9538 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

requirements and duplication by 

industry and public sector agencies. 

The AMS is committed to complying 

with the E-Government Act, to promote 

the use of the Internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

USDA has not identified any relevant 

Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or 

conflict with this rule. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

AMSv1.0/ams.fetchTemplateData.do?

template=TemplateN&page=

MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. 

Any questions about the compliance 

guide should be sent to Antoinette 

Carter at the previously mentioned 

address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

A 30-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposed rule. Thirty days is 

deemed appropriate because: (1) The 

2010 fiscal year began on January 1, 

2010, and the marketing order requires 

that the rate of assessment for each 

fiscal year apply to all assessable olives 

handled during such fiscal year; (2) the 

Committee needs sufficient funds to pay 

its expenses, which are incurred on a 

continuous basis; and (3) handlers are 

aware of this action, which was 

discussed by the Committee and 

unanimously recommended at a public 

meeting, and is similar to other 

assessment rate actions issued in past 

years. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 932 

Olives, Marketing agreements, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 932 is proposed to 

be amended as follows: 

PART 932—OLIVES GROWN IN 

CALIFORNIA 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 932 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

2. Section 932.230 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 932.230 Assessment rate. 

On and after January 1, 2010, an 

assessment rate of $44.72 per ton is 

established for California olives. 

Dated: February 25, 2010. 

David R. Shipman, 

Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4338 Filed 3–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No Docket No. FAA–2010–0049; 

Airspace Docket No. 08–AWA–1] 

RIN 2120–AA66 

Proposed Modification of Class B 

Airspace; Charlotte, NC 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

modify the Charlotte, NC, Class B 

airspace area to ensure the containment 

of aircraft, accommodate the 

implementation of area navigation 

(RNAV) departure procedures, and to 

support operations of the third parallel 

runway planned for commissioning in 

early 2010. The FAA is proposing this 

action to improve the flow of air traffic, 

enhance safety, and reduce the potential 

for midair collision in the Charlotte 

terminal area. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 3, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this 

proposal to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West 

Building Ground Floor, RoomW12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001; telephone: 

(202) 366–9826. You must identify FAA 

Docket No. FAA–2010–0049 and 

Airspace Docket No. 08–AWA–1, at the 

beginning of your comments. You may 

also submit comments through the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Gallant, Airspace and Rules Group, 

Office of System Operations Airspace 

and AIM, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; 

telephone: (202) 267–8783. 

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 (FAA Docket No. FAA– 

2010–0049 and Airspace Docket No. 08– 

AWA–1) and be submitted in triplicate 

to the Docket Management Facility (see 

ADDRESSES section for address and 

phone number). You may also submit 

comments through the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

Commenters wishing the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their comments 

on this action must submit with those 

comments a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to 

Docket Nos. FAA–2010–0049 and 

Airspace Docket No.08–AWA–1.’’ The 

postcard will be date/time stamped and 

returned to the commenter. 

All communications received on or 

before the specified closing date for 

comments will be considered before 

taking action on the proposed rule. The 

proposal contained in this action may 

be changed in light of comments 

received. All comments submitted will 

be available for examination in the 

public docket both before and after the 

closing date for comments. A report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerned 

with this rulemaking will be filed in the 

docket. 

Availability of NPRM’s 

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/regulations_policies/ 

rulemaking/recently_published/. 

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 

Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Room 210, 1701 

Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337. 

Persons interested in being placed on 

a mailing list for future NPRMs should 

contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking, 

(202) 267–9677, for a copy of Advisory 

Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of Proposed 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 9539 

Rulemaking Distribution System, which 

describes the application procedure. 

Background 

In 1989, the FAA issued a final rule 

which established the Charlotte, NC, 

Terminal Control Area (TCA) to replace 

the Charlotte Airport Radar Service Area 

(ARSA) (54 FR 32604). As a result of the 

Airspace Reclassification Final Rule (56 

FR 65638), which became effective in 

1993, the terms ‘‘terminal control area’’ 

and ‘‘airport radar service area’’ were 

replaced by ‘‘Class B airspace area,’’ and 

‘‘Class C airspace area,’’ respectively. 

The primary purpose of a Class B 

airspace area is to reduce the potential 

for midair collisions in the airspace 

surrounding airports with high density 

air traffic operations by providing an 

area in which all aircraft are subject to 

certain operating rules and equipment 

requirements. 

