[Federal Register: September 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 171)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 51382-51384]
[DOCID:fr03se08-15]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2006-25001; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-079-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -
800, -900 and -900ER Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier proposed airworthiness
directive (AD) for certain Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800 and
-900 series airplanes. The original NPRM would have required replacing
the aero/fire seals of the blocker doors on the thrust reverser torque
boxes on the engines with new, improved aero/fire seals. The original
NPRM resulted from a report that the top three inches of the aero/fire
seals of the blocker doors on the thrust reverser torque boxes are not
fireproof. This action revises the original NPRM by adding airplanes to
the applicability statement and requiring a one-time inspection to
determine the part numbers of the aero/fire seals. We are proposing
this supplemental NPRM to prevent a fire in the fan compartment (a fire
zone) from migrating through the seal to a flammable fluid in the
thrust reverser actuator compartment (a flammable fluid leakage zone),
which could result in an uncontrolled fire.

DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by September
29, 2008.

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 proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-
2207.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this 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: Samuel Spitzer, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6510; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2006-
25001; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-079-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://
www.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

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (the ``original
NPRM'') to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive
(AD) that would apply to certain Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -
800 and -900 series airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the
Federal Register on June 13, 2006 (71 FR 34025). The original NPRM
proposed to require replacing the aero/fire seals of the blocker doors
on the thrust reverser torque boxes on the engines with new, improved
aero/fire seals.

Actions Since Original NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the original NPRM, we have received information on
the rotability of the affected aero/fire seals. Also, Model 737-900ER
series airplanes have been added to the U.S. type certificate data
sheet and could be affected by the rotability of the seals.

Comments

    We have considered the following comments on the original NPRM.

Support for the Original NPRM

    Boeing concurs with the contents of the original NPRM.

Request To Revise the Applicability Statement To Address Rotable Parts

    AirTran Airways requests that we revise the applicability statement
of the original NPRM to apply to the part number/serial number of the
affected thrust reverser assembly instead of the serial number of
airplanes. AirTran is concerned that the proposed applicability does
not address the possibility that an affected thrust reverser assembly
might be installed on an airplane not addressed in that applicability
statement. AirTran states that the thrust reverser assembly is a
rotable component, which can be removed from an airplane affected by
this proposed AD and installed on an airplane not affected by this
proposed AD. AirTran also notes that the thrust reverser assemblies
have serialized numbers and are tracked by most airlines.
    We agree that it is possible to rotate the affected component onto
another Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, or -900ER series
airplane that is not affected by the applicability proposed in the
original NPRM. We have revised the applicability statement in this
supplemental NPRM to apply to all Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -
900 and -900ER series airplanes. We have also added a new paragraph (f)
to this supplemental NPRM to require a record check or inspection to
determine the part number of the installed assembly. If an affected
part number is installed, or the part number cannot be confirmed, then
operators would be required to replace the assemblies. We have
coordinated this issue with Boeing.

Request To Address Spare Parts

    AirTran notes that the original NPRM does not address thrust
reverser assemblies that were purchased as spare parts. AirTran states
that the original NPRM does not require any modifications to any thrust
reverser

assembly not currently installed on an airplane.
    We infer that AirTran is concerned about the possibility that an
affected and unmodified spare thrust reverser assembly may be installed
on an airplane.We do not agree that revising the supplemental NPRM to
address spare parts is necessary. We have confirmation from Boeing that
all affected spare assemblies have been purged from the parts supply
system. In addition, no affected/unsafe part is allowed to be installed
on an airplane after the compliance time of an AD has passed. We have
revised this supplemental NPRM to address the rotability concern
expressed in the previous comment. For these reasons, we consider
revising the AD to address spare parts unnecessary. We have not changed
the supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Request To Incorporate by Reference During NPRM Process

    The Modification and Replacement Parts Association (MARPA) requests
that the applicable service information be incorporated by reference in
the NPRM phase of rulemaking and posted on the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) for public access. MARPA states that since the
service information has additional information that is not public, the
proposed rule is not enforceable.
    We do not agree that documents should be incorporated by reference
during the NPRM phase of rulemaking. The Office of the Federal Register
requires that documents that are necessary to accomplish the
requirements of the AD be incorporated by reference during the final
rule phase of rulemaking. This supplementary NPRM is not a final rule
and does not incorporate the relevant service information by reference.
Further, we point out that while documents that are incorporated by
reference do become public information, they do not lose their
copyright protection. For that reason, we advise the public to contact
the manufacturer to obtain copies of the referenced service
information.
    In regard to the commenter's request to post service bulletins on
the Department of Transportation's FDMS, we are currently in the
process of reviewing issues surrounding the posting of service
information on-line as part of an AD docket. Once we have thoroughly
examined all aspects of this issue and have made a final determination,
we will consider whether our current practice needs to be revised. No
change to the supplemental NPRM is necessary in this regard.

