[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53297-53300]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19032]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0724; FRL-9950-52-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Abengoa Bioenergy of Indiana,
Commissioner's Order

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
revision to the Indiana State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by
the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) on October
16, 2015. The submittal consists of an order issued by the Commissioner
of IDEM (Commissioner's Order No. 2015-01) approving alternative
control technology requirements for Abengoa Bioenergy of Indiana
(Abengoa). These requirements include the use of a carbon adsorption/
absorption hydrocarbon vapor recovery system with a minimum overall
control efficiency of 98% to control volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions from the ethanol loading racks at Abengoa. A continuous
emissions monitoring system (CEMS) must be used to monitor the carbon
adsorption/absorption hydrocarbon vapor recovery system for
breakthrough of VOC emissions. For the reasons discussed below, EPA is
approving this submittal as a revision to Indiana's SIP.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective October 11, 2016,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 12, 2016. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2015-0724, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be

accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents
located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the ``For Further Information
Contact'' section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information
about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making
effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jenny Liljegren, Physical Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What SIP revision is Indiana requesting and why?
II. What action is EPA taking and why?
III. Incorporation by Reference.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

I. What SIP revision is Indiana requesting and why?

    IDEM requested on October 16, 2015, that EPA approve as a revision
to the SIP alternative control technology requirements for Abengoa.
These requirements include the use of a carbon adsorption/absorption
hydrocarbon vapor recovery system with a minimum overall control
efficiency of 98% to control VOC emissions from the ethanol loading
racks at Abengoa. A CEMS must be used to monitor the carbon adsorption/
absorption hydrocarbon vapor recovery system for breakthrough of VOC
emissions. These requirements are contained in Commissioner's Order No.
2015-01 issued by the IDEM Commissioner on September 8, 2015.
    In Abengoa's initial construction and operating permit issued by
IDEM, the ethanol loading racks were subject to the statewide case-by-
case Best Available Control Technology (statewide BACT) determination
required under SIP-approved Title 326 Article 8 Rule 1-6 of the Indiana
Administrative Code (326 IAC 8-1-6). The statewide BACT for Abengoa's
ethanol loading racks was determined to be enclosed flares with a
minimum overall control efficiency of 98%. Since then, Abengoa has
modified its plant design, including the ethanol loading racks, and is
now subject to a newer SIP-approved state rule, 326 IAC 8-5-6, Fuel
Grade Ethanol Production at Dry Mills, which created an industry-
specific statewide BACT standard and which replaced the statewide case-
by-case BACT rule (326 IAC 8-1-6) for fuel grade ethanol production dry
mills that have no wet milling operations. EPA approved this rule into
the SIP on February 20, 2008 (73 FR 9201).
    The three VOC control options under 326 IAC 8-5-6 are: (1) A
thermal oxidizer with a minimum overall control efficiency of 98% or
resulting in a VOC concentration of not more than ten (10) parts per
million (ppm), (2) a wet scrubber with a minimum overall control
efficiency of 98% or resulting in a VOC concentration of not more than
twenty (20) ppm, and (3) an enclosed flare with a minimum overall
control efficiency of 98%. The VOC control options under 326 IAC 8-5-6
do not include a carbon adsorption/absorption hydrocarbon vapor
recovery system. Abengoa has opted to use a carbon adsorption/
absorption hydrocarbon vapor recovery system rather than one of the VOC
control options under 326 IAC 8-5-6. However, like the VOC control
options under 326 IAC 8-5-6, Abengoa's carbon adsorption/absorption
system has a minimum overall control efficiency of 98%. IDEM considers
the system Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) under SIP
rule 326 IAC 8-1-5 (Petition for a site-specific reasonably available
control technology (RACT) plan).
    As a result, pursuant to 326 IAC 8-1-5, Indiana has issued
Commissioner's Order No. 2015-01 approving Abengoa's use of this system
as an alternative site-specific RACT in lieu of the industry-specific
statewide BACT options under 326 IAC 8-5-6. The carbon adsorption/
absorption system will control VOC emissions at a minimum overall
control efficiency of 98%, which is the same level of control of the
industry-specific BACT options under 326 IAC 8-5-6; therefore, there
will be no relaxation of the emission reduction requirements at Abengoa
as a result of this SIP revision. As an added benefit, Abengoa's use of
the carbon adsorption/absorption system is expected to result in fewer
criteria air pollutant emissions, since, unlike enclosed flares, carbon
adsorption/absorption does not involve the combustion of natural gas.
    It should be noted that Condition #3 of the ``Conditions of
Approval'' in Commissioner's Order 2015-01 states: ``The overall
efficiency for the carbon adsorption/absorption hydrocarbon vapor
recovery system (C-2101), including the capture efficiency and
adsorption/absorption efficiency, shall be at least 98%. The Petitioner
shall demonstrate compliance using methods approved by the department.
Testing shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of 326 IAC
3-6 (Source Sampling Procedures)''. IDEM has confirmed in an email to
EPA dated June 6, 2016, that this provision requires testing using EPA
Method 25 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A-7).

II. What action is EPA taking and why?

    EPA is approving the requirements in Commissioner's Order No. 2015-
01 as a revision to the Indiana SIP. This is based on EPA's finding
that the 98% minimum overall control efficiency adsorption/absorption
system with a CEMS qualifies as alternative site-specific RACT under
326 IAC 8-1-5 of the Indiana SIP for Abengoa's ethanol loading racks.
EPA also finds that this system constitutes statewide BACT under 326
IAC 8-1-6 of the Indiana SIP in lieu of the industry-specific statewide
BACT options under 326 IAC 8-5-6 of the Indiana SIP. There will be no
relaxation of the emission reduction requirements at Abengoa as a
result of this SIP revision. Since this is not a relaxation, section
110(l) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) is satisfied and no backsliding is
occurring as a result of this SIP revision. As an added benefit,
Abengoa's use of the carbon adsorption/absorption system is expected to
result in fewer criteria air pollutant emissions, since, unlike
enclosed flares, carbon adsorption/absorption does not involve the
combustion of natural gas.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective October 11,
2016 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by September 12, 2016. If we receive such comments, we will
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do
so at this time.

Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do
not receive any comments, this action will be effective October 11,
2016.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Indiana
Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by
the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\1\ EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the
EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the person identified in the ``For
Further Information Contact'' section of this preamble for more
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 11, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 1, 2016.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.770 the table in paragraph (d) is amended by adding a
new entry for ``Abengoa Bioenergy of Indiana'' to the end of the table,
to read as follows:

Sec.  52.770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                                     EPA-Approved Indiana Source-Specific Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             CO date                       Title               SIP rule                   EPA approval                           Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
9/8/2015.........................  Abengoa Bioenergy of  N.A................  8/12/2016, [Insert Federal Register   Alternative control technology
                                    Indiana.                                   citation].                            requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-19032 Filed 8-11-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 240)]
[Notices]
[Page 66666]
[DOCID:fr16de09-87]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2009-0013]

Incident Command System (ICS) Forms Booklet FEMA 502-2

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency; Department of Homeland
Security

ACTION: Notice of availability; Request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: FEMA is requesting public comments on revisions to the
National Incident Management System (NIMS) Incident Command System
(ICS) Forms Booklet, FEMA 502-2. The ICS Forms Booklet was developed to
assist emergency response personnel in the use of ICS and corresponding
documentation during incident operations.

DATES: Comments must be received by January 15, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket ID FEMA-2009-
0013, by one of the following methods:

    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include Docket ID FEMA-2009-0013 in
the subject line of the message.
    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Regulation & Policy Team, Office of
Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Room 835, 500 C
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or
material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will
include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting
this information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available on the Privacy and Use Notice link on the
Administration Navigation Bar of http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://
www.regulations.gov. Submitted comments may also be inspected at FEMA,
Office of Chief Counsel, Room 835, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Kurisko, Program Specialist, 999
E Street, NW., Room 301, Washington, DC 20463,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Incident Management System
(NIMS) Incident Command System (ICS) Forms Booklet (FEMA 502-2) is
designed to assist emergency response personnel in the use of ICS and
corresponding documentation during incident operations. This booklet is
a companion document to the NIMS ICS Field Operating Guide (FOG), FEMA
502-1, which provides general guidance to emergency responders on
implementing ICS. This booklet is also meant to complement existing
incident management programs and does not replace relevant emergency
operations plans, laws, and ordinances. These forms are designed for
use within the Incident Command System, and are not targeted for use in
Area Command or in Multi-Agency Coordination Systems. This updated
version of the ICS Forms Booklet incorporates best practices, lessons
learned, and input from emergency response stakeholders.
    The ICS Forms Booklet (FEMA 502-2) is available for reviewing at
http://www.regulations.gov under FEMA-2009-0013. FEMA is accepting
comments during this public comment period and will incorporate them,
as appropriate, to finalize and release the ICS Forms Booklet.

    Authority: The authority for the ICS Forms Booklet is derived
from Homeland Security Act of 2002 and Homeland Security
Presidential Directive (HSPD)--5.

    Dated: November 17, 2009.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-29937 Filed 12-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-46-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 24, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11194-11198]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03849]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0755; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-83]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of R-2206 and Establishment of Restricted
Areas R-2206B, R-2206C, R-2206D, R-2206E, R-2206F, and R-2206G; Clear,
AK

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to rename the established restricted
areas R-2206 to R-2206A and establish six new restricted areas R-2206B,
R-2206C, R-2206D, R-2206E, R-2206F, and R-2206G, over the Clear Air
Force Station (Clear AFS) at Clear, AK. The United States Air Force
(USAF) on behalf of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) requested this
action to protect aircraft from hazardous High-Intensity Radiated Field
(HIRF) produced by the Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR) at Clear
AFS. LRDR contributes to the MDA's mission of developing and deploying
a layered Department of Defense (DoD) Ballistic Missile Defense System
(BMDS) to defend the United States from ballistic missile attacks of
all ranges in all phases of flight. The proposed restricted areas are
necessary to protect aviation from the hazardous HIRF and segregate
non-participating aircraft.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 26, 2021.

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 20590-0001;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA
Docket Number FAA-2020-0755; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-83 at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher McMullin, Rules and
Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

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 (U.S.C.). Subtitle I,
Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle
VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the
agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that
section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the
use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it would establish restricted airspace at Clear, AK, to
protect aviation from activities deemed hazardous to nonparticipating
aircraft.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket
Number FAA-2020-0755; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-83) and be submitted
in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section
for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket FAA-2020-0755; Airspace Docket No. 19-AAL-83.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified comment
closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRM

    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 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 during normal
business hours at the office of the Western Service Center, Operations
Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA 98198.

Background

History of R-2206 and Clear Airport, AK

    R-2206 was initially established as R-20 for a limited duration
effective January 1, 1961 (25 FR 12174), over the Clear AFS, at Clear,
AK, to protect the National Airspace System (NAS) while a potential
radiation hazard caused by the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System
(BMEWS) was assessed by the USAF. The designation of R-2206 was later
amended to extend the duration for an indefinite period in May 1962 (27
FR 4553) due to ongoing concern regarding the radiation hazard
associated with BMEWS.
    Initially established for private use by the military in support of
the BMEWS mission, Clear Airport (PACL) is located less than \1/2\
Nautical Mile (NM) from the eastern boundary of R-2206. The airport was
leased by the Secretary of the Air Force to the State of Alaska on
December 20, 1974. The FAA performed an airspace review and issued a
letter of ``no objection'' to convert the airport from private to
public use on January 20, 1976.\1\ Subsequently, the land (1,814 acres)
was declared surplus excess by the USAF and conveyed to the State of
Alaska in the late 1980s. PACL has remained in its original location
since being converted to public use. The FAA did not object to the
proximity of R-2206 to the airport when it was converted to a public
use airport, because at the time of conversion, there was no
established standard to separate restricted areas and public use
airports.

The minimum standard for exclusion of airspace 1,500 feet AGL and below
within a 3 NM radius of airports available for public use was
established in the September 16, 1993, edition of FAA Order JO 7400.2,
Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters.\2\ The FAA therefore
considers the original R-2206 as grand-fathered under the ``1,500AGL/
3NM'' restricted area exclusion in FAA Order JO 7400.2.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A copy of this letter has been placed in the docket for this
rulemaking.
    \2\ The current version of this Order is accessible at: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/7400.2M_Bsc_w_Chg_1_2_dtd_7_16_20.pdf. See sub-section 23-1-4,
Restricted Area Floor.
    \3\ The FAA intends to revise FAA Order JO 7400.2 to reflect
this grand-fathering policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What drove MDAs LRDR to Clear AK?

