Extension of the Requirement for Helicopters to Use the New York North Shore Helicopter Route, 48323-48327 [2016-17427]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 142 / Monday, July 25, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I
certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation
in Alaska to the extent that it justifies
making a regulatory distinction, 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.
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, under the authority
delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (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.
§ 39.13
[Amended]
2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by
removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2013–02–02, Amendment 39–17323 (78
FR 5712, January 28, 2013), (‘‘AD 2013–
02–02’’), and adding the following new
AD:
■
2016–14–10 CFM International, S.A.
Turbofan Engines Modified by
Supplemental Type Certificate
SE00034EN: Amendment 39–18591;
Docket No. FAA–2012–1289; Directorate
Identifier 2012–NE–43–AD.
(a) Effective Date
This AD is effective August 9, 2016.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
(b) Affected ADs
This AD supersedes AD 2013–02–02.
(c) Applicability
This AD applies to CFM International, S.A.
CFM56–3, CFM56–3B, and CFM56–3C
turbofan engines, modified by Supplemental
Type Certificate SE00034EN, with a highpressure turbine (HPT) disk, part number (P/
N) 880026, serial number (S/N)
GKLBAA9307, GKLBAA9335, GKLBAA9404,
GKLBAA9407, or GKLBAA9409, installed.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Jul 22, 2016
Jkt 238001
(d) Unsafe Condition
This AD was prompted by reports that
certain HPT disk serial numbers in AD 2013–
02–02 and in certain Pratt & Whitney service
information are incorrect. We are issuing this
AD to prevent uncontained release of
multiple turbine blades, damage to the
engine, and damage to the airplane.
(e) Compliance
Comply with this AD within the
compliance times specified, unless already
done.
(1) For CFM56–3, CFM56–3B, and CFM56–
3C turbofan engines operating to 20,100 lbs
maximum takeoff (MTO) thrust, remove the
HPT disk from service on or before
accumulating 8,000 cycles-since-new (CSN).
(2) For CFM56–3B and CFM56–3C turbofan
engines operating to 22,100 lbs MTO thrust,
remove the HPT disk from service on or
before accumulating 8,000 CSN.
(3) For CFM56–3C turbofan engines
operating to 23,500 lbs MTO thrust, remove
the HPT disk from service on or before
accumulating 4,000 CSN.
(4) For HPT disks that have been used in
multiple models or thrust installations, use
the formula in the ADDED DATA section of
Pratt & Whitney Special Instruction 6F–12,
Revision A, dated May 17, 2016 to calculate
the remaining life on the disk.
(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance
(AMOCs)
The Manager, Engine Certification Office,
FAA, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to
make your request. You may email your
request to: ANE-AD-AMOC@faa.gov.
(g) Related Information
For more information about this AD,
contact Kenneth Steeves, Aerospace
Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District
Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781–
238–7765; fax: 781–238–7199; email:
kenneth.steeves@faa.gov.
(h) Material Incorporated by Reference
(1) The Director of the Federal Register
approved the incorporation by reference
(IBR) of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR
part 51.
(2) You must use this service information
as applicable to do the actions required by
this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Pratt & Whitney Corp. Special
Instruction No. 6F–12, Revision A, dated
May 17, 2016.
(ii) Reserved.
(3) For Pratt & Whitney service information
identified in this AD, contact Pratt &
Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT
06108; phone: 860–565–7700; fax: 860–565–
1605.
(4) You may view this service information
at FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For
information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call 781–238–7125.
(5) You may view this service information
at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
48323
the availability of this material at NARA, call
202–741–6030, or go to: https://
www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibrlocations.html.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on
July 11, 2016.
Colleen M. D’Alessandro,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2016–17442 Filed 7–22–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 93
[Docket No.: FAA–2010–0302; Amdt. No.
93–99]
RIN 2120–AK84
Extension of the Requirement for
Helicopters to Use the New York North
Shore Helicopter Route
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This rulemaking amends the
expiration date of the final rule
requiring pilots operating civil
helicopters under Visual Flight Rules to
use the New York North Shore
Helicopter Route when operating along
that area of Long Island, New York. The
current rule expires on August 6, 2016.
The FAA finds it necessary to extend
the rule for an additional four years to
preserve the current operating
environment while the FAA conducts
ongoing helicopter research that will be
considered to determine appropriate
future actions.
DATES: This final rule is effective August
7, 2016, through August 6, 2020.
ADDRESSES: For information on where to
obtain copies of rulemaking documents
and other information related to this
final rule, see ‘‘How To Obtain
Additional Information’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical questions concerning this
action, contact Kenneth Ready, Airspace
and Rules Team, AJV–113, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202)
267–3396; email kenneth.ready@
faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA’s authority to issue rules on
aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
48324
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 142 / Monday, July 25, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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.