Request To Address Defective Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA) Parts

    The same commenter also requests that the Transport Airplane
Directorate (TAD) develop a policy to address possible defective or
replacement PMA alternative parts, regardless of the manufacturing
source (original equipment manufacturer (OEM), PMA, or repair station),
so that all defective PMA parts are also subject to the proposed AD and
are removed from the parts stream.
    The FAA recognizes the need for standardization of this issue and
is currently in the process of reviewing issues that address the use of
PMAs in ADs at the national level. However, the Transport Airplane
Directorate considers that to delay this particular AD action would be
inappropriate, since we have determined that an unsafe condition exists
and that replacement of certain parts must be accomplished to ensure
continued safety. Therefore, no change has been made to the
supplemental NPRM in this regard.

FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM

    We are proposing this supplemental NPRM because we evaluated all
pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Certain changes described above expand the scope of the original NPRM.
As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the
comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to
comment on this supplemental NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 2,442 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
                      Action                           Work hours     Average labor        Parts           Cost per        registered       Fleet cost
                                                                      rate per hour                        airplane        airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection to determine part number (new proposed                1              $80               $0              $80              803          $64,240
 action)..........................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this supplemental NPRM and placed it in the AD docket. See
the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory
evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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

    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]

    2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
adding the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2006-25001; Directorate Identifier 2006-NM-
079-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by September
29, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -
800, -900 and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any category.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report that the top three inches of
the aero/fire seals of the blocker doors on the thrust reverser
torque boxes are not fireproof. We are issuing this AD to prevent a
fire in the fan compartment (a fire zone) from migrating through the
seal to a flammable fluid in the thrust reverser actuator
compartment (a flammable fluid leakage zone), which could result in
an uncontrolled fire.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Inspection To Determine Part Number (P/N)

    (f) Within 60 months or 8,200 flight cycles after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Perform a one-time detailed
inspection to determine the color of the aero/fire seals of the
blocker doors on the thrust reverser torque boxes on the engines.
For any aero/fire seal having a completely gray color (which is the
color of seals with P/N 315A2245-1 or 315A2245-2), with no red at
the upper end of the seal, do the actions specified in paragraph (g)
of this AD. For any aero/fire seal having a red color at the upper
end of the seal (which indicates a different part number), no
further action is required by this AD. A review of airplane
maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the
part number of the correct aero/fire seals (P/Ns 315A2245-7 or -8)
can be conclusively determined to be installed from that review.

    Note 1: For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is:
``An intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or
assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available
lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good
lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as
mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning
and elaborate procedures may be required.''

Replace the Aero/Fire Seals

    (g) For any aero/fire seal identified during the inspection/
records check in paragraph (f) of this AD as having an affected P/N:
Within 60 months or 8,200 flight cycles after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs first, replace the aero/fire seals of the
blocker doors on the thrust reverser torque boxes on the engines
with new, improved aero/fire seals in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 737-78-1074, Revision 1, dated September 15, 2005.

Credit for Actions Done Using Previous Service Information

    (h) Replacements done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-78-1074, dated April 7, 2005, are
acceptable for compliance with the requirements of paragraph (g) of
this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
ATTN: Samuel Spitzer, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-
140S, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
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.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 25, 2008.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-20341 Filed 9-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63932-63933]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26834]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84738; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2018-079]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Order
Granting Approval to a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment
No. 1, To Establish How the BZX Official Closing Price Would Be
Determined for BZX-Listed Securities

December 6, 2018.

I. Introduction

    On October 18, 2018, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend how the BZX Official Closing price would
be determined for BZX-listed securities that are not corporate
securities if the Exchange does not conduct a Closing Auction or if a
Closing Auction trade is less than a round lot.\3\ The proposed rule
change was published for comment in the Federal Register on November 5,
2018.\4\ The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This
order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No.
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ On October 29, 2018, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to
the proposed rule change to specify the date upon which the
Exchange's President (or designee) approved the proposed rule
change, pursuant to delegated authority.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84507 (October 30,
2018), 83 FR 55435 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal, as Modified by Amendment No. 1

