, M-30, West Building, Ground
Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
or submit them via the Federal eRulemaking Portal.

Will the agency consider late comments?

    In our response, we will consider all comments that Docket
Management receives before the close of business on the comment closing
date indicated above under DATES. To the extent possible, we will also
consider comments that Docket Management receives after that date.
    Please note that even after the comment closing date, we will
continue to file relevant information in the Docket as it becomes
available. Further, some people may submit late comments. Accordingly,
we recommend that you periodically check the Docket for new material.

How can I read the comments submitted by other people?

    You may read the materials placed in the docket for this document
(e.g., the comments submitted in response to this document by other
interested persons) at any time by going to http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for accessing the dockets. You may also
read the materials at the Docket Management Facility by going to the
street address given above under ADDRESSES. The Docket Management
Facility is open between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30111, 30168; delegation of authority at 49
CFR 1.50 and 501.8.

Terry Shelton,
Associate Administrator, National Center for Statistics and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2012-13249 Filed 5-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: June 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 108)]
[Notices]
[Page 27208-27209]
[DOCID:fr08jn09-111]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 20a-1; SEC File No. 270-132; OMB Control No. 3235-0158.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget a request for extension of the previously

approved collection of information discussed below.
    Rule 20a-1 (17 CFR 270.20a-1) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) requires that the solicitation of a
proxy, consent, or authorization with respect to a security issued by a
registered investment company (``fund'') be in compliance with
Regulation 14A (17 CFR 240.14a-1 et seq.), Schedule 14A (17 CFR
240.14a-101), and all other rules and regulations adopted under section
14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78n(a)). It
also requires a fund's investment adviser, or a prospective adviser, to
transmit to the person making a proxy solicitation the information
necessary to enable that person to comply with the rules and
regulations applicable to the solicitation. In addition, rule 20a-1
instructs registered investment companies, that have made a public
offering of securities and that hold security holder votes for which
proxies, consents, or authorizations are not being solicited, to refer
to the Commission's rules governing information statements.
    Regulation 14A and Schedule 14A establish the disclosure
requirements applicable to the solicitation of proxies, consents and
authorizations. In particular, Item 22 of Schedule 14A contains
extensive disclosure requirements for fund proxy statements. Among
other things, it requires the disclosure of information about fund fee
or expense increases, the election of directors, the approval of an
investment advisory contract and the approval of a distribution plan.
    The Commission requires the dissemination of this information to
assist investors in understanding their fund investments and the
choices they may be asked to make regarding fund operations. The
Commission does not use the information in proxies directly, but
reviews proxy statement filings for compliance with applicable rules.
    It is estimated that funds file approximately 1,225 proxy
solicitations annually with the Commission. That figure includes
multiple filings by some funds. The total annual reporting and
recordkeeping burden of the collection of information is estimated to
be approximately 130,095 hours (1,225 responses x 106.2 hours per
response).
    Rule 20a-1 does not involve any recordkeeping requirements.
Providing the information required by the rule is mandatory and
information provided under the rule will not be kept confidential.
    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 control number.
    Please direct general comments regarding the above information to
the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or send an e-mail to Shagufta
Ahmed at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Boucher,
Director/CIO, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within
30 days of this notice.

    Dated: June 1, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-13258 Filed 6-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41240-41241]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17594]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR11-17-000]

Agave Energy Company; Notice for Temporary Waiver of Filing and
Reporting Requirements

    Take notice that on June 24, 2011, pursuant to Rule 202 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.202 (2011),
Agave Energy Company (AEC) requests that the Commission grant a
temporary waiver of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA) Section 6 and
Section 20 tariff filing and reporting requirements applicable to
interstate common carrier pipelines.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference

to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests
submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on
persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, July 13, 2011.