The FAA has broad authority and
responsibility to regulate the operation
of aircraft, the use of the navigable
airspace and to establish safety
standards for and regulate the
certification of airmen, aircraft, and air
carriers. (49 U.S.C. 40104 et seq.,
40103(b)). The FAA’s authority for this
rule is contained in 49 U.S.C. 40103 and
44715. Under section 40103, the
Administrator of the FAA has authority
to ‘‘prescribe air traffic regulations on
the flight of aircraft (including
regulations on safe altitudes) for . . . (B)
protecting individuals and property on
the ground. (49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(2)(B)).
In addition, section 44715(a), provides
that to ‘‘relieve and protect the public
health and welfare from aircraft noise,’’
the Administrator of the FAA, ‘‘as he
deems necessary, shall prescribe . . .
(ii) regulations to control and abate
aircraft noise . . .’’
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Good Cause for Immediate Adoption
Without Prior Notice
Section 553(d)(3) of the
Administrative Procedure Act requires
that agencies publish a rule not less
than 30 days before its effective date,
except as otherwise provided by the
agency for good cause found and
published with the rule. The current
rule expires on August 6, 2016. To
prevent confusion among pilots using
the route and avoid disruption of the
current operating environment, the FAA
finds that good cause exists to make this
rule effective in less than 30 days.
I. Background
In response to concerns from a large
number of local residents regarding
noise from helicopters operating over
Long Island, the FAA issued the New
York North Shore Helicopter Route final
rule (77 FR 39911, July 6, 2012). The
rule requires civil helicopter pilots
operating Visual Flight Rules (VFR),
whose route of flight takes them over
the north shore of Long Island between
the Visual Point Lloyd Harbor (VPLYD)
waypoint and Orient Point (VPOLT), to
use the North Shore Helicopter Route,
as published in the New York
Helicopter Chart (‘‘the Chart’’). The rule
was promulgated to maximize use of the
route, as published per the Chart, to
secure and improve upon decreased
levels of noise that had been voluntarily
achieved. Under the rule, pilots are
permitted to deviate from the route and
altitude requirements when necessary
for safety, weather conditions, or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Jul 22, 2016
Jkt 238001
transitioning to or from a destination or
point of landing. In addition, the rule is
based on a voluntary VFR route that was
developed by the FAA, working with
the Eastern Region Helicopter Council.
The voluntary route originally was
added to the Chart on May 8, 2008.
The rule originally had a two-year
duration and was set to terminate on
August 6, 2014. The FAA limited the
duration of the rule because, at the time
of promulgation, the FAA did not have
data on the current rate of compliance
with the voluntary route nor the
circumstances surrounding an
operator’s decision not to use the route.
The FAA concluded there would be no
reason to retain the rule if the FAA
determined the noise situation along the
North Shore of Long Island did not
improve. Accordingly, the Agency
decided that the rule would expire in
two years, if it was determined there is
no meaningful improvement in the
effects of helicopter noise on quality of
life or that the rule was otherwise
unjustified. Specifically, the FAA stated
that should there be such an
improvement, the FAA may, after
appropriate notice and opportunity for
comment, decide to make the rule
permanent. Likewise, should the FAA
determine that reasonable modification
could be made to the route to better
address noise concerns (and any other
relevant concerns), the FAA may choose
to modify the rule after notice and
comment.
On June 23, 2014, the FAA issued a
two-year extension of the rule’s
termination date to provide additional
time for the Agency to assess the rule’s
impact and consider whether to make
the mandatory use of the route
permanent (79 FR 35488). Since then,
the FAA has been engaged in a variety
of helicopter research initiatives that
could inform the Agency’s future
actions on this rule. Topics addressed
by these research efforts, described in
more detail below, include modeling of
helicopter performance and noise,
helicopter noise-abatement procedures,
and community response to helicopter
noise.
The FAA has initiated efforts to
improve helicopter performancemodeling capabilities for more accurate
operational impact analysis. This
research is scheduled to be completed
in 2016, with an implementation plan
for incorporation into the FAA’s
Aviation Environmental Design Tool
(AEDT).1 Also, through the National
Academies of Science, Engineering, and
Medicine Transportation Review Board
1 AEDT is the FAA’s tool for computing noise,
emissions and fuel burn.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(TRB), a research project was initiated
through the Airport Cooperative
Research Program (ACRP) to provide
helicopter noise-modeling guidance.