    Section 235(a)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 required MDA to deploy a LRDR to protect the
United States against long-range ballistic missile threats from the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea and to locate the LRDR ``at a
location optimized to support the defense of the homeland of the United
States.'' Public Law 113-66; 10 U.S.C. 2431 (Dec. 26, 2013). Section
235(b)(1) of the NDAA for FY 2014 also required the Secretary of
Defense to ensure capability ``to deploy additional tracking and
discrimination sensor capabilities to support the defense of the
homeland of the United States from future long-range ballistic missile
threats that emerge from Iran.''
    Section 1684 of the NDAA for FY 2016 expressed ``the sense of
Congress that additional missile defense sensor discrimination
capabilities are needed to enhance the protection of the United States
homeland against potential long-range ballistic missiles from Iran
that, according to the Department of Defense, could soon be obtained by
Iran as a result of its active space launch program.'' Public Law 114-
92; 10 U.S.C. 2431 (Jan. 6, 2015). Moreover, Sec. 1684(d)(1) of the
NDAA for FY 2016 established a deadline for deployment of a defensive
system by December 31, 2020.
    After a detailed evaluation of cost, schedule, and performance as
well as other mission related factors, the DoD determined that Clear
AFS was the preferred site for the LRDR and designated the USAF as the
lead service for LRDR.

What is the mission of LRDR?

    The mission of the LRDR program is to define, develop, acquire,
test, field, and sustain the LRDR as an element of the DoD BMDS in
support of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMO) program's Homeland
Defense Capability. The LRDR will provide persistent long-range
midcourse discrimination, precision tracking, and hit assessment to
support the GMO capability against long-range missile threats
originating from North Korea and Iran. LRDR contributes to MDA's
mission of developing and deploying a layered BMDS to defend the United
States from ballistic missile attacks of all ranges in all phases of
flight. LRDR's improved discrimination capability increases the
defensive capacity of the homeland defense interceptor inventory by
enabling the conservation of ground-based interceptors. LRDR also
supports additional DoD mission areas such as Space Situational
Awareness and Intelligence Data Collection. Changes in operational
posture due to the evolving threat, which would result in LRDR
deployment with unacceptable levels of HIRF exposure for aviation,
necessitate the requirement for additional restricted airspace to
support LRDR's critical national defense mission at Clear AFS.

USAF Proposal to the FAA

    By memorandum dated September 30, 2019, the USAF submitted a
proposal to the FAA to establish two new restricted areas in the
vicinity of Clear AFS, to protect the NAS from the HIRF produced by the
LRDR. The proposed restricted airspace requires lateral and vertical
limits larger than the current R-2206 to support the deployment of the
DoD's LRDR to meet increased warfighter defense and readiness postures.
This proposal would maintain the existing restricted area R-2206 in its
current configuration but rename it R-2206A, and would supplement this
area with six new restricted areas designated R-2206B, R-2206C, R-
2206D, R-2206E, R-2206F, and R-2206G. This proposal would exclude
airspace 1,500 feet AGL and below within a 3 NM radius of PACL for the
new restricted areas, with exceptions. The exceptions would limit
activation of lower altitude restricted areas near PACL airport (i.e.,
proposed R-2206D and R-2206E) to three times a week for two hours, and
other times by Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). The FAA identified the need
for one of the new restricted areas (i.e., R-2206F) that provides an
additional 1,100 feet of navigable airspace along Parks Highway to the
Northeast of Clear, AK. This additional restricted area would allow for
a visual route following a known landmark during normal operations. The
addition of the new restricted area to the proposal lead the FAA to re-
letter the proposed restricted areas for a more logical sequence: From
low to high on the west side and then from low to high on the east
side.
    For purposes of this rulemaking, the FAA has approved a deviation
from the ``1,500AGL/3NM'' restricted area exclusion standard in
paragraph 23-1-4-c of FAA JO 7400.2 for this USAF restricted area
proposal, given the extraordinary nature of the LRDR national defense
mission required by Congress, the limited citing options available to
the USAF to achieve its mission, and the FAA's ability to identify and
implement airspace safety and access mitigations at Clear, Alaska.
    As previously explained, the NDAA for FY 2014 required MDA to
deploy a LRDR ``at a location optimized to support the defense of the
homeland of the United States.'' \4\ Moreover, MDA was subsequently
directed to deploy the system by December 31, 2020. The FY2016 NDAA
created the LRDR program of record and required ``in a location
optimized to support the defense of the homeland of the United States
from emerging long-range ballistic missile threats from Iran.'' \5\ To
support implementation of this mission, the MDA narrowed the LRDR site
selection from 50 possible locations to two locations in Alaska based
on evaluative criteria that included, construction and schedule
timelines in light of the NDAA mandate, mission assurance, impacts to
existing civilian and military infrastructure, and other resource
considerations. Of the two remaining sites, only Clear AFS met all of
the levied LRDR requirements. The alternative option in Alaska,
Eareckson AFS, was ruled out due to remote geographical concerns, which
added unacceptable risk to timely and successful deployment as compared
to Clear AFS. Moreover, the MDA concluded that the Clear AFS location
in Central Alaska offered expanded engagement space necessary to
fulfill the LRDR mission. This additional engagement space affords more
visibility of hostile threat complexes and greater time to track,
discriminate and target lethal incoming objects and results in a much
greater probability of successful target intercept. The siting
recommendation of Clear AFS was approved in 2016 by the USAF and
funding for LRDR at Clear AFS was approved in the FY17 National Defense
Authorization Act.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Public Law 113-66; 10 U.S.C. 2431 (Dec. 26, 2013).
    \5\ Public Law 114-92; 10 U.S.C. 2431 (Jan. 6, 2015).
    \6\ Public Law 114-328; 10 U.S.C. 2431 (Dec. 23, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA supports a limited deviation in this NPRM based upon the
FAA's ability to balance successfully the national defense interests of
the LRDR

system against the optimum use of airspace and ability to ensure safe
operation of the NAS during LRDR deployments. Indeed, the DoD proposal
incorporates limited activation times for the proposed restricted areas
that do not meet the ``1,500AGL/3NM'' restricted area exclusion
standard (i.e., proposed R-2206D and R-2206E), which would be reserved
for scheduled calibration of the LRDR and real world emergency or
extraordinary events. In usual defensive posture, all active restricted
areas would comply with the ``1,500AGL/3NM'' restricted area exclusion
standard. This segmented approach is expected to reduce the overall
impact of the LRDR HIRF to civil aviation near PACL. Moreover, the
proposal includes a requirement for coordination procedures to be
included in a Letter of Procedure (LOP), further ensuring the safe
operation of aircraft and preservation of access to the airspace in and
around PACL. The LOP would provide that every effort will be made to
ensure that emergency aircraft and in-flight emergencies needing access
to the proposed special use airspace (SUA) are prioritized and
accommodated safely (i.e., by deactivation of the LRDR).
    The FAA therefore proposes these restricted areas, seeking a
balance between civil aviation activities and the national defense of
the United States. The FAA emphasizes that any deviations from FAA
Orders are reviewed on a case-by-case basis and reserved for
extraordinary circumstances under which the FAA may determine that the
national defense benefits of a deviation outweigh the costs of
additional airspace mitigations to manage the safe and efficient
operation of the NAS and impacts on the access to public use airports
by the flying public. The decision to deviate from FAA Order JO 7400.2
in this NPRM is not binding on future determinations by the FAA
concerning whether to approve a deviation. Any future requests will be
evaluated on their merits, based on the facts and circumstances
available at that time and consistent with the FAA's statutory
responsibilities.

