[Federal Register: April 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 76)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 21090-21092]
[DOCID:fr18ap08-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[USCG-2008-0207]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Potomac River, Oxon Hill, MD
and Alexandria, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily change the regulations
governing the operation of the new Woodrow Wilson Memorial (I-95)
Bridge, mile 103.8, across Potomac River between Alexandria, Virginia
and Oxon Hill, Maryland. This action is necessary to finalize
construction of the drawbridge. While construction continues, this
proposal would allow the drawbridge to remain closed-to-navigation each
day from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. beginning May 31, 2008 until and including
March 1, 2009.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard by June
2, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2008-0207 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge Administrator, Fifth Coast
Guard District, at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.
    We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation (DOT) to
use the Docket Management Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act''
paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2008-0207), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address,
an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one
means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period. We may change this
proposed rule in view of them.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at
any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0207)
in the Search box, and click ``Go>>.'' You may also visit either the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays or at Commander (dpb), Fifth Coast Guard District, Federal
Building, 1st Floor, 431 Crawford Street, Portsmouth, VA<PHONE_NUMBER>
between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of
Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Public Meeting

    Currently, no public meeting is scheduled. But you may submit a
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that
one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    On March 5, 2008, we published a notice of temporary deviation from
the regulations entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Potomac
River, Between Maryland and Virginia'' in the Federal Register (73 FR
13127).
    The Maryland State Highway Administration and the Virginia
Department of Transportation, co-owners of the drawbridge, requested an
extension of the aforementioned temporary deviation for a longer period
of time in an effort to minimize the potential for major regional
traffic impacts and consequences during bridge openings while
construction continues. Bridge owners requested that the drawbridge not
be available for openings for vessels each day between the hours of 10
a.m. to 2 p.m. from Saturday, May 31, 2008 through Sunday, March 1,
2009 or until the bridge is properly commissioned, whichever comes
first. Construction will continue during this time period and the
normal vehicular traffic pattern with five lanes operating in each
direction is not anticipated until near the end of the time period.
    From a river-user standpoint, the coordinators for the construction
of the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project have received no requests from
boaters or mariners to open during the 10 a.m.

to 2 p.m. timeframe since the first temporary deviation was issued in
late June 2006. In fact, no requests have been received for an opening
of the new bridge at all since July 3, 2006. Finally, the coordinators
have received no complaints on the 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. restriction. This
proposal will affect only vessels with mast heights of 75 feet or
greater. Furthermore, all operators of affected vessels with mast
heights greater than 75 feet will be able to request an opening of the
drawbridge in the ``off-peak'' vehicle traffic hours (evening and
overnight) in accordance with 33 CFR 117.255(a).

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to temporarily amend the operating
regulations at 33 CFR Sec.  117.255 by inserting new paragraphs
(a)(2)(iii) and (a)(4)(iv) to read as follows: From May 31, 2008 to
March 1, 2009, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., the draw of the Woodrow Wilson
Memorial (I-95) Bridge, at mile 103.8, between Alexandria, Virginia and
Oxon Hill, Maryland, need not be opened.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. We reached
this conclusion based on the fact that the proposed changes have only a
minimal impact on maritime traffic transiting the bridge. All operators
of affected vessels with mast heights greater than 75 feet will be able
to request an opening of the drawbridge in the ``off-peak'' vehicle
traffic hours (evening and overnight) in accordance with 33 CFR
117.255(a), and mariners can plan their trips in accordance with the
scheduled bridge openings to minimize delays.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    This proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities because the rule only adds
minimal restrictions to the movement of navigation, all operators of
affected vessels with mast heights greater than 75 feet will be able to
request an opening of the drawbridge in the ``off-peak'' vehicle
traffic hours (evening and overnight) in accordance with 33 CFR
117.255(a), and mariners who plan their transits in accordance with the
scheduled bridge openings can minimize delay.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Waverly W. Gregory, Jr., Bridge
Administrator, Fifth Coast Guard District,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Coast
Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or
complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office

of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a
significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement
of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is not likely to
have a significant effect on the human environment because it simply
promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

Words of Issuance and Proposed Regulatory Text

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

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

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

    From May 31, 2008, to March 1, 2009, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., in
Sec.  117.255 add new paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (a)(4)(iv) to read as
follows:

Sec.  117.255  Potomac River.

* * * * *
    (a)(2)(iii) From May 31, 2008 to March 1, 2009, from 10 a.m. to 2
p.m., the draw need not to be opened.
* * * * *
    (a)(4)(iv) From May 31, 2008 to March 1, 2009, from 10 a.m. to 2
p.m., the draw need not be opened.
* * * * *

    Dated: April 7, 2008.
Fred M. Rosa, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, United States Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E8-8514 Filed 4-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4171-4175]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01745]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2017-1095]
RIN 1625--AA11; 1625-AA00

Regulated Navigation Area, Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal,
Romeoville, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the navigational and
operational restrictions of the Regulated Navigation

Area (RNA) on the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal (CSSC) near
Romeoville, Illinois and remove the redundant Safety Zone currently in
place. The purpose of this amendment is to improve safety and clarify
regulations for vessels transiting the navigable waters located
adjacent to and over the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Aquatic Nuisance
Species electric dispersal barrier system (EDBS).