The project reviewed, evaluated, and
documented current helicopter noise
prediction models and identified
potential improvements to AEDT to
better capture the unique complexity of
helicopter operations. The research was
published in January 2016. The FAA is
currently reviewing the findings and
will consider making modeling
improvements in AEDT based on those
findings. Improved modeling will allow
better quantification of the noise
impacts of helicopter operations and
better inform decisions on measures to
abate helicopter-noise impacts.
The FAA’s Center of Excellence,
called the Aviation Sustainability
Center (ASCENT), has funded
Pennsylvania State University to
conduct modeling of helicopters to
identify potential noise-abatement
procedures that may result in quieter
operations. The first phase of this
project focuses on integrating the tools
needed to predict helicopter-source
noise and providing the necessary
integration within AEDT to be able to
illustrate potential noise impacts of
such noise abatement procedures. The
second phase of the project is focused
on developing noise-abatement
procedures for either individual
helicopters or classes of helicopters.
These phases of the research are
scheduled to be completed by August
2017. At that time, the FAA will need
to determine whether to initiate and
support flight tests during 2018, which
would be necessary prior to advancing
the use of the procedures with
helicopter operators.
The FAA is also engaged in research
and collaboration with helicopter
operators, seeking to educate pilots on
the benefits of noise-abatement
procedures, when to institute them, and
the piloting procedures for achieving
quieter operations. This project
addresses noted issues by developing a
strategy for pilot awareness of noiseabatement techniques, looking at ways
to illustrate the benefits through
modeling, and examining the potential
for video training on how to incorporate
noise-abatement procedures. This
research will utilize the findings of the
ASCENT project described above.
Finally, the FAA has two projects to
review methodologies to determine
community response to helicopter
operations. One project is administered
through the ACRP. The objectives of the
ACRP research project are to: (1)
Determine the significance of acoustical
and non-acoustical factors that
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 142 / Monday, July 25, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
influence community annoyance to
helicopter noise, (2) describe how these
factors compare to those contributing to
fixed-wing aircraft community
annoyance, and (3) develop and validate
a research method to relate helicopternoise exposure to surveyed community
annoyance. This project is two-thirds
complete, and ACRP expects the project
to be completed in late 2016. Further,
the FAA has initiated a second project
in an effort to test a different
methodology for gathering information
on community annoyance for residents
in the vicinity of helicopter operations.
The FAA has gathered data for this
project, and the analysis is underway.
The goal is to report on the methodology
in late 2016, and when completed, it
will provide an alternative method for
developing an annoyance survey for
helicopters.
Both of these projects provide an
opportunity for the FAA to compare
methodologies and determine the most
effective approach for conducting a
helicopter noise-annoyance survey. At
the completion of the projects, the FAA
intends to select the most effective,
survey methodology and determine if a
larger scale, community survey would
better inform the FAA on appropriate
methods to address concerns over
helicopter noise. The FAA will then
consider the need for a comprehensive
helicopter community annoyance
survey. While the research reaches
maturity by the end of 2017, applying
the research will take longer.
II. The Final Rule
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
This final rule extends for an
additional four years (i.e., to August 6,
2020) the requirement for pilots of civil
helicopters to use the North Shore
Helicopter Route when transiting along
the north shore of Long Island. The FAA
expects that four years will be sufficient
time to consider results of the described
research efforts in determining
appropriate future actions on the rule.
Extending the requirement to use the
North Shore Helicopter Route during
this period will continue to foster
maximum use of the North Shore
Helicopter Route and avoid disruption
of the current operating environment.
Therefore, the FAA finds that a fouryear extension of the current rule is
warranted.
III. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Regulatory Evaluation
Changes to Federal regulations must
undergo several economic analyses.
First, Executive Order 12866 and
Executive Order 13563 direct that each
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Jul 22, 2016
Jkt 238001
regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the
intended regulation justify its costs.
Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act
of 1980 (Pub. L. 96–354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic
impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements
Act (Pub. L. 96–39) prohibits agencies
from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, the Trade
Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis of
U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104–4) requires agencies to prepare a
written assessment of the costs, benefits,
and other effects of proposed or final
rules that include a Federal mandate
likely to result in the expenditure by
State, local, or tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100 million or more annually (adjusted
for inflation with base year of 1995).
This portion of the preamble
summarizes the FAA’s analysis of the
economic impacts of this final rule.
Department of Transportation Order
DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies and
procedures for simplification, analysis,
and review of regulations. If the
expected cost impact is so minimal that
a proposed or final rule does not
warrant a full evaluation, this order
permits that a statement to that effect
and the basis for it to be included in the
preamble if a full regulatory evaluation
of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for
this final rule. The reasoning for this
determination follows:
This final rule extends for an
additional four years (i.e., to August 6,
2020) the requirement for pilots of civil
helicopters to use the North Shore
Helicopter Route when transiting along
the north shore of Long Island.