What activities will take place within R-2206 A through G?

    The activity to be performed at Clear AFS within the proposed
restricted areas is Ballistic Missile Defense of the United States.
System testing is expected to begin in early 2021 and full operational
capability, to include integration into the DoD BMDS, is expected to
occur in 2022. During the system testing phase, the FAA has agreed to
establish 14 CFR 99.7, special security instructions (SSI), implemented
as a temporary flight restriction, as an interim airspace mitigation to
protect aviation from the HIRF produced by the LRDR system. LRDR is a
unique and vital component of the BMDS and will be available
continuously both as an early-warning sensor and as an enabler for more
effective employment of ground-based interceptors. The LRDR design
features high system availability and maintain-while-operate
architecture; this ensures that LRDR will be in a continual posture to
fight in response to real-word, no-notice events. LRDR also supports
additional mission areas including Space Situational Awareness and
Intelligence Data Collection.
    As proposed, in routine or normal defensive posture, LRDR would
operate at reduced HIRF levels within the proposed restricted areas
that provide for the ``1,500AGL/3NM'' restricted area exclusion. This
would be accomplished by enforcing main beam elevation limits in the
direction of Clear Airport to provide a minimum of 1,500' AGL under the
portions of restricted areas within 3 NM of the airport. Prescheduled
maintenance and calibration activities would also occur during Routine
or Normal posture and would require activation of the additional
proposed restricted areas during a few periods per week for a couple of
hours at a time. As proposed, these activities would be scheduled when
expected air traffic around Clear Airport is minimal, with scheduled
times openly distributed by NOTAM and other outreach mechanisms.
    In heightened defensive posture, MDA may require use of all
proposed R-2206 restricted areas to conduct missile defense or other
activities in response to real-world events. During these periods of
heightened defensive posture, LRDR would be activated with access to
its full field of coverage, which would necessitate activation of all
proposed R-2206 restricted areas; this provides LRDR access to the
airspace for defensive actions within 3NM of Clear Airport at and above
400 feet AGL. Besides conducting actual BMDS engagements, LRDR
activities that may require temporary activation of all proposed R-2206
restricted areas include BMDS tests, unique intelligence collection
activities such as new foreign space launches, or critical space
activities such as collision avoidance involving manned space-flight,
satellite break-ups, and satellite deorbits.

Required Coordination Between the FAA and MDA

    Procedures and preplanned actions would be established between the
FAA and the MDA to address emergency or extraordinary events in a
Letter of Procedure (LOP). The LOP would address pre-determined NOTAMs
to handle the activation and scheduling of the three proposed non-
continuous restricted areas (R-2206 D, E, F). The LOP would include
procedures for handling national defense no-notice activation from
NORAD-USNORTHCOM Command Center, as well as notification times for all
other requests, to ensure a NOTAM and notifications to the surrounding
areas and aviators can take place with reasonable advance notice prior
to activation. Pre-determined actions will provide the framework for
rapid adaptation of the SUA to handle extraordinary events.
    The following two scenarios are realistic examples of short-notice
events and the coordinated response and action that would be taken by
FAA and MDA:
    (1) Low-altitude restricted areas R-2206D, E, and F (0200-0400
Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday) have been activated to support a
scheduled calibration period; this restricts some of the airspace
access into Clear Airport. An aircraft has an in-flight emergency (or
is responding to a medivac), needs to land at Clear Airport and the
pilot radios the request to air traffic control (ATC). In-flight
emergencies have a pre-determined response that allows ATC to contact
LRDR and request that the low altitude restricted areas be deactivated
so that the aircraft can approach Clear Airport without exposure to
excessive HIRF. LRDR defensive posture and current activities allow
compliance and the restricted areas are deactivated. FAA informs MDA
when the aircraft no longer requires R-2206D, E, and F; and MDA
reactivates the restricted areas as the SUA schedule allows.
    (2) LRDR is in Routine or Normal posture and low-altitude
restricted areas R-2206D, E, and F are disabled or inactive. U.S. Space
Command requests that MDA track a satellite due to an on-orbit
emergency. The satellite will pass through the LRDR field of view
directly behind the Clear Airport, requiring activation of low-altitude
restricted areas R-2206D, E, and F to enable low-elevation radar data
collection. Based on procedures established via the LOP, MDA notifies
ATC of the on-orbit satellite emergency and need to activate the lower
restricted areas. FAA activates the restricted areas at the required
time and MDA executes the 10 minute

satellite track and data collection to completion. MDA then informs ATC
that the operation is complete and FAA returns R-2206D, E, and F to an
inactive state. As part of the planned response, the FAA would
broadcast the status of R-2206D, E, and F to aircraft in the vicinity
of PACL airport.

Aviation Considerations

    The FAA conducted an aeronautical study to assess the impacts of
the USAF proposal for new restricted areas over Clear AFS to support
the MDA's LRDR mission. The aeronautical study identified the following
aviation impacts and associated changes in procedures, which would be
necessary to allow for safe transit of aircraft around R-2206, as
proposed to be amended.

Impact on IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) and VFR (Visual Flight Rules)
Terminal Ops

    The FAA has reviewed the USAF proposal for impact on arrival and
departure flows, Standard Terminal Arrival Route (STAR), Standard
Instrument Departure (SID), and departure procedures. The following
procedures will need to be revised to avoid the proposed R-2206.

MCKINLEY SID--Fairbanks International Airport
PUYVO SID--Fairbanks International Airport
TAGER STAR--Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport
KROTO STAR--Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Obstacle Departure
Procedures: Area Navigation (RNAV) and Global Positioning System (GPS).
The following procedures will need to be revised to avoid the proposed
R2206.

RNAV (GPS) RWY 15--(Approach) Healy River Airport
RNAV (GPS)-A--(Approach) Healy River Airport
HEALY ONE (RNAV)--(Departure) Healy River Airport

This proposal would leave Healy River Airport with no IFR arrival or
departure procedures.