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before April 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2017-1095 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant John Ramos, Marine Safety
Unit Chicago, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CSSC Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
DHS Department of Homeland Security
EDBS Electric Dispersal Barrier System
E.O. Executive order
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
RNA Regulated Navigation Area
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The purpose of this proposed rule is to eliminate a redundant
safety zone and remove several requirements from a Regulated Navigation
Area that are no longer necessary. There currently exists, in 33 CFR
165.923, certain navigational, environmental, and operational
restrictions on all vessels transiting the navigable waters located
adjacent to and over the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Aquatic Nuisance
Species electric dispersal fish barrier. 33 CFR 165.923(a)(1)
establishes a safety zone in the CSSC from mile marker 296.1 to mile
marker 296.7. Additionally, 33 CFR 165.923(b)(1) establishes a
regulated navigation area from mile marker 295.5 to mile marker 297.2.
There also exists, in 33 CFR 165.930, a safety zone from mile marker
286.0 to mile marker 333.3 that includes the totality of the safety
zone in 33 CFR 165.923(a)(1), rendering it redundant.
    In 2013, the U.S. Coast Guard Research and Development Center
completed a marine safety risk assessment for the waters of the CSSC in
the vicinity of the Aquatic Nuisance Species EDBS near Romeoville,
Illinois. The overarching goal of the risk assessment was to determine
the adequacy of present risk mitigation strategies and, if necessary,
recommend alternatives to the present strategies. The report generated
at the conclusion of the risk assessment noted apparent confusion among
waterway users regarding the boundaries and requirements for the safety
zone and RNA outlined in 33 CFR 165.923. The report also identified
certain requirements still in effect which had basis in the existing
Rule that have since changed over the period of the rule and may longer
currently apply. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking addresses
recommended amendments to the regulations based on the report's
conclusions and recommendations.
    The proposed amendments are intended to improve safety, reduce
confusion and eliminate unnecessary burden to vessels transiting the
safety zone and RNA of the CSSC in the vicinity of the EDBS near
Romeoville, Illinois. The Coast Guard is issuing this proposed rule
under 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195;
33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The purpose of safety zone delineated in Sec.  165.923(a)(1) is to
inhibit the potential transfer of live Silver or Asian carp, viable
eggs or gametes into the waterway north of the electric barrier. To
serve this purpose, the safety zone requirements outlined in 33 CFR
165.923(a)(2) restrict vessels transiting with non-potable water on
board if they intend to release that water in any form within or on the
other side of the safety zone. A larger safety zone, described at 33
CFR 165.930(a)(2), also encompasses this same area. That safety zone,
however, does not contain regulations prohibiting vessels from
transiting the zone if they have any non-potable water onboard and
intent to release that water within or beyond the safety zone.
    The Coast Guard also proposes to eliminate the CSSC safety zone
outlined in 33 CFR 165.923(a). This revision would eliminate redundancy
currently existing in regulations because the CSSC is already regulated
by the larger safety zone delineated in 33 CFR 165.930(a)(2). The
requirements in 33 CFR 165.923(a)(2) for the transit of non-potable
water would be preserved, but incorporated into the CSSC's RNA
regulations in what is now 33 CFR 165.923(b)(2). Therefore, 33 CFR
165.923(b) will become 33 CFR 165.923(a) with the elimination of the
safety zone. The following paragraphs describe additional changes that
will be made to the RNA regulations.
    The Coast Guard proposes to remove the RNA's bow boat requirement
in 33 CFR 165.923(b)(2)(ii)(C). The RNA currently requires that all up-
bound and down-bound tows that consist of barges carrying flammable
liquid cargoes (Grade A through C, flashpoint below 140 degrees
Fahrenheit, or heated to within 15 degrees Fahrenheit of flash point)
engage the services of a bow boat at all times until the entire tow is
clear of the RNA. The original bow boat requirement intended to reduce
the possibility of a spark-induced event due to allision between a
barge carrying flammable liquid cargo and barges at the Will County
Generating Station Coal Wharf (RDB MM 296.0) while the facility
conducted coal loading and barge fleeting. At times barge fleets were
three-wide (approximately 105 feet), extending into the 160-wide cut,
less than 500 feet downstream of Barrier II-A. Since barge loading and
fleeting ceased in September 2012, the basis for this requirement no
longer exists.
    The Coast Guard also proposes to modify the requirement in 33 CFR
165.923(b)(2)(ii)(E) that commercial tows be made up with only wire
rope to ensure electrical connectivity between all segments of the tow.
The purpose of this requirement is to ensure electrical connectivity
between all segments of the tow in order to prevent arcing while
transiting the electric barrier and to prevent high contact potentials
between vessels in the tow. However, the Coast Guard recognizes that
adequate means of securing a tow configuration are not exclusive to the
use of wire rope and towboats frequently use high-tensile strength
aramid, high-modulus polyethylene, or composite fiber ropes (``soft-
lines'') as wing-wires or face-wires, and occasionally as barge
lashings. Government observers have seen towboats use a single, wire-
rope from barge winch to towboat h-bitt, thus providing adequate
electrical connectivity, if sufficiently taut, and contacting bare-
metal surfaces. The Coast Guard thus proposes to continue to require
that commercial tows transiting the RNA ensure the maintenance of
electrical connectivity between all segments of the tow through use of
wire rope, but allow use of soft