Extending the current rule for four years
is expected to provide the FAA with
sufficient time to consider results of the
described research efforts in
determining appropriate future actions
on the rule. The FAA determined the
2012 final rule would impose minimal
costs because many of the existing
operators were already complying with
the final rule requirements. As this final
rule extends those requirements, the
FAA expects this final rule imposes
only minimal costs.
The FAA has, therefore, determined
that this final rule is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and is not
‘‘significant’’ as defined in DOT’s
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
48325
B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a
principle of regulatory issuance that
agencies shall endeavor, consistent with
the objectives of the rule and of
applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and
informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and
governmental jurisdictions subject to
regulation.’’ To achieve this principle,
agencies are required to solicit and
consider flexible regulatory proposals
and to explain the rationale for their
actions to assure that such proposals are
given serious consideration.’’ The RFA
covers a wide range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-forprofit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to
determine whether a rule will have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. If
the agency determines that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis as described in the
RFA. However, if an agency determines
that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that
the head of the agency may so certify
and a regulatory flexibility analysis is
not required. The certification must
include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and
the reasoning should be clear.
The FAA believes that this final rule
does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities for the following reasons. With
this final rule, the regulatory provisions
already in place will be extended four
years to provide the FAA with sufficient
time to consider results of the described
research efforts in determining
appropriate future actions on the rule.
The final regulatory flexibility analysis
for the 2012 final rule determined that
it had a minimal cost impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This final rule extends those
requirements. Thus, the FAA expects a
minimal economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, as provided in section
605(b), the head of the FAA certifies
that this rulemaking will not result in a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
C. International Trade Impact
Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979
(Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub.
L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
48326
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 142 / Monday, July 25, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
from establishing standards or engaging
in related activities that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign
commerce of the United States.
Pursuant to these Acts, the
establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to
the foreign commerce of the United
States, so long as the standard has a
legitimate domestic objective, such as
the protection of safety, and does not
operate in a manner that excludes
imports that meet this objective. The
statute also requires consideration of
international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for
U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed
the potential effect of this final rule and
determined that the rule will preserve
the current operating environment and
is not considered an unnecessary
obstacle to foreign commerce.
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4)
requires each Federal agency to prepare
a written statement assessing the effects
of any Federal mandate in a proposed or
final agency rule that may result in an
expenditure of $100 million or more (in
1995 dollars) in any one year by State,
local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector; such
a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant
regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155
million in lieu of $100 million. This
final rule does not contain such a
mandate; therefore, the requirements of
Title II of the Act do not apply.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the
FAA consider the impact of paperwork
and other information collection
burdens imposed on the public. The
FAA has determined that there is no
new requirement for information
collection associated with this final
rule.
F. International Compatibility and
Cooperation
In keeping with U.S. obligations
under the Convention on International
Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to
conform to International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the
maximum extent practicable. The FAA
has determined that there are no ICAO
Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these proposed
regulations.
Executive Order 13609, Promoting
International Regulatory Cooperation,
promotes international regulatory
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Jul 22, 2016
Jkt 238001
cooperation to meet shared challenges
involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues and to
reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements. The FAA has analyzed
this action under the policies and
agency responsibilities of Executive
Order 13609, and has determined that
this action would have no effect on
international regulatory cooperation.
G. Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1F, ‘‘Environmental
Impacts: Policies and Procedures,’’
identifies FAA actions that, in the
absence of extraordinary circumstances,
are categorically excluded from
requiring an environmental assessment
(EA) or environmental impact statement
(EIS) under the National Environmental
Policy Act. This rule qualifies for the
categorical exclusion in paragraph 5–
6.6.f of that Order, which includes
‘‘[r]egulations. . . excluding those that
if implemented may cause a significant
impact on the human environment.
There are no extraordinary
circumstances that warrant preparation
of an EA or EIS.
IV. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this final rule
under the principles and criteria of
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The
agency determined that this action will
not have a substantial direct effect on
the States, or the relationship between
the Federal Government and the States,
or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, and, therefore,
does not have Federalism implications.
B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
The FAA analyzed this final rule
under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The
agency has determined that it is not a
‘‘significant energy action’’ under the
executive order and it is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.