Impact on IFR En-Route Ops

    The proposed R-2206 would impact IFR routes between Anchorage and
Fairbanks, Alaska, including Jet Route J-125, Victor Airway V-436, and
RNAV Route Q-41. The FAA has identified the need for mitigations
altering the current airway/route structure to allow for establishing
revised airways around the proposed expansion of R-2206. These changes
are expected to result in minimal impact to the flying community. The
current V-436 airway will need to ``bend'' around the proposed
restricted area due to precipitous terrain and navigational aid
confines. This revised airway would allow ground based navigation from
Talkeetna, AK, to Fairbanks, AK. J-125 currently navigates from Kodiak,
AK, and terminates at Nenana, AK. The segment of the route from
Anchorage, AK to Nenana, AK, is primarily used for traffic navigating
from Anchorage, AK, to Deadhorse, AK. Because J-115, Q-43, and Q-
41provide the same capability as J-125, with minimally increased flight
distances, the FAA proposes to delete the segment between Anchorage,
AK, and Nenana, AK, of J-125. Q-41 currently navigates from the CAWIN
fix, south of Nenana, AK, to Deadhorse, AK. Under this proposal, that
route will remain as published, but would require radar due to the
proximity to the proposed restricted areas. The FAA proposes to correct
any known issues to minimize any impact on the flying public.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 to rename the established restricted area
R-2206 to R-2206A and establish six new restricted areas, to be
designated R-2206B, R-2206C, R-2206D, R-2206E, R-2206F, and R-2206G,
over Clear AFS at Clear, AK. The proposed new restricted areas would
intersect the established R-2206 area above ground level, but would not
include the volume defined by current R-2206. The FAA is proposing this
action at the request of the USAF. Full legal descriptions are in the
``The Proposed Amendment'' section of this NPRM.
    The proposed restricted areas are described below.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The FAA has uploaded a graphical depiction of the proposed
restricted areas to the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    R-2206A: R-2206 would be amended from R-2206 to R-2206A for ease of
charting considering there will be six new restricted areas built upon
the original R-2206. R-2206A's eastern boundary is \1/2\ mile west of
PACL airport. The altitudes would be from surface to 8,800 feet MSL and
would be active on a continuous basis.
    R-2206B: R-2206B would be established west of Clear AFS fanning
clockwise from the southwest to the northwest excluding the portion
within R-2206A. R-2206B's eastern boundary is 3 miles west of PACL
airport. The altitudes would be from 1,100 feet MSL to but not
including 1,600 feet MSL and would be active on a continuous basis.
    R-2206C: R-2206C would be established west of Clear AFS fanning
clockwise from the southwest to the northwest excluding the portion
within R-2206A. R-2206C's eastern boundary is 3 miles west of PACL
airport. The altitudes would be from 1,100 feet MSL to 32,000 feet MSL
and would be active on a continuous basis.
    R-2206D: R-2206D would be established northeast of Clear AFS
fanning clockwise from the northwest to the northeast excluding the
portion within R-2206A. R-2206D's eastern boundary is \1/2\ mile west
of PACL airport. The altitudes would be from 1,100 feet MSL to but not
including 1,600 feet MSL. Activation times would be from 0200-0400
local time, Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday; other times by NOTAM.
    R-2206E: R-2206E would be established northeast of Clear AFS
fanning clockwise from the northwest to the northeast excluding the
portion within R-2206A. R-2206E's eastern boundary is \1/2\ mile west
of PACL airport. The altitudes would be from 1,600 feet MSL to but not
including 2,100 feet MSL. Activation times would be from 0200-0400
local time, Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday; other times by NOTAM.
    R-2206F: R-2206F would be established northeast of Clear AFS
allowing for VFR aircraft to transition along Highway 3, Parks Highway.
R-2206F's southern boundary is 3 miles north of PACL airport. The
altitudes would be from 2,100 feet MSL to 3,200 feet MSL. Activation
times would be from 0200-0400 local time, Tuesday, Thursday and
Saturday; other times by NOTAM.
    R-2206G: R-2206G would be established northeast of Clear AFS
fanning clockwise from the northwest to the northeast excluding the
portion within R-2206A and R-2206F. R-2206G's eastern boundary is \1/2\
mile west of PACL airport. The altitudes would be from 2,100 feet MSL
to 32,000 feet MSL and would be active on a continuous basis.

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 ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
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 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 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 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.  73.22  Alaska [Amended]

0
2. Section 73.22 is amended as follows:
* * * * *

R-2206A Clear, AK [Amended]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 64[deg]19'44'' N, long.
149[deg]15'42'' W; to lat. 64[deg]19'44'' N, long. 149[deg]10'18''
W; thence south, 100 feet west of and parallel to the Alaska
Railroad to lat. 64[deg]16'17'' N, long. 149[deg]10'14'' W; to lat.
64[deg]16'17'' N, long. 149[deg]15'42'' W; to the point of
beginning.
    Designated Altitudes. Surface to 8,800 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. Continuous.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Anchorage ARTCC.
    Using agency. Commander 13th Missile Warning Squadron, Clear,
AK.

R-2206B Clear, AK [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 64[deg]20'13'' N, long.
149[deg]13'12'' W; to lat. 64[deg]17'20'' N, long. 149[deg]11'25''
W; to lat. 64[deg]14'31'' N, long. 149[deg]13'43'' W; thence
clockwise along a 3.0 NM arc radius centered at lat. 64[deg]17'20''
N, long. 149[deg]11'25'' W; thence to the point of beginning;
excluding that portion wholly contained in R-2206A.
    Altitudes. 1,000 feet MSL to but not including 1,600' MSL.
    Time of designation. Continuous.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Anchorage ARTCC.
    Using agency. Commander 13th Missile Warning Squadron, Clear,
AK.

R-2206C Clear, AK [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 64[deg]19'27'' N, long.
149[deg]20'22'' W; thence clockwise along a 4.0 NM arc radius
centered at lat. 64[deg]20'22'' N, long. 149[deg]11'25'' W; to lat.
64[deg]23'56'' N, long. 149[deg]15'30'' W; to lat. 64[deg]17'20'' N,
long. 149[deg]11'25'' W; to lat. 64[deg]14'10'' N, long.
149[deg]14'01'' W; thence along a 3.0 NM arc radius centered at lat.
64[deg]16'55'' N, long. 149[deg]16'41'' W; to the point of
beginning; excluding that portion wholly contained in R-2206A.
    Altitudes. 1,600 feet MSL to 32,000 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. Continuous.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Anchorage ARTCC.
    Using agency. Commander 13th Missile Warning Squadron, Clear,
AK.