The Charlotte Class B airspace area 

was last modified in 1995 (60 FR 

26594). Only minor changes were made 

at that time. Since that modification, the 

Charlotte/Douglas International Airport 

(CLT) has experienced significant 

growth in operations. For calendar year 

2008, CLT was ranked number 8 in the 

list of the ‘‘50 Busiest FAA Airport 

Traffic Control Towers’’ and number 14 

in the list of the ‘‘50 Busiest Radar 

Approach Control Facilities.’’ Calendar 

year 2008 passenger enplanement data 

list Charlotte as number 13 among 

Commercial Service Airports. 

Enplanements at CLT in 2008 grew just 

over four percent compared to calendar 

year 2007 figures. 

Several factors point to a need to 

modify the Charlotte Class B airspace 

area. Experience has shown that, with 

the current Class B airspace 

configuration, aircraft routinely enter, 

exit, and then reenter Class B while 

flying published instrument approach 

procedures, contrary to FAA directives. 

Modeling of projected traffic flows 

shows that future traffic also would not 

be fully contained within the existing 

Class B airspace structure. In addition, 

expanded Class B airspace will be 

needed to accommodate operations of a 

third parallel runway (36L/18R) now 

under construction and planned for 

commissioning in early 2010. The 

proposed Class B airspace modifications 

described in this NPRM are intended to 

address these issues. 

Pre-NPRM Public Input 

In February 2008, an ad hoc 

committee was formed to develop 

recommendations for the FAA to 

consider in designing a proposed 

modification of the Charlotte/Douglas 

International Airport Class B airspace 

area. The ad hoc committee membership 

consisted of representatives from the 

North Carolina Department of 

Transportation, Division of Aviation; 

South Carolina Department of 

Commerce, Division of Aeronautics; 

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 

(AOPA); and representatives of the 

following airports: Concord Regional, 

NC (JQF); Lincolnton-Lincoln County 

Regional, NC (IPJ); Monroe Regional, NC 

(EQY); Wilgrove Airpark, NC (8A6): 

Chester-Catawba Regional, SC (DCM); 

Lancaster County-McWhirter Field, SC 

(LKR); and Rock Hill (York County) 

Airport-Bryant Field, SC (UZA). 

On October 7, 2008, a meeting was 

held in Charlotte to discuss parachute 

operations at Chester-Catawba Regional 

Airport (DCM). Attending the meeting 

were representatives of the FAA, the ad 

hoc committee, South Carolina 

Department of Transportation, and 

Skydive Carolina. 

As announced in the Federal Register 

(73 FR 63407), informal airspace 

meetings were held on January 7, 2009, 

at the Concord Regional Airport, 

Concord, NC; and on January 8, 2009, at 

the Rock Hill (York County) AirportBryant Field, Rock Hill, SC. The 

purpose of the meetings was to provide 

interested airspace users an opportunity 

to present their views and offer 

suggestions regarding planned 

modifications to the Charlotte Class B 

airspace area. 

Discussion of Recommendations and 

Comments 

Ad hoc Committee Recommendations 

The ad hoc committee recommended 

that the radius of the Class B 1,800 foot 

floor area (Area B) be kept at 11 nautical 

miles (NM) from the point where it 

intersects I–77 clockwise around to the 

cutout for Gastonia Airport instead of 

the proposed expansion to a full 14 NM 

radius. The FAA adopted this 

recommendation. The expansion of 

Area B to a 14 NM radius will be limited 

to an area north of CLT from a point 

where the 14 NM arc intersects Highway 

321 then clockwise to intersect the 

Charlotte VOR/DME 029° (M) radial. 

Three ad hoc committee 

recommendations were not adopted. 

These recommendations were: (1) A 

cutout over the Chester-Catawba 

Regional Airport (DCM); (2) a cutout 

over the Lancaster County-McWhirter 

Field (LKR); and (3) that the floor of 

Class B airspace over LincolntonLincoln County Regional Airport (IPJ) be 

raised from the current 4,600 feet to 

6,000 feet. The request for a cut-out over 

DCM was not adopted because a large 

number of turbine powered aircraft 

arriving at CLT via the UNARM ONE 

and ADENA TWO Standard Terminal 

Arrival Routes (STAR) overfly DCM 

enroute to the runways 36L and 36R 

final approach courses. This path makes 

up the base leg when CLT is on a north 

operation. The request for a cutout over 

LKR was not adopted because the base 

leg for arrivals from the southeast on the 

CHESTERFIELD THREE or HUSTN ONE 

STARs overflies LKR. Arriving aircraft 

in this area need to be descended to 

4,000 feet in order to be vertically 

separated from aircraft approaching the 

final approach course from the west at 

5,000 feet. Since the proposed Class B 

floor over LKR is 4,000 feet, aircraft will 

still be able to transition into and out of 

LKR without entering Class B airspace 

if they so desire. The recommendation 

to raise the floor of Class B airspace over 

Lincolnton-Lincoln County Regional 

Airport (IPJ) from the current 4,600 feet 

to 6,000 feet was also not adopted. 