V. How To Obtain Additional
Information
A. Availability of Rulemaking
Documents
An electronic copy of rulemaking
documents may be obtained from the
Internet by—
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking
Portal (https://www.regulations.gov);
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and
Policies Web page at https://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
3. Accessing the Government Printing
Office’s Web page at https://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
Copies may also be obtained by
sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of
Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or
by calling (202) 267–9680. Commenters
must identify the docket or amendment
number of this rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in
developing this rulemaking action,
including economic analyses and
technical reports, may be accessed from
the Internet through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal referenced in item
(1) above.
B. Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with
small entity requests for information or
advice about compliance with statutes
and regulations within its jurisdiction.
A small entity with questions regarding
this document, may contact its local
FAA official, or the person listed under
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
heading at the beginning of the
preamble. To find out more about
SBREFA on the Internet, visit https://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/
rulemaking/sbre_act/.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 93
Air traffic control, Airspace,
Navigation (air).
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
amends chapter I of Title 14 of the Code
of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 93–SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC
RULES
1. The authority citation for part 93
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106,
40109, 40113, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44715,
44719, 46301.
■
2. Add § 93.101 to read as follows:
§ 93.101
Applicability.
This subpart prescribes a special air
traffic rule for civil helicopters
operating VFR along the North Shore,
Long Island, New York, between August
6, 2012, and August 6, 2020.
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 142 / Monday, July 25, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Issued under authority provided by 49
U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a), and 44703 in
Washington, DC, on July 15, 2016.
Michael P. Huerta,
Administrator.
II. Background Information and
Regulatory History
On May 6, 2016, we published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
entitled Drawbridge Operation
Regulation; Fox River, DePere to
Oshkosh, WI, in the Federal Register
(81 FR 27373). We did receive one
comment on this rule.
[FR Doc. 2016–17427 Filed 7–22–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 117
[Docket No. USCG–2016–0256]
RIN 1625–AA09
Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Fox
River, DePere to Oshkosh, WI
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Coast Guard is modifying
the operating schedule for all
drawbridges over the Fox River between
DePere, WI and Oshkosh, WI. This rule
will establish drawbridge schedules that
coincide with lock schedules during the
boating season and standard winter
drawbridge schedules.
DATES: This rule is effective August 24,
2016.
ADDRESSES: To view documents
mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://
www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2016–
0256. In the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click
‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket
Folder on the line associated with this
rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If
you have questions on this rule, call or
email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge
Management Specialist, Ninth Coast
Guard District; telephone 216–902–
6085, email Lee.D.Soule@uscg.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
I. Table of Abbreviations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive Order
FR Federal Register
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
SNPRM Supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
§ Section
U.S.C. United States Code
WIS–DOT Wisconsin Department of
Transportation
FRNSA Fox River Navigational System
Authority
CN–RR Canadian National Railroad
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Jul 22, 2016
Jkt 238001
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule
under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
Currently, the regulation for Fox River
drawbridges (33 CFR 117.1087) includes
the opening schedule for drawbridges in
Green Bay, WI, where large commercial
vessel traffic continues to transit. This
rule does not include any changes to the
schedules for drawbridges over the
commercial ship channel in Green Bay.
The sections of the current regulation
that includes all other drawbridges
between river mile 7.13 in DePere, WI
at the DePere Pedestrian bridge, to river
mile 58.3 in Oshkosh, WI, describe
inconsistent dates and times for
required drawbridge openings,
particularly for the four highway
drawbridges in Oshkosh. They also
include reference to the George Street
bridge at mile 7.27. The George Street
bridge has been removed in the past 15
years. In the current regulation, the
Oshkosh drawbridges contain
exemptions during certain dates and
times where the drawbridges are not
required to open for vessels or vessels
must provide advance notice prior to
passing during nighttime hours.
This rule establishes the requirement
for all drawbridges, except the Canadian
National Railroad (CN–RR) bridge at
mile 55.72 in Oshkosh, to open on
signal between the hours of 8 a.m. and
midnight each day from April 27 to
October 7 every year. This schedule will
match the lock schedule established by
FRNSA and drawbridge schedules used
by WIS–DOT. Between the hours of
midnight and 8 a.m., except for the CN–
RR bridge in Oshkosh, all drawbridges
would open for vessels if at least 2hours advance notice of arrival is
provided.
The CN–RR bridge at mile 55.72 in
Oshkosh is located where Fox River
feeds into the southwest section of Lake
Winnebago. The portion of Fox River in
the Oshkosh area, and Lake Winnebago,
are among the busiest portions of the
Fox River System for recreational vessel
traffic. The CN–RR bridge provides 6
feet of vertical clearance in the closed
position and prevents most vessels from
passing under the bridge, thereby
requiring the drawbridge to open
regularly for vessels. This is also the
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
48327
location of first responders and public
safety vessels that may require the
bridge to open at any time to perform
rescue or emergency operations on Lake
Winnebago. Vessels in distress or
seeking shelter from weather on Lake
Winnebago may also need the CN–RR
bridge to open at any time. A delay in
bridge openings at this location may
endanger life or property and is
therefore exempted from the proposed
2-hour advance notice requirement from
vessels for all other drawbridges
between midnight and 8 a.m.