R-2206D Clear, AK [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 64[deg]20'13'' N, long.
149[deg]13'12'' W; thence clockwise along a 3.0 NM arc radius
centered at lat. 64[deg]17'20'' N, long. 149[deg]11'25'' W; to lat.
64[deg]18'47'' N, long. 149[deg]05'23'' W; to lat. 64[deg]17'20'' N,
long. 149[deg]11'25'' W; thence to point of beginning; excluding
that portion wholly contained in R-2206A.
    Altitudes. 1,000 feet MSL to but not including 1,600 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. 0200-0400 local time, Tuesday, Thursday and
Saturday; other times by NOTAM.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Anchorage ARTCC.
    Using agency. Commander 13th Missile Warning Squadron, Clear,
AK.

R-2206E Clear, AK [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 64[deg]23'56'' N, long.
149[deg]15'30'' W; thence clockwise along a 4.0 NM arc radius
centered at lat. 64[deg]20'22'' N, long. 149[deg]11'25'' W; to lat.
64[deg]19'29'' N, long. 149[deg]02'27'' W; to lat. 64[deg]17'20'' N,
long. 149[deg]11'25'' W; thence to point of beginning; excluding
that portion wholly contained in R-2206A.
    Altitudes. 1,600 feet MSL to but not including 2,100 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. 0200-0400 local time, Tuesday, Thursday and
Saturday; other times by NOTAM.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Anchorage ARTCC.
    Using agency. Commander 13th Missile Warning Squadron, Clear,
AK.

R-2206F Clear, AK [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 64[deg]22'07'' N, long.
149[deg]03'09'' W; thence clockwise along the 4.0 NM arc radius
centered at lat. 64[deg]20'22'' N, long. 149[deg]11'25'' W; to lat.
64[deg]19'29'' N, long. 149[deg]02'27'' W; to lat. 64[deg]19'19'' N,
long. 149[deg]03'07'' W; to lat. 64[deg]19'36'' N, long.
149[deg]03'18'' W; thence north, along a path \1/2\ NM west of
Highway 3, Parks Highway.; to lat. 64[deg]21'42'' N, long.
149[deg]03'37'' W; to the point of beginning.
    Altitudes. 2,100 feet MSL to 3,200 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. 0200-0400 local time, Tuesday, Thursday and
Saturday; other times by NOTAM.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Anchorage ARTCC.
    Using agency. Commander 13th Missile Warning Squadron, Clear,
AK.

R-2206G Clear, AK [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 64[deg]23'56'' N, long.
149[deg]15'30'' W; thence clockwise along a 4.0 NM arc radius
centered at lat. 64[deg]20'22'' N, long. 149[deg]11'25'' W; to lat.
64[deg]19'29'' N, long. 149[deg]02'27'' W; to lat. 64[deg]17'20'' N,
long. 149[deg]11'25'' W; thence to point of beginning; excluding;
(1) that portion wholly contained in R-2206A; (2) that portion
wholly contained in R-2206F.
    Altitudes. 2,100 feet MSL to 32,000 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. Continuous.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Anchorage ARTCC.
    Using agency. Commander 13th Missile Warning Squadron, Clear,
AK.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 19, 2021.
Mark E. Gauch,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2021-03849 Filed 2-22-21; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 51 (Thursday, March 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16270-16271]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05359]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-D-0338]

Definitions of Suspect Product and Illegitimate Product for
Verification Obligations Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act;
Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled
``Definitions of Suspect Product and Illegitimate Product for
Verification Obligations Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act.''
The guidance is intended to help industry better understand the
definitions of ``suspect'' and ``illegitimate'' product as defined in
the Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA). The guidance lays out FDA's
current understanding of the following key terms used to define
``suspect'' and ``illegitimate'' product: ``counterfeit,''
``diverted,'' ``stolen,'' ``fraudulent transaction,'' and ``unfit for
distribution.'' The guidance finalizes the draft guidance entitled
``Definitions of Suspect Product and Illegitimate Product for
Verification Obligations Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act''
issued on June 4, 2021.

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on March 16, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written comments on
Agency guidances at any time as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2018-D-0338 for ``Definitions of Suspect Product and Illegitimate
Product for Verification Obligations Under the Drug Supply Chain
Security Act; Guidance for Industry; Availability.'' Received comments
will be placed in the docket and, except for

those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at
https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between
9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the
Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale
Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or to Office of
Communication, Outreach and Development, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Venti, Office of Compliance,
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected]; or Diane Maloney, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-7911.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``Definitions of Suspect Product and Illegitimate Product for
Verification Obligations Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act.''
This guidance interprets the terms used in the definition of ``suspect
product'' set forth in section 581(21) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 360eee(21)) and the definition of
``illegitimate product'' set forth in section 581(8) of the FD&C Act to
assist trading partners in meeting verification obligations (including
notification) under section 582(b)(4), (c)(4), (d)(4), and (e)(4) (21
U.S.C. 360eee-1(b)(4), (c)(4), (d)(4), and (e)(4)), respectively.
    This guidance is intended to help industry better understand the
definitions of ``suspect'' and ``illegitimate'' product as defined in
section 581 of the FD&C Act. The guidance lays out FDA's current
understanding of the following key terms used to define ``suspect'' and
``illegitimate'' product in section 581 of FD&C Act: ``counterfeit,''
``diverted,'' ``stolen,'' ``fraudulent transaction,'' and ``unfit for
distribution.''
    This guidance finalizes the draft guidance entitled ``Definitions
of Suspect Product and Illegitimate Product for Verification
Obligations Under the Drug Supply Chain Security Act'' issued on June
4, 2021 (86 FR 30056). FDA considered comments received on the draft
guidance as the guidance was finalized. Changes from the draft to the
final guidance include: (1) clarifying the definition of ``diverted''
by revising the examples clarifying that there are other scenarios
besides product dispensed to a patient that could result in diverted
product; (2) clarifying FDA's expectations for how trading partners
should handle unaccounted for product that is not immediately
identified as stolen product; (3) expanding on the definition of
``fraudulent transaction'' to clarify how clerical errors or
discrepancies in the product tracing information should be addressed;
and (4) clarifying that the definition of ``unfit for distribution'' in
this guidance applies only to the verification provisions of the DSCSA
and to identifying suspect and illegitimate product. In addition,
editorial changes were made to improve clarity.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on ``Definitions of Suspect Product and
Illegitimate Product for Verification Obligations Under the Drug Supply
Chain Security Act.'' It does not establish any rights for any person
and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative
approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes
and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act