lines to be used in addition to secure a tow. To account for use of
soft-lines, the Coast Guard proposes to eliminate the requirement that
a tow exclusively use wire rope, by removing the words ``with only''
from the subsection and allowing an appropriate alternative.
    Finally, the Coast Guard proposes to add a requirement to the RNA
regulations that all vessels transit the RNA at a ``no-wake'' speed.
Currently, the RNA does not provide a maximum safe speed for vessels
transiting the RNA. Throughout the course of the marine risk
assessment, the project team ascertained that the largest marine safety
risk is electric shock to a person in the water. Video recording and
shore-observer accounts indicate that many, smaller recreational
vessels transit the EDBS at a speed that generates significant wake.
Also, light-boat transits drag a wake that causes surging of barges
moored to the loading facility just north of the pipeline arch. A no-
wake zone would reduce this risk not only to persons aboard vessels,
but also to persons working ashore alongside the RNA.
    The aforementioned changes to the RNA regulations would require a
slight reordering of what is now 33 CFR 165.923(b)(2)(ii)(A)-(K). With
the removal of the safety zone, these regulations would be found in 33
CFR 165.923(a). The removal of the bow boat requirement in 33 CFR
165.923(b)(2)(ii)(C) would cause the other requirements to move up a
letter, becoming the new 33 CFR 165.923(a)(2)(ii)(C)-(J). The ``no
wake'' requirement would then become the new 33 CFR
165.923(a)(2)(ii)(K) and the requirements for the transit of non-
potable water would be added in a new section, 33 CFR
165.923(a)(2)(ii)(L).

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders (E.O.s) related to rulemaking. Below we summarize
our analyses based on a number of the statutes and E.O.s, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both
costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of
promoting flexibility.
    E.O. 13771 directs agencies to control regulatory costs through a
budgeting process. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not
been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget, and pursuant to
OMB guidance it is exempt from the requirements of E.O. 13771. As this
proposed rule is anticipated to not be a significant regulatory action,
this rule is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See
OMB's Memorandum titled ``Interim Guidance Implementing Section 2 of
the Executive Order of January 30, 2017 titled `Reducing Regulation and
Controlling Regulatory Costs''' (February 2, 2017).
    The proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action because
this is an updated version with minor changes to an already existing
rule. We anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    The proposed revision of the safety zone and RNA will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
because the proposed revision imposes minor additional requirements on
industry; and provides clarity to preexisting requirements by removing
redundancies. The proposed rule, by removing the bow boat requirement
due the ceased barge loading and fleeting operations, would in turn
reduce regulated costs.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under DHS Management Directive
023-01, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves revisions
of the safety zone and RNA that provide clarity to preexisting
requirements. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L60 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. Paragraph L60 pertains to
establishing, disestablishing, or changing Regulated Navigation Areas
and Safety Zones. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration
(REC) supporting this determination is available in the docket where
indicated under the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
 1. The authority citation for Part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Revise Sec.  165.923 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.923   Regulated Navigation Area, Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal, Romeoville, IL.