All drawbridges would be required to
open if at least 12-hours advance notice
is provided prior to passing between
October 8 and April 26 each year.
This rule removes the George Street
bridge from the regulation, establishes
consistent annual dates for drawbridge
schedules between river miles 7.13 and
58.3, eliminates currently exempted
bridge opening times during certain
days and times in Oshkosh, makes
permanent the requirement for vessels
to provide 2-hours advance notice
between midnight and 8 a.m., and
establishes the winter bridge operating
schedules throughout the entire river
system.
The dates, times, and conditions have
been employed by local authorities for
approximately 10 years and are
generally accepted by vessel operators
in the area as established conditions.
The dates, times, and conditions have
also been reviewed and accepted by
WIS–DOT and FRNSA during the
development of this rule.
IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes
and the Final Rule
The Coast Guard provided a comment
period of 45 days and received one
comment. Canadian National Railway
Company (CN–RR) wished to clarify for
the record that the bridge described in
the NPRM as the ‘‘CN–RR bridge at Mile
55.72 over Fox River in Oshkosh, WI’’
should reflect Wisconsin Central Ltd. as
the entity holding common carrier
responsibilities at this location. The
Coast Guard recognizes that Wisconsin
Central, Ltd. is owned by CN–RR, but
for consistency in describing bridge
owners throughout the Fox River system
in official publications, and since the
bridges are locally known and referred
to as ‘‘Canadian National’’ bridges, we
will continue to describe the railroad
drawbridge at Mile 55.72 in Oshkosh as
the CN–RR bridge.
Additionally, CN–RR commented on
the disparity of proposed bridge
operations between nearby highway
bridges and the CN–RR bridge at Mile
55.72 in Oshkosh, WI. The NPRM
excluded the CN–RR bridge at Mile
E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM
25JYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 142 (Monday, July 25, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48323-48327]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17427]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 93
[Docket No.: FAA-2010-0302; Amdt. No. 93-99]
RIN 2120-AK84
Extension of the Requirement for Helicopters to Use the New York
North Shore Helicopter Route
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rulemaking amends the expiration date of the final rule
requiring pilots operating civil helicopters under Visual Flight Rules
to use the New York North Shore Helicopter Route when operating along
that area of Long Island, New York. The current rule expires on August
6, 2016. The FAA finds it necessary to extend the rule for an
additional four years to preserve the current operating environment
while the FAA conducts ongoing helicopter research that will be
considered to determine appropriate future actions.
DATES: This final rule is effective August 7, 2016, through August 6,
2020.
ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking
documents and other information related to this final rule, see ``How
To Obtain Additional Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Kenneth Ready, Airspace and Rules Team, AJV-113,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3396; email
kenneth.ready@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority for This Rulemaking
The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the
[[Page 48324]]
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.
The FAA has broad authority and responsibility to regulate the
operation of aircraft, the use of the navigable airspace and to
establish safety standards for and regulate the certification of
airmen, aircraft, and air carriers. (49 U.S.C. 40104 et seq.,
40103(b)). The FAA's authority for this rule is contained in 49 U.S.C.
40103 and 44715. Under section 40103, the Administrator of the FAA has
authority to ``prescribe air traffic regulations on the flight of
aircraft (including regulations on safe altitudes) for . . . (B)
protecting individuals and property on the ground. (49 U.S.C.
40103(b)(2)(B)). In addition, section 44715(a), provides that to
``relieve and protect the public health and welfare from aircraft
noise,'' the Administrator of the FAA, ``as he deems necessary, shall
prescribe . . . (ii) regulations to control and abate aircraft noise .
. .''
Good Cause for Immediate Adoption Without Prior Notice
Section 553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act requires that
agencies publish a rule not less than 30 days before its effective
date, except as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found
and published with the rule. The current rule expires on August 6,
2016. To prevent confusion among pilots using the route and avoid
disruption of the current operating environment, the FAA finds that
good cause exists to make this rule effective in less than 30 days.