    Dated: July 7, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-17594 Filed 7-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 124 (Friday, June 27, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 36503]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15089]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC14-101-000.
    Applicants: NRG Yield, Inc., NRG Yield Operating LLC, Alta Wind I,
LLC, Alta Wind II, LLC, Alta Wind III, LLC, Alta Wind IV, LLC, Alta
Wind V, LLC, Alta Wind X, LLC, Alta Wind XI, LLC.
    Description: Amendment to June 10, 2014 Joint Application for
Approval under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act and Request for
Shortened Comment Period of NRG Yield, Inc., et. al.
    Filed Date: 6/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20140618-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/14.

    Docket Numbers: EC14-105-000.
    Applicants: Safeway Inc.
    Description: Application for Authorization under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act of Safeway Inc.
    Filed Date: 6/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20140618-5150.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/14.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1955-001.
    Applicants: RTO Energy Trading, LLC.
    Description: Amended FERC Electric Tariff No. 1 to be effective 6/
27/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/16/14.
    Accession Number: 20140616-5071.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1955-001.
    Applicants: RTO Energy Trading, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to May 13, 2014 and June 16, 2014 RTO
Energy Trading, LLC tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 6/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20140618-5085.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/26/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2217-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: 2893 Steele Flats GIA; Cancellation of 2490R1 & 2642
to be effective 5/23/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20140618-5078.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2218-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: 2014-06-18--Amendment--PNM--DTBAOA to be effective 6/
19/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20140618-5104.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2219-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Integrated Marketplace Filing--Clean-Up--Phase II to
be effective 3/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/18/14.
    Accession Number: 20140618-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/9/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2220-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Queue Nos. N15, P10/Y2-043; 2nd Rev. SA Nos. 2199, et
al and SA No. 3873 to be effective 5/19/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/19/14.
    Accession Number: 20140619-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/14.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2221-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Original Service Agreement No. 3859; Queue No. Z1-082
to be effective 5/19/2014.
    Filed Date: 6/19/14.
    Accession Number: 20140619-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/10/14.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 19, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-15089 Filed 6-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 93)]
[Notices]
[Page 27339]
[DOCID:fr14my10-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-194-000]

 Central New York Oil and Gas Company, LLC; Notice of Filing

May 6, 2010.
    Take notice that on April 27, 2010, Central New York Oil and Gas
Company, LLC (CNYOG), Two Brush Creek Boulevard, Suite 200, Kansas
City, MO 64112, filed an application, pursuant to section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Parts 157 and 284 of the Commission's Rules
and Regulations, for: (i) A certificate of public convenience and
necessity authorizing CNYOG to construct and operate additional
compression and appurtenant facilities to increase the throughput
capacity of its existing North and South Laterals of Stagecoach Storage
Facility; (ii) a blanket certificate authorizing CNYOG to provide firm
wheeling services using North and South Laterals; (iii) authority to
charge negotiated rates, subject to a cost-based recourse rate
alternative, for the proposed wheeling services; (iv) approval of
CNYOG's proposed cost-of-service based recourse rate methodology,
subject to a post-construction compliance filing to reflect actual
costs; and (v) any waivers of Commission regulations necessary to
approve the authorizations requested in the application. The
application is on file with the Commission and open for public
inspection. This filing is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Based on the firm commitments for firm wheeling services, CNYOG
proposed to install a 15,000 hp of gas-fired compression facility near
the interconnect between the North Lateral and Millennium Pipeline, and
a 17,000 hp of high-speed electric motor driven compression facility
near the interconnect between the South Lateral and Tennessee Gas
Pipeline Company. This additional compression will supplement the
approximately 36,900 hp of compression already in place at the
Stagecoach Central Compression Station, and increase the maximum
throughput capacity of the North and South Laterals to approximately
560 MMcf/d and 728 MMcf/d respectively. The increased throughput
capacity is necessary to provide up to 325 MMcf/d of firm wheeling
capacity between receipt and delivery points on the North and South
Laterals, without injection or withdrawal of the gas from the
Stagecoach storage reservoir. CNYOG proposes a start date of October 1,
2011.
    Any questions regarding the application are to be directed to
William F. Demarest, Jr., Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP, 750 17th St.,
NW., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20006; phone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to
the proceedings for this project should, on or before the below listed
comment date, 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.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper, see, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    Comment Date: May 27, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11527 Filed 5-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 4, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5902-5905]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01187]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0446; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-077-AD;
Amendment 39-18069; AD 2015-02-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain

Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant), and CL-215-6B11
(CL-415 Variant) airplanes. This AD was prompted by a report that,
during a routine inspection, corrosion was discovered on the lower
bearing of the rudder upper torque tube. This AD requires applying
grease to the bearing; doing a general visual inspection of the
expelled old grease for any contaminants, metal wear, and indication of
corrosion, and replacing the bearing if necessary; and revising the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
rudder spring tab operational test and a check of the rudder spring tab
operation into the daily inspection. We are issuing this AD to prevent
corroded bearings, which could result in a partial or total loss of
axial support.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 11, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of March 11,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0446 or in person at the
Docket 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.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier,
Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9,
Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You
may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ricardo Garcia, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE 171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We 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 CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant), and CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant)
airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 15, 2014
(79 FR 41145).
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2013-08, dated March 12, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-
215T Variant), and CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes. The MCAI
states:

    During a routine inspection, corrosion was discovered on the
Rudder Upper Torque Tube Lower bearing, part number (P/N) DAT48-64A.
Corroded bearings may eventually result in a partial or total loss
of axial support.
    As such, Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin (SB) 215-A3171
Rev. 1 and SB 215-A4452 Rev. 1, which provide instructions to
refresh the lubrication in the bearing in order to inspect for
corrosion and/or contaminants in the existing grease. These SBs will
also incorporate an operational check to the 50 hour maintenance
scheduled tasks, and a test of the Rudder Spring Tab operation into
the Daily inspection or the aircrew Preflight Check.

    Required actions include applying grease to the bearing, doing a
general visual inspection of the expelled old grease for any
contaminants, metal wear, and indication of corrosion, and replacing
the bearing if necessary; revising the maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, to incorporate the rudder spring tab
operational test; and revising the maintenance or inspection program,
as applicable, to incorporate a check of the rudder spring tab
operation into the daily inspection. You may examine the MCAI in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0446-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 41145, July 15,
2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed, except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 41145, July 15, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 41145, July 15, 2014).

Related Service Information

    Bombardier, Inc. has issued Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-
A3171, Revision 1, dated January 25, 2012, and Bombardier Alert Service
Bulletin 215-A4452, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2012. This service
information describes applying grease to the bearing; doing a general
visual inspection of the expelled old grease for any contaminants,
metal wear, and indication of corrosion, and replacing the bearing if
necessary; and revising the maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable, to incorporate the rudder spring tab operational test and a
check of the rudder spring tab operation into the daily inspection. You
can find this information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0446.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 5 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will be negligible. Based on
these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be
$850, or $170 per product.
    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0446; 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 street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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 (AD):

2015-02-02 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18069. Docket No. FAA-
2014-0446; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-077-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective March 11, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Bombardier, Inc. airplanes, certificated
in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of this
AD.
    (1) Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant) airplanes, serial
numbers 1056 through 1125 inclusive.
    (2) Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes, serial numbers
2001 through 2990 inclusive.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that, during a routine
inspection, corrosion was discovered on the lower bearing of the
rudder upper torque tube. We are issuing this AD to prevent corroded
bearings, which could result in a partial or total loss of axial
support.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Lubrication of the Rudder Upper Torque Tube Bearing

    Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, apply
grease to the bearing, and do a general visual inspection of the
expelled old grease for any contaminants (i.e. ashes, dust, and
algae), metal wear, and indication of corrosion, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin
215-A3171, Revision 1, dated January 25, 2012 (for Model CL-215-6B11
(CL-215T Variant) airplanes); or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin
215-A4452, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2012 (for Model CL-215-6B11
(CL-415 Variant) airplanes). If any contaminants (i.e., ashes, dust,
and algae), metal wear, or indication of corrosion are found, before
further flight, replace the bearing with a new bearing, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert
Service Bulletin 215-A3171, Revision 1, dated January 25, 2012 (for
Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant) airplanes); or Bombardier Alert
Service Bulletin 215-A4452, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2012 (for
Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes). Repeat the
inspection, thereafter, before and after each fire season or at
intervals not to exceed 6 months, whichever occurs first.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: It is suggested that
paragraph (g) of this AD be carried out in conjunction with AD 2009-
05-04, Amendment 39-15828 (74 FR 8860, February 27, 2009), as the
task and task intervals are in the same general area.

(h) Operational Test

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the
rudder spring tab operational test, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin
215-A3171, Revision 1, dated January 25, 2012 (for Model CL-215-6B11
(CL-215T Variant) airplanes); or Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin
215-A4452, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2012 (for Model CL-215-6B11
(CL-415 Variant) airplanes).

(i) Daily Maintenance Procedure Check

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate a
check of the rudder spring tab operation into the daily inspection,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Alert Service Bulletin 215-A3171, Revision 1, dated January 25, 2012
(for Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-215T Variant) airplanes); or Bombardier
Alert Service Bulletin 215-A4452, Revision 1, dated January 3, 2012
(for Model CL-215-6B11 (CL-415 Variant) airplanes).

(j) No Alternative Actions and Intervals

    After accomplishment of the maintenance or inspection program
revision required by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD, no
alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used
unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative
method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, 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 ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 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.

(l) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-08, dated March 12, 2013,
for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-
2014-0446-0002.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) 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 Alert Service Bulletin 215-A3171, Revision 1,
dated January 25, 2012.
    (ii) Bombardier Alert Service Bulletin 215-A4452, Revision 1,
dated January 3, 2012.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (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, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 12, 2015.
John P. Piccola, Jr.,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-01187 Filed 2-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 28, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12065-12067]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03835]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-8503; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-11]

Amendment of Class D and E Airspace for the Following Texas
Towns; Houston Sugar Land, TX; Alice, TX; Bay City, TX; Brenham, TX;
Burnet, TX; Falfurrias, TX; Graford, TX; and Hamilton, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class D and Class E surface area airspace
at Sugar Land Regional Airport, Houston Sugar Land, TX; and Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Kingsville
Kleberg County Airport, Alice, TX; Bay City Municipal Airport, Bay
City, TX; Brenham Municipal Airport, Brenham, TX; Burnet Municipal
Airport-Kate Craddock Field, Burnet, TX; Brooks County Airport,
Falfurrias, TX; Possum Kingdom Airport, Graford, TX; and Hamilton
Municipal Airport, Hamilton, TX. Decommissioning of non-directional
radio beacons (NDBs), cancellation of NDB approaches, and
implementation of area navigation (RNAV) procedures have made this
action necessary for the safety and management of Instrument Flight
Rules (IFR) operations at these airports. Additionally, the geographic
coordinates at Bay City Municipal Airport, Brenham Municipal Airport,
and Brooks County Airport, as well as the name of Sugar Land Regional
Airport (formerly Sugar Land Municipal/Hull Field) are being adjusted
to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. This action does not
remove Class E airspace at Horseshoe Bay Resort Airport, Austin, TX, as
was proposed.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, April 27, 2017. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online 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 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; 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 modifies Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace at
Sugar Land Regional Airport, Houston Sugar Land, TX; and modifies Class
E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at
Kingsville Kleberg County Airport, Alice, TX; Bay City Municipal
Airport, Bay City, TX; Brenham Municipal Airport, Brenham, TX; Burnet
Municipal Airport-Kate Craddock Field, Burnet, TX; Brooks County
Airport, Falfurrias, TX; Possum Kingdom Airport, Graford, TX; and
Hamilton Municipal Airport, Hamilton, TX.