    (a) Regulated Navigation Area. (1) The following is a regulated
navigation area (RNA): All waters of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship
Canal, Romeoville, IL located between mile marker 295.5 and mile marker
297.2.
    (2) Regulations. (i) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR
165.13 apply.
    (ii) Vessels that comply with the following restrictions are
permitted to transit the RNA:
    (A) Vessels must be greater than 20 feet in length.
    (B) Vessels must not be a personal or human powered watercraft
(i.e., jet skis, waver runners, kayaks, row boats, etc.).
    (C) Vessels engaged in commercial service, as defined in 46 U.S.C.
2101(5), may not pass (meet or overtake) in the RNA and must make a
SECURIT[Eacute] call when approaching the RNA to announce intentions
and work out passing arrangements.
    (D) Commercial tows transiting the RNA must use wire rope or
appropriate alternatives to ensure electrical connectivity between all
segments of the tow.
    (E) All vessels are prohibited from loitering in the RNA.
    (F) Vessels may enter the RNA for the sole purpose of transiting to
the other side and must maintain headway throughout the transit. All
vessels and persons are prohibited from dredging, laying cable,
dragging, fishing, conducting salvage operations, or any other
activity, which could disturb the bottom of the RNA.
    (G) Except for law enforcement and emergency response personnel,
all personnel on vessels transiting the RNA should remain inside the
cabin, or as inboard as practicable. If personnel must be on open
decks, they must wear a Coast Guard approved personal flotation device.
    (H) Vessels may not moor or lay up on the right or left descending
banks of the RNA.
    (I) Towboats may not make or break tows if any portion of the
towboat or tow is located in the RNA.
    (J) Persons onboard any vessel transiting the RNA in accordance
with this rule or otherwise are advised they do so at their own risk.
    (K) All vessels transiting the RNA are required to transit at a no
wake speed but still maintain bare steerageway.
    (L) Non-potable water. (i) All vessels are prohibited from
transiting the restricted navigation area with any non-potable water on
board if they intend to release that water in any form within, or on
the other side of the restricted navigation area. Non-potable water
includes, but is not limited to, any water taken on board to control or
maintain trim, draft, stability, or stresses of the vessel. Likewise,
it includes any water taken on board due to free communication between
the hull of the vessel and exterior water. Potable water is water
treated and stored aboard the vessel that is suitable for human
consumption.
    (ii) Vessels with non-potable water on board are permitted to
transit the restricted navigation area if they have taken steps to
prevent the release, in any form, of that water in or on the other side
of the restricted navigation area. Alternatively, vessels with non-
potable water on board are permitted to transit the restricted
navigation area if they have plans to dispose of the water in a
biologically sound manner.
    (iii) Vessels with non-potable water aboard that intend to
discharge on the other side of the restricted navigation area must
contact the Coast Guard's Ninth District Commander or his or her
designated representatives prior to

transit and obtain permission to transit and discharge. Examples of
discharges that may be approved include plans to dispose of the water
in a biologically sound manner or demonstrate through testing that the
non-potable water does not contain potential live Silver or Asian carp,
viable eggs, or gametes.
    (iv) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  165.23 of
this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone
by vessels with non-potable water on board is prohibited unless
authorized by the Coast Guard's Ninth District Commander, his or her
designated representatives, or an on-scene representative.
    (v) The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, may further designate
an ``on-scene'' representative. The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan,
or the on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF-FM radio
Channel 16 or through the Coast Guard Lake Michigan Command Center at
(414) 747-7182.
    (b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
    Designated representative means the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan and Commanding Officer, Marine Safety Unit Chicago.
    On-scene representative means any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant
or petty officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port,
Lake Michigan, to act on his or her behalf. The on-scene representative
of the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, will be aboard a Coast
Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, or other designated vessel or will be
onshore and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM radio or
loudhailer.
    Vessel means every description of watercraft of other artificial
contrivance used, or capable or being used, as a means of
transportation on water. This definition includes, but is not limited
to, barges.
    (c) Compliance. All persons and vessels must comply with this
section and any additional instructions or orders of the Coast Guard's
Ninth District Commander or his or her designated representatives. Any
person on board any vessel transiting this RNA in accordance with this
rule or otherwise does so at his or her own risk.
    (d) Waiver. For any vessel, the Coast Guard's Ninth District
Commander or his or her designated representatives may waive any of the
requirements of this section, upon finding that operational conditions
or other circumstances are such that application of this section is
unnecessary or impractical for the purposes of vessel and mariner
safety.

    Dated: January 11, 2018.
J.M. Nunan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-01745 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


 "Borrelli,
             Frank"
             <Frank_Borrelli@                                        To
             americanchemistr         Greg Nizich/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
             y.com>                                                  cc
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
             12/21/2007 03:31<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
             PM<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      >, "de la Cruz, Peter"
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                      "Givonetti, Raymond"
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"John
                                      Yonge"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                      "Sheridan, Kevin"
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                      om>, "Sistrunk, Otis J. (PED)"
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                      "Tinsley, Wendell"
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                      "TOM BERGER"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
                                                                Subject
                                      VI PVC MACT Submittal

Dear Greg,

As discussed at our meeting, enclosed please find four documents.  The
first is an updated list of PVC production facilities, their nameplate
capacities and current operators based on data from CMAI.  I have also
included generic process flow sheets that we intend to enhance as we
develop the additional information on HAPs associated with the PVC
process.  We think that the flow sheets accurately describe the boundary
of the PVC process as they were part of the docket on the original
NESHAP back in the 1970’s.