I. Background
In response to concerns from a large number of local residents
regarding noise from helicopters operating over Long Island, the FAA
issued the New York North Shore Helicopter Route final rule (77 FR
39911, July 6, 2012). The rule requires civil helicopter pilots
operating Visual Flight Rules (VFR), whose route of flight takes them
over the north shore of Long Island between the Visual Point Lloyd
Harbor (VPLYD) waypoint and Orient Point (VPOLT), to use the North
Shore Helicopter Route, as published in the New York Helicopter Chart
(``the Chart''). The rule was promulgated to maximize use of the route,
as published per the Chart, to secure and improve upon decreased levels
of noise that had been voluntarily achieved. Under the rule, pilots are
permitted to deviate from the route and altitude requirements when
necessary for safety, weather conditions, or transitioning to or from a
destination or point of landing. In addition, the rule is based on a
voluntary VFR route that was developed by the FAA, working with the
Eastern Region Helicopter Council. The voluntary route originally was
added to the Chart on May 8, 2008.
The rule originally had a two-year duration and was set to
terminate on August 6, 2014. The FAA limited the duration of the rule
because, at the time of promulgation, the FAA did not have data on the
current rate of compliance with the voluntary route nor the
circumstances surrounding an operator's decision not to use the route.
The FAA concluded there would be no reason to retain the rule if the
FAA determined the noise situation along the North Shore of Long Island
did not improve. Accordingly, the Agency decided that the rule would
expire in two years, if it was determined there is no meaningful
improvement in the effects of helicopter noise on quality of life or
that the rule was otherwise unjustified. Specifically, the FAA stated
that should there be such an improvement, the FAA may, after
appropriate notice and opportunity for comment, decide to make the rule
permanent. Likewise, should the FAA determine that reasonable
modification could be made to the route to better address noise
concerns (and any other relevant concerns), the FAA may choose to
modify the rule after notice and comment.
On June 23, 2014, the FAA issued a two-year extension of the rule's
termination date to provide additional time for the Agency to assess
the rule's impact and consider whether to make the mandatory use of the
route permanent (79 FR 35488). Since then, the FAA has been engaged in
a variety of helicopter research initiatives that could inform the
Agency's future actions on this rule. Topics addressed by these
research efforts, described in more detail below, include modeling of
helicopter performance and noise, helicopter noise-abatement
procedures, and community response to helicopter noise.
The FAA has initiated efforts to improve helicopter performance-
modeling capabilities for more accurate operational impact analysis.
This research is scheduled to be completed in 2016, with an
implementation plan for incorporation into the FAA's Aviation
Environmental Design Tool (AEDT).\1\ Also, through the National
Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine Transportation Review
Board (TRB), a research project was initiated through the Airport
Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) to provide helicopter noise-
modeling guidance. The project reviewed, evaluated, and documented
current helicopter noise prediction models and identified potential
improvements to AEDT to better capture the unique complexity of
helicopter operations. The research was published in January 2016. The
FAA is currently reviewing the findings and will consider making
modeling improvements in AEDT based on those findings. Improved
modeling will allow better quantification of the noise impacts of
helicopter operations and better inform decisions on measures to abate
helicopter-noise impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ AEDT is the FAA's tool for computing noise, emissions and
fuel burn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAA's Center of Excellence, called the Aviation Sustainability
Center (ASCENT), has funded Pennsylvania State University to conduct
modeling of helicopters to identify potential noise-abatement
procedures that may result in quieter operations. The first phase of
this project focuses on integrating the tools needed to predict
helicopter-source noise and providing the necessary integration within
AEDT to be able to illustrate potential noise impacts of such noise
abatement procedures. The second phase of the project is focused on
developing noise-abatement procedures for either individual helicopters
or classes of helicopters. These phases of the research are scheduled
to be completed by August 2017. At that time, the FAA will need to
determine whether to initiate and support flight tests during 2018,
which would be necessary prior to advancing the use of the procedures
with helicopter operators.
The FAA is also engaged in research and collaboration with
helicopter operators, seeking to educate pilots on the benefits of
noise-abatement procedures, when to institute them, and the piloting
procedures for achieving quieter operations. This project addresses
noted issues by developing a strategy for pilot awareness of noise-
abatement techniques, looking at ways to illustrate the benefits
through modeling, and examining the potential for video training on how
to incorporate noise-abatement procedures. This research will utilize
the findings of the ASCENT project described above.
Finally, the FAA has two projects to review methodologies to
determine community response to helicopter operations. One project is
administered through the ACRP. The objectives of the ACRP research
project are to: (1) Determine the significance of acoustical and non-
acoustical factors that
[[Page 48325]]
influence community annoyance to helicopter noise, (2) describe how
these factors compare to those contributing to fixed-wing aircraft
community annoyance, and (3) develop and validate a research method to
relate helicopter-noise exposure to surveyed community annoyance. This
project is two-thirds complete, and ACRP expects the project to be
completed in late 2016. Further, the FAA has initiated a second project
in an effort to test a different methodology for gathering information
on community annoyance for residents in the vicinity of helicopter
operations. The FAA has gathered data for this project, and the
analysis is underway. The goal is to report on the methodology in late
2016, and when completed, it will provide an alternative method for
developing an annoyance survey for helicopters.