    The Exchange proposes to amend BZX Rule 11.23(c)(2)(B) to change
how it would determine the BZX Official Closing Price \5\ for an
Exchange-listed security that is not a corporate security (``Derivative
Securities Product'') if the Exchange does not conduct a Closing
Auction or if a Closing Auction trade is less than a round lot. Current
Rule 11.23(c)(2)(B) provides that in the event that there is no Closing
Auction for a BZX-listed security, the BZX Official Closing Price will
be the price of the Final Last Sale Eligible Trade.\6\ The Exchange
proposes to amend this provision to provide that for Derivative
Securities Products only, in the event there is no Closing Auction, or
if less than a round lost was executed in the Closing Auction, the BZX
Official Closing Price will depend upon when the Final Last Sale
Eligible Trade in that security occurred.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See BZX Rule 11.23(a)(3) (defining the term ``BZX Official
Closing Price'' as the price disseminated to the consolidated tape
as the market center closing trade).
    \6\ As defined in BZX Rule 11.23(a)(9), the term ``Final Last
Sale Eligible Trade'' means the last trade occurring during Regular
Trading Hours on the Exchange if the trade was executed within the
last one second prior to either the Closing Auction or, for Halt
Auctions, trading in the security being halted. Where the trade was
not executed within the last one second, the last trade reported to
the consolidated tape received by BZX Exchange during Regular
Trading Hours and, where applicable, prior to trading in the
security being halted will be used. If there is no qualifying trade
for the current day, the BZX Official Closing Price from the
previous trading day will be used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, if the Final Last Sale Eligible Trade occurred within
the final five minutes before the end of Regular Trading Hours, the
Final Last Sale Eligible Trade will be the BZX Official Closing
Price.\7\ However, if such trade occurred prior to the last five
minutes before the end of Regular Trading Hours, the time-weighted
average price of the NBBO midpoint measured over the last five minutes
before the end of Regular Trading Hours will be the BZX Official
Closing Price.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See proposed BZX Rule 11.23(c)(2)(B)(ii)(a).
    \8\ See proposed BZX Rule 11.23(c)(2)(B)(ii)(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the BZX Official Closing Price cannot be determined under
proposed BZX Rule 11.23(c)(2)(B)(i) or (ii), the Final Last Sale
Eligible Trade will be the BZX Official Closing Price.\9\ If there is
no qualifying trade for the current day, the BZX Official Closing Price
from the previous trading day will be used.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See proposed BZX Rule 11.23(c)(2)(B)(iii).
    \10\ See BZX Rule 11.23(a)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange states that it will implement the proposed rule change
as soon as is practicable after the Commission's approval and will
announce the implementation date via Trade Desk Notice.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 55436.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as modified by
Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of
the Act \12\ and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a
national securities exchange.\13\ In particular, the Commission finds
that the proposed rule change is consistent with Sections 6(b)(5) the
Act,\14\ which requires, among other things, that the rules of a
national securities exchange be designed to

promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest, and not be designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers. The Commission also finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\15\ which requires that the
rules of a national securities exchange not impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \13\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rules' impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that the primary listing market's official
closing price for a security is relied upon by market participants for
a variety of reasons, including, but not limited to, calculation of
index values, calculation of the net asset value of mutual funds and
exchange-traded products, the price of derivatives that are based on
the security, and certain types of trading benchmarks such as volume
weighted average price strategies. For Derivatives Securities Products,
in circumstances where there is no Closing Auction, or the Closing
Auction trade consists of less than one round lot, the Exchange
proposes to utilize more recent firm quotations instead of less recent
trades, as such trades may provide less information about the current
value of a security. The Exchange asserts that by doing so, the BZX
Official Closing Price for such a Derivative Securities Product would
be more reflective of the true and current value of such security on
that trading day than otherwise would under the Exchange's current
rule, particularly for a Derivative Securities Product that is thinly
traded.\16\ The Commission therefore believes that the Exchange's
proposal is reasonably designed to achieve the Act's objectives to
protect investors and the public interest. Accordingly, the Commission
finds that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements
of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 55437.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\17\ that the proposed rule change (SR-CboeBZX-2018-079), as modified
by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-26834 Filed 12-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 31, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4713-4714]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2087]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0426; Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-7]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Red Cloud, NE

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace at Red
Cloud, NE. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) at Red Cloud Municipal Airport.
The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and management of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the airport.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of

Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2011-0426/Airspace Docket No. 11-
ACE-7, 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 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1<PHONE_NUMBER>), is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers 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-2011-0426/
Airspace Docket No. 11-ACE-7.'' 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.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface for new standard instrument approach
procedures at Red Cloud Municipal Airport, Red Cloud, NE. Controlled
airspace is needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at
the airport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011 and effective September 15, 2011, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would establish controlled airspace at Red Cloud Municipal
Airport, Red Cloud, NE.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

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

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ACE NE E5 Red Cloud, NE [New]

Red Cloud Municipal Airport, NE
    (Lat. 40[deg]04'56'' N., long. 98[deg]32'29'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.4-mile radius of Red Cloud Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on January 12, 2012.
Walter L. Tweedy,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2012-2087 Filed 1-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4901-13-P