The third document is a list of potential HAPs that may be associated
with PVC production.  Substances are listed based on responses to a
survey of VI member companies.  Please note that we have included
substances in the list even if they were reported by only one facility.
In addition, we listed materials without regard to the amount involved
or potential for emissions.  Our goal was to define the universe of
potential HAPs that might fall under the PVC MACT rule with the
understanding that both the need for inclusion in the rule or the need
to develop a surrogacy analysis would come at a later date.  The
inclusion of a substance on this list does not reflect any agreement by
the VI or its members that the substance merits regulation under the PVC
MACT.  We have not included vinyl chloride monomer on the list because
we understand that the agency will certainly include that HAP in the
regulation.  We have attempted to identify the possible source and noted
expected fate of these HAPS following the polymerization step of the PVC
process.   A number of these HAPs are identified as VCM impurities.
These HAPS normally exist at trace levels in commercial monomer grade
vinyl chloride. They remain in the vinyl chloride monomer following the
purification steps in a vinyl chloride process as a result of having
similar physical properties, (volatility and solubility), as vinyl
chloride but normally exist at part per million (ppm) levels.  In some
cases, certain HAPs would undergo free radical polymerization similarly
to the vinyl chloride and become part of the PVC polymer molecule.  In
other cases they may remain and concentrate in the recovered vinyl
chloride until they enter the vinyl chloride process vent gas control
system.   I have also included a vinyl chloride specification sheet that
provides expected maximum levels of these impurities in normal
commercial grade vinyl chloride.  Actual levels are expected to be much
lower.

We had looked into you concerns on compounding operations and offer the
following.   Under the Miscellaneous Organic NESHAP (Part 63 Subpart
FFFF), EPA determined at 40 CFR 63.2435(a), (b) and (c), that a Unit
which is located at, or is part of, a major source of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) engaged in compounding purchased plastic resin is
exempt from the MACT Standard.  This is due to the minimal potential for
emissions from such an operation.  For the same reason, EPA determined
that a Unit which is located at, or is part of, a major source of HAPs,
engaged in compounding its own resin is also exempt from the MACT
Standard, as long as the compounding operation does not involve
processing with HAP solvent or the intended purpose of the operation is
to remove residual HAP monomer.

After you have an opportunity to review this information, we would like
to discuss the next steps, which we believe would involve the
quantification of potential HAPS and information regarding surrogacy.
If you have any immediate questions, please do not hesitate to contact
us.   As you know I will be retiring at year end and in the interim ask
that you contact   Peter de la Cruz of Keller and Heckman and Mary
Bachynsky of Formosa Plastics regarding this program.  It has been a
pleasure working with you, good luck with your efforts and have a
wonderful holiday season.

Regards
Frank Borrelli

Mary P. Bachynsky
Formosa Plastics Corp. U.S. A.
9 Peach Tree Hill Road
Livingston, New Jersey  07039
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>   Cell:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Peter L. de la Cruz
Partner Keller and Heckman

1001 G Street, N.W., Suite 500 West | Washington, D.C. 20001
Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER> | fax<PHONE_NUMBER> |<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(See attached file: VI PVC MACT Submittal 2007-12-21.pdf)


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 19 (Thursday, January 29, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4810-4811]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01556]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0132; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-038-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-7 airplanes. This proposed AD results
from 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 the potential for a spring on the compressor clutch plate
to shear the oil cooler inlet-hose due to the close routing of these
parts without a protective cover. We are issuing this proposed AD to
require actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 16, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact PILATUS
AIRCRAFT LTD., Customer Technical Support (MCC), P.O. Box 992, CH-6371
Stans, Switzerland; phone: +41 (0)41 619 67 74; fax: +41 (0)41 619 67
73; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: http://
www.pilatus-aircraft.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
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 on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
0132; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-0132;
Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-038-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA), which is the aviation
authority for Switzerland, has issued AD HB-2014-008, dated December 9,
2014 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-7 airplanes and was based
on mandatory continuing airworthiness information originated by an
aviation authority of another country. The MCAI states:

This Airworthiness Directive (AD) is prompted due to an unprotected
routing of the oil cooler inlet-hose close to the air conditioning
compressor clutch plate.
If a spring on the compressor clutch plate shears it could lead to a
damage of the oil hose and the engine oil can spill into the engine
bay.
In order to correct and control the situation, this AD requires the
installation of a cover assembly which will be mounted on the
attachment points of the compressor.

You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0132.

Relevant Service Information

    PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. has issued PILATUS PC-7 Service Bulletin No:
21-012, dated November 4, 2014. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI. The PILATUS PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 21-012, dated November
4, 2014, describes procedures for installing a cover assembly to the
compressor to protect the engine oil hose.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 10 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 6 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $1,250 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $17,600, or $1,760 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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 this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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 adding the following new AD:

PILATUS Aircraft Ltd.: Docket No. FAA-2015-0132; Directorate
Identifier 2014-CE-038-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 16, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to PILATUS Aircraft Ltd. Model PC-7 airplanes,
all serial numbers, that
    (1) have not incorporated the actions of any version of PILATUS
PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 21-006, which allows for the installation
of a different air conditioning compressor mounted at a different
location and thus making the unsafe condition nonexistent; and
    (2) are certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 21: Air
Conditioning.