Both of these projects provide an opportunity for the FAA to
compare methodologies and determine the most effective approach for
conducting a helicopter noise-annoyance survey. At the completion of
the projects, the FAA intends to select the most effective, survey
methodology and determine if a larger scale, community survey would
better inform the FAA on appropriate methods to address concerns over
helicopter noise. The FAA will then consider the need for a
comprehensive helicopter community annoyance survey. While the research
reaches maturity by the end of 2017, applying the research will take
longer.
II. The Final Rule
This final rule extends for an additional four years (i.e., to
August 6, 2020) the requirement for pilots of civil helicopters to use
the North Shore Helicopter Route when transiting along the north shore
of Long Island. The FAA expects that four years will be sufficient time
to consider results of the described research efforts in determining
appropriate future actions on the rule. Extending the requirement to
use the North Shore Helicopter Route during this period will continue
to foster maximum use of the North Shore Helicopter Route and avoid
disruption of the current operating environment. Therefore, the FAA
finds that a four-year extension of the current rule is warranted.
III. Regulatory Notices and Analyses
A. Regulatory Evaluation
Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's
analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.
Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it to be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning
for this determination follows:
This final rule extends for an additional four years (i.e., to
August 6, 2020) the requirement for pilots of civil helicopters to use
the North Shore Helicopter Route when transiting along the north shore
of Long Island. Extending the current rule for four years is expected
to provide the FAA with sufficient time to consider results of the
described research efforts in determining appropriate future actions on
the rule. The FAA determined the 2012 final rule would impose minimal
costs because many of the existing operators were already complying
with the final rule requirements. As this final rule extends those
requirements, the FAA expects this final rule imposes only minimal
costs.
The FAA has, therefore, determined that this final rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation.'' To achieve this principle, agencies are
required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to
explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals
are given serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide range of small
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
The FAA believes that this final rule does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the
following reasons. With this final rule, the regulatory provisions
already in place will be extended four years to provide the FAA with
sufficient time to consider results of the described research efforts
in determining appropriate future actions on the rule. The final
regulatory flexibility analysis for the 2012 final rule determined that
it had a minimal cost impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule extends those requirements. Thus, the FAA expects a
minimal economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA
certifies that this rulemaking will not result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
C. International Trade Impact Assessment
The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies
[[Page 48326]]
from establishing standards or engaging in related activities that
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this final rule and determined that
the rule will preserve the current operating environment and is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to foreign commerce.
D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100
million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there is no new requirement for information collection associated with
this final rule.
F. International Compatibility and Cooperation
In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these proposed regulations.
Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has
analyzed this action under the policies and agency responsibilities of
Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this action would have
no effect on international regulatory cooperation.
G. Environmental Analysis
FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' identifies FAA actions that, in the absence of
extraordinary circumstances, are categorically excluded from requiring
an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement
(EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act. This rule qualifies
for the categorical exclusion in paragraph 5-6.6.f of that Order, which
includes ``[r]egulations. . . excluding those that if implemented may
cause a significant impact on the human environment. There are no
extraordinary circumstances that warrant preparation of an EA or EIS.
IV. Executive Order Determinations
A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined
that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have Federalism
implications.
B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
is not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order and it
is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
V. How To Obtain Additional Information
A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents
An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
Internet by--
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (https://www.regulations.gov);
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.
Commenters must identify the docket or amendment number of this
rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this rulemaking
action, including economic analyses and technical reports, may be
accessed from the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
referenced in item (1) above.
B. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this document,
may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed under the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of the preamble.
To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 93
Air traffic control, Airspace, Navigation (air).
The Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends chapter I of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:
PART 93-SPECIAL AIR TRAFFIC RULES
0
1. The authority citation for part 93 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40109, 40113, 44502,
44514, 44701, 44715, 44719, 46301.
0
2. Add Sec. 93.101 to read as follows:
Sec. 93.101 Applicability.
This subpart prescribes a special air traffic rule for civil
helicopters operating VFR along the North Shore, Long Island, New York,
between August 6, 2012, and August 6, 2020.
[[Page 48327]]
Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a),
and 44703 in Washington, DC, on July 15, 2016.
Michael P. Huerta,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-17427 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P