    FDA concludes that this guidance contains no collection of
information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and
Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information/guidances-drugs, https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/guidance-compliance-regulatory-information-biologics/biologics-guidances,
https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents, or https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: March 13, 2023.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-05359 Filed 3-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7965-7968]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02888]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2022 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0099; Project Identifier 2019-CE-019-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) AD
89-24-06 R1, which applies to all Boeing of Canada, Ltd. and de
Havilland (now Viking Air Limited) Model DHC-6-1, DHC-6-100, DHC-6-200,
and DHC-6-300 airplanes. This AD requires repetitively inspecting the
elevator quadrant for damage and taking corrective action as necessary.
Since the FAA issued AD 89-24-06 R1, the aviation authority for Canada
revised its mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) to
correct this unsafe condition on these products. The MCAI identifies
the unsafe condition as damage to the flight control system. This
proposed AD would retain the actions of AD 89-24-06 R1, extend the
compliance time intervals for the repetitive inspections, add the Model
DHC-6-400 airplane to the applicability, and add a fluorescent
penetrant inspection requirement. The FAA is proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 28,
2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Viking Air
Ltd., 1959 de Havilland Way, Sidney British Columbia, Canada V8L 5V5;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected];
website: https://www.vikingair.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational
Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0099; 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 NPRM, the MCAI,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Darren Gassetto, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-0099; Project Identifier
2019-CE-019-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Darren Gassetto, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, New York ACO Branch,
1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that
the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be
placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued AD 89-24-06 R1, Amendment 39-6670 (55 FR 29347, July
19, 1990) (AD 89-24-06 R1) for all Boeing of Canada, Ltd. and de
Havilland (type certificate currently held by Viking Air Limited) Model
DHC-6-1, DHC-6-100, DHC-6-200, and DHC-6-300 airplanes. AD 89-24-06 R1
requires repetitively inspecting the elevator quadrant, P/N C6CFM 1138-
27 (Pre Mod 6/1394), P/N C6CFM 1450-27 (Post Mod 6/1394 or production
cut-in (PCI) S/N 331, Pre Mod 6/1678), or P/N C6CFM 1450-29 (Post Mod
6/1678 or PCI S/N 602), for distortion (warping, buckling, and score
marks on the quadrant topside face caused by rubbing against the side
of the cable guard) and

replacing if distortion is found. AD 89-24-06 R1 also requires
inspecting the elevator quadrant mounting support bracket, P/N C6CFM
1142-1, for cracks if distortion in the elevator quadrant is found and
replacing any cracked P/N C6CFM 1142-1.

Actions Since AD 89-24-06 R1 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 89-24-06 R1, the type certificate holder
for Model DHC-6-1, DHC-6-100, DHC-6-200, and DHC-6-300 airplanes
changed from de Havilland to Viking Air Limited. In 2012, the FAA
issued Viking Air Limited a type certificate for the Model DHC-6-400
airplane as part of the DHC-6 series.
    Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada,
superseded its prior ADs on this unsafe condition and issued Canadian
AD CF-1972-06R5, dated June 22, 2018 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to require a fluorescent penetrant inspection and expand the
model applicability to include the Viking Air Limited Model DHC-6-400
airplane. The MCAI states:

    Damage to the flight control system of DHC-6 aeroplanes was
found during inspection. The damage has been attributed to ground
gusts. The damage included cracks in the base of the lower control
column, cracks and buckles in the elevator/rudder pulley bracket,
and distortion of the elevator quadrant. Damage to the elevator
quadrant may produce abnormal loads on the quadrant support bracket
that damage the bracket.
    Damaged flight control components may fail when subjected to
service loads, resulting in loss of control of the aeroplane.
    This revision of the [Transport Canada] AD clarifies the
applicability of the corrective actions and endorses Service
Bulletin (SB) 6/511 as a means of accomplishing some of the required
inspections. In corrective action Part III, dye penetrant inspection
has been replaced by fluorescent penetrant inspection.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2022-0099.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed DHC-6 (Twin Otter) Service Bulletin 6-511,
Revision A, dated June 22, 1990. This service bulletin specifies
procedures for repetitively inspecting the elevator quadrant for
distortion (warping, buckling, and score marks), performing a one-time
dye penetrant inspection of the elevator quadrant support bracket for
cracks, and taking corrective actions. 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
ADDRESSES.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it
has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM
after determining the unsafe condition described previously is likely
to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would retain the actions of AD 89-24-06 R1, extend
the compliance time intervals for the repetitive inspections, add the
Model DHC-6-400 airplane to the applicability, and add a fluorescent
penetrant inspection requirement with credit for the visual inspections
done before the effective date of this proposed AD.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI

    The MCAI addresses actions on the the control column lower
assembly, the elevator pulley bracket system, and the elevator
quadrant. This proposed AD would only require actions on the elevator
quadrant and elevator quadrant support bracket. The FAA is not
proposing to require the repetitive inspections of the control column
lower sub-assembly, lower horizontal torque tube, and top and bottom
channels of the pulley bracket assembly, and the modifications that
terminate those inspections, because those actions are addressed by AD
69-05-01 R2, Amendment 39-3824 (45 FR 45258, July 3, 1980) and AD 69-
08-12 R1, Amendment 39-867 (34 FR 18226, November 14, 1969).
    The MCAI applies to Viking Air Limited Model DHC-6 series 110, DHC-
6 series 210, DHC-6 series 310, and DHC-6 series 320, and this proposed
AD would not because these models do not have an FAA type certificate.
Transport Canada Model DHC-6 series 1, DHC-6 series 100, DHC-6 series
200, DHC-6 series 300, and DHC-6 series 400 airplanes correspond to FAA
Model DHC-6-1, DHC-6-100, DHC-6-200, DHC-6-300, and DHC-6-400
airplanes, respectively.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 133 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost     Cost per airplane        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elevator quadrant and support      .5 work-hour x $85              N/A  $42.50 per           $5,652.50 (for the
 bracket visual inspection.         per hour = $42.50.                   inspection cycle.    affected 133
                                                                                airplanes) per
                                                                                inspection cycle.
Fluorescent penetrant inspection   1 work-hour x $85               N/A  $85................  $10,795 (for the
 of the elevator quadrant support   per hour = $85.                                           affected 127
 bracket.                                                                                airplanes).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any repairs or
replacements that would be required based on the results of the
proposed inspections. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
airplanes that might need these repairs/replacements:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost       airplane
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of elevator quadrant..............  1.5 work-hours x $85 per hour =             $825         $952.50
                                                 $127.50.
Fluorescent penetrant inspection of the         1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85             N/A              85
 elevator quadrant support bracket.
Replacement of elevator quadrant support        2 work-hours x $85 per hour =                485             655
 bracket.                                        $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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 the proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 89-24-06 R1, Amendment 39-6670 (55
FR 29347, July 19, 1990); and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

Viking Air Limited (Type Certificate previously held by Bombardier
Inc., de Havilland, Inc.): Docket No. FAA-2022-0099; Project
Identifier 2019-CE-019-AD.