History

    On August 11, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), (81 FR 53091) Docket No. FAA-
2016-8503, to modify Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace
at Sugar Land Regional Airport, Houston Sugar Land, TX; and modify
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at
Kingsville Kleberg County Airport, Alice, TX; Bay City Municipal
Airport, Bay City, TX; Brenham Municipal Airport, Brenham, TX; Burnet
Municipal Airport-Kate Craddock Field, Burnet, TX; Brooks County
Airport, Falfurrias, TX; Possum Kingdom Airport, Graford, TX; and
Hamilton Municipal Airport, Hamilton, TX; and remove Class E at
Horseshoe Bay Resort Airport, Austin, TX.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. One
(1) comment was received from an individual from Round Mountain, TX. In
synopsis, the individual stated that: RNAV SIAPs \1\ were published in
the Garmin 430W or available by printed photo copies; that Class E
airspace to 700 AGL is critical to maintain cloud clearance at
Horseshoe Bay Resort Airport; that if the SIAPs are removed, public
procedures should be established; that many airmen have obtained
published SIAPs through unapproved sources and do not possess a letter
of authorization to utilize them; and that Horseshoe Bay Resort Airport
need that protected airspace and approached to maintain a higher level
of public safety and operational consistency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Special instrument procedures are not published in
accordance with 14 CFR part 97 and require specific FAA approval for
use. FAA Order 8260.60, Chpt.2, 2-1-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequent to the publication, the FAA found that special
instrument approach procedures exist at Horseshoe Bay Resort Airport
requiring the Class E airspace area extending upward from

700 feet above the surface that currently is in place for the safety
and management of IFR operations. Thus, the proposed removal of Class E
airspace at Horseshoe Bay Resort Airport, Austin, TX, has been
withdrawn from this action. The individual's remaining comments are
outside the scope of this action.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph
5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, 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 D and E airspace designations
listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends 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 Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 modifies:
    Class D airspace from the surface to and including 2,600 feet MSL
and Class E surface area airspace within a 5.8-mile radius (increased
from a 4.2-mile radius) of Sugar Land Regional Airport, Houston Sugar
Land, TX, and updates the name of the airport (formerly Sugar Land
Municipal/Hull Field) to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
    Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius (increased from a 6.5-mile radius) of
Kingsville, Kleberg County Airport, Alice, TX, with an extension
northwest of the airport from the 6.6-mile radius to 10.3 miles;
    Within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from a 7-mile radius) of Bay City
Municipal Airport, Bay City, TX, and updates the geographic coordinates
of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
    Within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from a 7.2-mile radius) of
Brenham Municipal Airport, Brenham TX, and updates the geographic
coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database;
    Within a 6.6-mile radius (reduced from a 6.7-mile radius) of the
Burnet Municipal Airport-Kate Craddock Field, Burnet, TX, and removes
the extensions to the north and south of the airport;
    Within a 6.6-mile radius (reduced from a 6.7-mile radius) of Brooks
County Airport, Falfurrias, TX, removes the extension to the south of
the airport, updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to
coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database, and removes the
decommissioned Bay City NDB from the legal description;
    Within a 7.0-mile radius (increased from a 6.3-mile radius) of
Possum Kingdom Airport, Graford, TX, with extensions to the northeast
of the airport from the 7.0-mile radius to 10.9 miles, and to the
southwest of the airport from the 7.0-mile radius to 10.9 miles;
    And within a 6.5-mile radius (increased from a 6.4-mile radius) of
Hamilton Municipal Airport, Hamilton, TX, with extensions to the north
of the airport from the 6.5-mile radius to 9.4 miles, and to the south
of the airport from the 6.5-mile radius to 10.3 miles.
    Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of
NDBs, cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of RNAV
procedures at these airports and for the safety and management of
standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at these
airports.