(e) Reason

    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 the potential
for a spring on the compressor clutch plate to shear the oil cooler
inlet-hose due to the close routing of these parts without a
protective cover. We are issuing this AD to correct the unprotected
routing of the oil cooler inlet-hose, which could lead to damage of
the oil hose resulting in an engine oil spill into the engine bay.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, within the next 120 days after the
effective date of this AD, install a cover assembly on the
attachment points of the compressor following the Accomplishment
Instructions in PILATUS PC-7 Service Bulletin No: 21-012, dated
November 4, 2014.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane
to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate principal
inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO),
or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, a federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person
is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a
penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information
subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless
that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Federal Office of Civil Aviation (FOCA) AD HB-
2014-008, dated December 9, 2014; and any version of PILATUS PC-7
Service Bulletin No: 21-006, for related information. You may
examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0132. For service
information related to this AD, contact PILATUS AIRCRAFT LTD.,
Customer Technical Support (MCC), P.O. Box 992, CH-6371 Stans,
Switzerland; phone: +41 (0)41 619 67 74; fax: +41 (0)41 619 67 73;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: http://
www.pilatus-aircraft.com. You may review this referenced service
information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust,
Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on January 20, 2015.
Robert Busto,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-01556 Filed 1-28-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 27, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22239-22240]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08700]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2021-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2127]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before July 26, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2127, to
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>
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 Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities
with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by

the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date listed in the
tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for
each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service
Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            LaSalle Parish, Louisiana and Incorporated Areas
         Project: 17-06-2043S Preliminary Date: October 28, 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town of Jena...........................  Town Hall, 2908 East Oak
                                          Street, Jena, LA 71342.
Town of Olla...........................  Town Hall, 1907 Louisiana
                                          Street, Olla, LA 71465.
Town of Tullos.........................  LaSalle Parish Courthouse, 1050
                                          Courthouse Street, Room 13,
                                          Jena, LA 71342.
Town of Urania.........................  Town Hall, 2021 East Hardtner
                                          Drive, Urania, LA 71480.
Unincorporated Areas of LaSalle Parish.  LaSalle Parish Courthouse, 1050
                                          Courthouse Street, Room 13,
                                          Jena, LA 71342.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Deuel County, South Dakota and Incorporated Areas
         Project: 18-08-0047S Preliminary Date: October 16, 2020
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Clear Lake.....................  City Auditor, 125 3rd Avenue
                                          South, Clear Lake, SD 57226.
City of Gary...........................  City Hall, 1113 Summit Street,
                                          Gary, SD 57237.
Unincorporated Areas of Deuel County...  Deuel County Courthouse, 408
                                          4th Street West, Clear Lake,
                                          SD 57226.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-08700 Filed 4-26-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 155 (Thursday, August 11, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53091-53093]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18769]

========================================================================
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. 81, No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2016 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

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

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

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify Class D and Class E surface
area airspace at Sugar Land Regional Airport, Houston Sugar Land, TX.
The FAA also proposes to modify Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Kingsville Kleberg County Airport, Alice,
TX; Bay City Municipal Airport, Bay City, TX; Brenham Municipal
Airport, Brenham, TX; Burnet Municipal Airport-Kate Craddock Field,
Burnet, TX; Brooks County Airport, Falfurrias, TX; Possum Kingdom
Airport, Graford, TX; and Hamilton Municipal Airport, Hamilton, TX.
Decommissioning of non-directional radio beacons (NDBs), cancellation
of NDB approaches, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV)
procedures have made this action necessary for the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at these
airports. This action also proposes to remove Class E airspace at
Horseshoe Bay Resort Airport, Austin, TX, as controlled airspace is no
longer needed. Additionally, the geographic coordinates at Bay City
Municipal Airport, Brenham Municipal Airport, and Brooks County
Airport, as well as the name of Sugar Land Regional Airport (formerly
Sugar Land Municipal/Hull Field) would be adjusted to coincide with the
FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 26, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or 1-800-647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2016-8503; Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-11, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, 20591; telephone: 202-267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.9Z at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace at
Sugar Land Regional Airport, Houston Sugar Land, TX; amend Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Kingsville
Kleberg County Airport, Alice, TX; Bay City Municipal Airport, Bay
City, TX; Brenham Municipal Airport, Brenham, TX; Burnet Municipal
Airport-Kate Craddock Field, Burnet, TX; Brooks County Airport,
Falfurrias, TX; Possum Kingdom Airport, Graford, TX; and Hamilton
Municipal Airport, Hamilton, TX; and remove Class E at Horseshoe Bay
Resort Airport, Austin, TX.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2016-8503/
Airspace Docket No. 16-ASW-11.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through