 (a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by March 28, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces Airworthiness Directive (AD) 89-24-06 R1,
Amendment 39-6670 (55 FR 29347, July 19, 1990) (AD 89-24-06 R1).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Viking Air Limited (type certificate
previously held by Bombardier Inc. and de Havilland, Inc.) Model
DHC-6-1, DHC-6-100, DHC-6-200, DHC-6-300, and DHC-6-400 airplanes,
all serial numbers, certificated in any category.

 (d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2700, Flight Control
System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as damage to the
flight control system. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure
of the flight control system. The unsafe condition, if not
addressed, could result in loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Elevator Quadrant and Support Brackets: Inspections, Replacements,
and Modifications

    (1) Visually inspect the elevator quadrant for indications of
distortion (warping, buckling, or score marks) by following
paragraphs III.A.2.(a) and III.A.2.(b) of the Accomplishment
Instructions in DHC-6 (Twin Otter) Service Bulletin 6-511, Revision
A, dated June 22, 1990 (DHC-6 SB 6-511, Revision A) at the following
applicable compliance times:
    (i) For Model DHC-6-1, DHC-6-100, DHC-6-200, and DHC-6-300
airplanes, before further flight after the effective date of this AD
or within 400 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the last inspection
required by AD 89-24-06 R1, whichever occurs later, and thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 400 hours TIS; or
    (ii) For Model DHC-6-400 airplanes, before further flight after
the effective date of this AD and thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 400 hours TIS.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g)(1): The elevator quadrant may be
identified as P/N C6CFM1138-27 (Pre Mod 6/1394), P/N C6CFM1450-27
(Post Mod 6/1394 or production cut-in (PCI) S/N 331, Pre Mod 6/
1678), or P/N C6CFM1450-29 (Post Mod 6/1678 or PCI S/N 602), and is
referred to as assembly P/N C6CF1137-1, -3, -5, or -7.
    (2) If any indication of distortion is found on the elevator
quadrant during any inspection required by paragraph (g)(1) of this
AD, before further flight, replace the elevator quadrant with a
serviceable part and inspect the elevator quadrant support bracket
assembly for cracks by following paragraphs III.B.1. through
III.B.4.(b) of the Accomplishment Instructions in DHC-6 SB 6-511,
Revision A. This AD requires that you do a fluorescent penetrant
inspection as the type of required dye penetrant inspection. If a
crack is found in the elevator quadrant support bracket, before
further flight, replace with a serviceable part by following
paragraphs III.B.5 through III.B.12 of the Accomplishment
Instructions in DHC-6 SB 6-511, Revision A.
    (3) For Model DHC-6-1, DHC-6-100, DHC-6-200, and DHC-6-300
airplanes: Within 400 hours TIS after the effective date of this AD,
unless already done within the preceding 12 months before the
effective date of this AD, inspect the elevator quadrant support
bracket assembly for cracks by

following paragraphs III.B.1. through III.B.4.(b) of the
Accomplishment Instructions in DHC-6 SB 6-511, Revision A. This AD
requires that you do a fluorescent penetrant inspection as the type
of required dye penetrant inspection. If a crack is found in the
elevator quadrant support bracket, before further flight, replace
with a serviceable part by following paragraphs III.B.5 through
III.B.12 of the Accomplishment Instructions in DHC-6 SB 6-511,
Revision A.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) For Model DHC-6-1, DHC-6-100, DHC-6-200, and DHC-6-300
airplanes: This paragraph provides credit for the inspection
required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD if you performed the
inspection before the effective date of this AD using paragraph
(a)(1) of AD 89-24-06 R1.
    (2) For Model DHC-6-1, DHC-6-100, DHC-6-200, and DHC-6-300
airplanes: This paragraph provides credit for the fluorescent
penetrant inspection and subsequent replacement of the elevator
quadrant support bracket due to a crack found from the fluorescent
penetrant inspection required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD if
performed before the effective date of this AD using paragraphs
(a)(3) and (4) of AD 89-24-06 R1.

 (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, New York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or 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 (j)(1) of this AD.
    (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.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Darren Gassetto,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    (2) Refer to Transport Canada AD Number CF-1972-06R5, dated June
22, 2018, for more information. You may examine the Transport Canada
AD in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0099.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Viking Air Ltd., 1959 de Havilland Way, Sidney British Columbia,
Canada V8L 5V5; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]; website: https://www.vikingair.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901
Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: Issued on February 4, 2022.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-02888 Filed 2-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 51 (Friday, March 17, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14161-14162]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05151]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002]

Final Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified
BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and
modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that
each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being
already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: Effective March 17, 2017. The date of issuance of the Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each
community may be obtained by contacting the office where the maps are
available for inspection as indicated in the table below.

ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified
BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been
published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have
elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for
Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this
notification.
    This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the
address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are
made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected
locations in each community are shown.
    National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has reviewed this final
rule for purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined that this action will not have
a significant effect on the human environment. This action is covered
by categorical exclusions A4 and A7 identified in FEMA Instruction 108-
1-1 and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Instruction 023-01-001-
01, Appendix A.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.

    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets
the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 21, 2016.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.11  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.11 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * Elevation in
                                                                      feet (NGVD) +
                                                                    Elevation in feet
                                           Location of referenced   (NAVD) # Depth in
           Flooding source(s)                    elevation          feet above ground     Communities affected
                                                                    [caret] Elevation
                                                                     in meters (MSL)
                                                                         Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Carroll County, Mississippi and Incorporated Areas
                                            Docket Nos.: FEMA-B-1223
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Sand Creek.........................  Approximately 0.6 mile                  +214  Town of Carrollton.
                                          downstream of State
                                          Route 35.
                                         Approximately 800 feet                  +222
                                          upstream of State Route
                                          35.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
# Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
                                                    ADDRESSES
Town of Carrollton
Maps are available for inspection at the Town Hall, 701 Lexington Street, Carrollton, MS 38917.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-05151 Filed 3-16-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P