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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air)

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for 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, and
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASW TX D Houston Sugar Land, TX [Amended]

Sugar Land, Sugar Land Regional Airport, TX
    (Lat. 29[deg]37'20'' N., long. 95[deg]39'24'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,600 feet MSL within a 5.8-mile radius of Sugar Land Regional
Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Chart Supplement (previously called Airport/Facility Directory).
* * * * *

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

ASW TX E2 Houston Sugar Land, TX [Amended]

Sugar Land, Sugar Land Regional Airport, TX
    (Lat. 29[deg]37'20'' N., long. 95[deg]39'24'' W.)

    Within a 5.8-mile radius of Sugar Land Regional Airport. This
Class E airspace is effective during the specific dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and
time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart
Supplement (previously called Airport/Facility Directory).
* * * * *

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

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Alice, TX [Amended]

Alice International Airport, TX
    (Lat. 27[deg]44'27'' N., long. 98[deg]01'37'' W.)
Orange Grove NALF, TX
    (Lat. 27[deg]53'49'' N., long. 98[deg]02'37'' W.)
Navy Orange Grove TACAN
    (Lat. 27[deg]53'43'' N., long. 98[deg]02'33'' W.)
Kingsville, Kleberg County Airport, TX
    (Lat. 27[deg]33'03'' N., long. 98[deg]01'51'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.5-mile radius of Alice International Airport, and within
2 miles each side of the 135[deg] bearing from Alice International
Airport extending from the 7.5-mile radius to 9.8 miles southeast of
the airport, and within a 7.2-mile radius of the Orange Grove NALF,
and within 1.6 miles each side of the 129[deg] radial of the Navy
Orange Grove TACAN extending from the 7.2-mile radius of the Orange
Grove NALF to 11 miles southeast of the Orange Grove NALF, and
within 1.5 miles each side of the 320[deg] radial of the Navy Orange
Grove TACAN extending from the 7.2-mile radius of the Orange Grove
NALF to 9.7 miles northwest of the Orange Grove NALF, and within a
6.6-mile radius of Kleberg County Airport, and within 4.0 miles each
side of the 320[deg] bearing from the Kleberg County Airport from
the 6.6-mile radius to 10.3 miles northwest of the airport,
excluding that airspace within the Corpus Christi, TX, Class E
airspace area.
* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Bay City, TX [Amended]

Bay City Municipal Airport, TX
    (Lat. 28[deg]58'24'' N., long. 95[deg]51'48'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Bay City Municipal Airport.
* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Brenham, TX [Amended]

Brenham Municipal Airport, TX
    (Lat. 30[deg]13'11'' N., long. 96[deg]22'28'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Brenham Municipal Airport.
* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Burnet, TX [Amended]

Burnet Municipal Airport-Kate Craddock Field, TX
    (Lat. 30[deg]44'20'' N., long. 98[deg]14'19'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Burnet Municipal Airport-Kate Craddock
Field.
* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Falfurrias, TX [Amended]

Brooks County Airport, TX
    (Lat. 27[deg]12'22'' N., long. 98[deg]07'16'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Brooks County Airport.
* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Graford, TX [Amended]

Possum Kingdom Airport, TX
    (Lat. 32[deg]55'24'' N., long. 98[deg]26'13'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.0-mile radius of Possum Kingdom Airport and within 4
miles each side of the 031[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 7.0-mile radius to 10.9 miles northeast of the airport, and
within 4 miles each side of the 210[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 7.0-mile radius to 10.9 miles southwest of the
airport.
* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Hamilton, TX [Amended]

Hamilton Municipal Airport, TX
    (Lat. 31[deg]39'57'' N., long. 98[deg]08'55'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Hamilton Municipal Airport, and within 2
miles each side of the 009[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 6.5-mile radius to 9.4 miles north of the airport, and
within 2 miles each side of the 189[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 10.3 miles south of the
airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 8, 2017.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-03835 Filed 2-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P