the FAA's Web page at http://www.regulations.gov.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX, 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents Proposed for Incorporation by
Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.9Z, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and effective
September 15, 2015. FAA Order 7400.9Z is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.9Z lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying:
    Class D airspace and Class E surface area airspace within a 5.8-
mile radius of Sugar Land Regional Airport, Houston Sugar Land, TX, and
updating the name of airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical
database;
    Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Kingsville, Kleberg County Airport, Alice,
TX, with an extension northwest of the airport from the 6.6-mile radius
to 10.3 miles;
    Within a 6.5-mile radius of Bay City Municipal Airport, Bay City,
TX, and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide
with the FAAs aeronautical database;
    Within a 6.5-mile radius of Brenham Municipal Airport, Brenham TX,
and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with
the FAAs aeronautical database;
    Within a 6.6-mile radius of the Burnet Municipal Airport-Kate
Craddock Field, Burnet, TX;
    Within a 6.6-mile radius of Brooks County Airport, Falfurrias, TX,
and updating the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with
the FAAs aeronautical databases;
    Within a 7.0-mile radius of Possum Kingdom Airport, Graford, TX,
with extensions to the northeast of the airport from the 7.0-mile
radius to 10.9 miles, and to the southwest of the airport from the 7.0-
mile radius to 10.9 miles;
    And within a 6.5-mile radius of Hamilton Municipal Airport,
Hamilton, TX, with extensions to the north of the airport from the 6.5-
mile radius to 9.4 miles, and to the south of the airport from the 6.5-
mile radius to 10.3 miles;
    The Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Horseshoe Bay Resort Airport,
Austin Horseshoe Bay Resort Airport, TX, would be removed as the SIAPs
have been cancelled and controlled airspace is no longer needed.
    Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of
NDBs, cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of RNAV
procedures at the above airports. Controlled airspace is necessary for
the safety and management of the standard instrument approach
procedures for IFR operations at the airports.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraph
5000, 6002, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9Z, dated August
6, 2015, and effective September 15, 2015, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.9Z,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2015, and
effective September 15, 2015, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASW TX D Houston Sugar Land, TX [Amended]

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

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

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

ASW TX E2 Houston Sugar Land, TX [Amended]

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

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

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

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Alice, TX [Amended]

Alice International Airport, TX
    (Lat. 27[deg]44'27'' N., long. 98[deg]01'37'' W.)
Orange Grove NALF, TX

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

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

ASW TX E5 Austin, Horseshoe Bay Resort Airport, TX [Removed]

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Bay City, TX [Amended]

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

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

ASW TX E5 Brenham, TX [Amended]

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

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

ASW TX E5 Burnet, TX [Amended]

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

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

ASW TX E5 Falfurrias, TX [Amended]

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

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

ASW TX E5 Graford, TX [Amended]

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

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

ASW TX E5 Hamilton, TX [Amended]

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

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

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on August 1, 2016.
Walter Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2016-18769 Filed 8-10-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 139 (Friday, July 21, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33798-33799]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15276]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0442; Airspace Docket No. 13-ASO-12]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Ashburn, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Ashburn, GA, to accommodate new Area
Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument
Approach Procedures (SIAPs) serving Turner County Airport. Controlled
airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument
flight rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, October 12, 2017. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11A at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Federal Register (82 FR 24273, May 26, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2013-0442
to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Turner County Airport, Ashburn, GA, due to the new RNAV
(GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the
airport. Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the
FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11A dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR part 71.1. The Class
E airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

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

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface within a 6.8-mile radius of Turner County Airport,
Ashburn, GA. This action provides the controlled airspace required to
support the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures for
IFR operations at Turner County Airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 71 as
follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

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

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

* * * * *

ASO GA E5 Ashburn, GA [New]

Turner County Airport, GA
    (Lat. 31[deg]41'15'' N., long. 83[deg]37'59'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.8-mile radius of Turner County Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 11, 2017.
Ryan W. Almasy,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2017-15276 Filed 7-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


FGDC Wetland Mapping Standard

“Enabling the Calculation of Wetlands Gain and Loss…”

Introduction

A multi-Agency, multi-organization workgroup has developed a draft
Wetland Mapping Standard for adoption by the Federal Geographic Data
Committee.  This draft standard is now available for public review at:

  HYPERLINK
"http://www.fws.gov/nwi/FINAL_Draft_Wetlands_Mapping_Standard_08_06_07.p
df"  www.fws.gov/nwi/FINAL_Draft_Wetlands_Mapping_Standard_08_06_07.pdf

The intent of the standard is to support current and future digital
mapping requirements, through specification of minimum data quality
components, and reuse of an existing standard being used by the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service.  The standard supports the National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI), and aligns with the requirements of the National
Hydrography Dataset (NHD).  The standard is intended to be extendible,
forward looking, and able to accommodate technology enhancements over
time.  The standard is applicable to all mapping activities that are
funded or conducted by the Federal government.

The Need for a Wetlands Mapping Standard

The need for standards to support the documentation and exchange of
mapping information is great.  The proposed standard will enable Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, and local governments to:

Map and input data into the National Wetlands Inventory Geodatabase and
the National Map

Facilitate mapping layers that can be used across geopolitical and
watershed boundaries

Provide updated information to the wetlands layer of the National
Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI)

Streamline mapping efforts for greater consistency and efficiency, and
improved data quality and context

Support future national efforts in support of wetlands assessment
activities.

Improved wetland mapping standardization is necessary to provide a
complete and accurate picture of wetland resources in the United States,
as well as providing the ability to calculate, not estimate, wetlands
loss and gain.  This standard would help current abilities to map
wetland geospatial distribution, and would complete national mapping
efforts to include wetlands data in a watershed context.

Existing Wetlands Standards

There is currently no FGDC approved standard for wetland mapping.  It
was the intent of the wetlands subcommittee workgroup to use the
resources and expertise from multiple Federal and State agencies and the
wetlands community to provide a comprehensive mapping standard based on
existing Agency standards, guidance, and technologies.  The proposed
standard is based in large part on a draft standard used by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service in support of the National Wetlands Inventory.
 Other referential, classification, and metadata standards have been
reviewed for alignment as part of the standards development process.

Who Is Developing the Standard?

The standard is being developed by a diverse workgroup of the Wetlands
Subcommittee.  The workgroup is comprised of members of Federal
agencies, States, Tribes, environmental organizations, management
associations, and local government associations with an interest in
improving quality and consistency in wetlands mapping efforts.  The
workgroup is interested in and encouraging participation from anyone in
the wetlands or geospatial community.  The standard is being developed
with due consideration of minimizing burden to the end-user community
but assuring consistency and documented quality of mapping products.

Standard Timeline

July 2006 to December 2006:  Biweekly Meetings/ Phone Conferences

September 2006 to October 2006:  Stakeholder Outreach / Begin
pre-Vetting process

January 2007:  Complete Working Draft of the Standard

January 2007:  Begin Agency and Partner review process

February 2007:  Receive Agency comments

March 2007:  Propose Wetlands Mapping Standard to FGDC

July 2007:  Proposed Standard Approved for Public Review by FGDC

August 7, 2007:  Federal Register Notice published (begin 90 day Public
Review)

November 9, 2007:  End of Public Review Comment period

Components of the Standard

The standard consists of an introduction section addressing objectives,
scope, applicability, related standards, development procedure, and
maintenance authority.  More important are the functional requirements
of the standard which are designed to address the definitional and
quality requirements of the standard.  These include wetlands
classification, habitat definitions, metadata, targeted mapping unit,
and quality components such as completeness, accuracy, and logical
consistency.

Additional Information

Participation from individuals and groups with an interest in wetlands
or geospatial mapping activities are encouraged to review and comment to
help inform the content of the standard.  You may submit comments
related to the draft standard at:

  HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov

Refer to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2007-0697

More information may be obtained from:

Margarete Heber

U.S. EPA

Wetlands Division, OWOW, OW

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington DC,

202-566-1189

FAX<PHONE_NUMBER>

DRAFT FGDC Wetlands Mapping Standard Fact Sheet.  - Updated 8/8007


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

General Comment:Cig~Free Vape Shop
423 S. Saginaw Rd.
Midland, MI  48640

June 30, 2014

Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305)
Food and Drug Adinistration
5630 Fishers Lane
Room 1061
Rockville, MD  20852

     Re:  Request for Extension of Comment Period:  Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0189

     We, Cig Free Vape Shop, have conducted preliminary review of your lengthy proposed regulations and respectfully request that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) extend the comment period for the proposed rule entitled “Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act;  Regulations on the Sale and Distribution of Tobacco Products and Required Warning Statements for Tobacco Products.”

We, Cig Free Vape Shop, are a small electronic cigarette retailer and employing fewer than 350 people.  Brick and mortar store, we retail KangerTech, Innokin, Blackcat and Vision.  We also manufacture our own e-Juice in our store with only USP grade ingredients.  As explained further below, the initial 75-day comment period does not provide enough time for companies like Cig Free Vape Shop to adequately analyze the entire proposal and provide substantive comments on the many questions posed by the agency.  We need more time to address this 240-page document whose contents will deal a devastating economic blow to our business.

The preamble to the proposed rule identifies approximately 70 topics and issues the agency has requested comments on.  Many of these issues are comples and difficult and relate to an extremely diverse array of products.  Clearly, the lengthy time period that the Agency required to propose these regulations is evidence that the issues addressed in the proposal are multi-faceted and challenging.  FDA cannot expect any interested party, and in particular, any manufacturer, to conduct a meaningful review and analysis of these issues and provide detailed and thoughtful comment in a 75-day period.

Therefore, Cig Free Vape Shop again respectfully requests that FDA extend the comment period by 105 days and agree to accept comments filed to the docket on or before October 22, 2014.  This will help ensure that the final rule is based on an adequate and meaningful administrative record.  Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,
Alice Engelman
Owner
Cig Free Vape Shop