Initially, the FAA considered lowering 

the floor of Class B airspace in that area 

from 4,600 feet to 3,600 feet. However, 

after further review, it was determined 

that lowering the floor from 4,600 feet 

to 4,000 feet (instead of 3,600 feet) 

would be sufficient to protect aircraft 

that are transitioning from the west to 

runway 18L at the initial approach fix 

altitude of 4,000 feet mean sea level 

(MSL). 

Informal Airspace Meeting Comments 

Comment: The cutout surrounding the 

Gastonia Municipal Airport (AKH) 

should be changed from a ‘‘C’’ shape to 

a more open shape. This would help 

prevent pilots from ‘‘clipping’’ the edges 

of the cutout when operating to or from 

AKH. 

Response: The FAA agrees and 

proposes a modified cutout. Opening 

the width of the cutout should reduce 

the chances of inadvertent Class B 

incursions. 

Comment: The ‘‘new’’ Highway 321 

should be used as the source for the 

north-south boundary that lies west of 

AKH. The new Highway 321 is easier to 

distinguish from the air. 

Response: The FAA agrees and will 

use ‘‘new’’ Highway 321 to define the 

boundary as suggested. 

Comment: The diagonal line that 

originates west of AKH and extends 

southwesterly should be adjusted to 

follow the power lines depicted on the 

Charlotte Terminal Area Chart that 

roughly coincide with the line. This will 

give pilots a good visual reference to 

use. 

Response: Adjusting the line to 

coincide with the power lines will still 

contain runway 5 traffic within Class B 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
9540 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

airspace, therefore, the FAA concurs 

with this comment. 

Comment: The short line in the northnorthwest section of the proposed Class 

B airspace (north of Lincolnton-Lincoln 

County Regional Airport) should be 

extended to the proposed outer limit of 

the Class B airspace area to simplify the 

airspace for pilots. 

Response: The FAA is unable to adopt 

this suggestion. The proposed line 

terminates prior to the Class B outer 

limit due to the Charlotte ATCT/Atlanta 

Center airspace boundary. At the 

altitudes involved, extending the line as 

suggested would place part of the Class 

B area in Atlanta Center’s airspace. 

Comment: The slides shown during 

the [informal airspace meeting] 

presentation did not show aircraft 

overflying the Lancaster County, SC 

airport. Therefore, the proposed design 

should not include the airspace over 

that airport. 

Response: Under current procedures, 

it is uncommon for arriving traffic to 

overfly the Lancaster Airport. However, 

once the new runway is operational at 

CLT, the Instrument Landing System 

(ILS) initial approach fixes for all 

runways will be located further from 

CLT in order to accommodate the 8,000 

foot turn on altitude for runway 36C/ 

18C. Therefore, it is anticipated that 

traffic will overfly the Lancaster Airport 

at 8,000 feet enroute to runway 36C. 

Additionally, traffic assigned to runway 

36R will be descended to 4,000 feet, and 

will have to be vectored over the 

Lancaster Airport to join the runway 

36R final approach course. As a result, 

the floor of the Class B airspace in this 

area is proposed to be established at 

4,000 feet. In addition, modeling of 

anticipated aircraft operations indicate 

that the area between the 25 mile and 

30 mile rings of the proposed Class B 

airspace may be needed for vectoring 

and sequencing traffic assigned both 

runways 36C and 36R. During certain 

operations, particularly the north triple 

ILS operation, aircraft would overfly the 

Lancaster Airport while enroute to CLT. 

For those reasons, the FAA did not 

adopt this suggestion. 

Comment: The floor of the proposed 

Class B airspace at the northern 

boundary should be set at 6,000 feet 

instead of 4,000 feet. The concern is that 

lowering the floor to 4,000 feet in this 

area would negatively impact IFR 

operations at the Statesville Regional 

Airport, NC (SVH). 

Response: The floor was proposed at 

4,000 feet in this area because the initial 

approach altitude for traffic assigned 

runway 18L from both the west and the 

east is 4,000 feet. IFR operations at SVH 

are not affected by the Class B airspace 

boundaries. SVH IFR operations are and 

will remain under the jurisdiction of 

Atlanta Center. The airport will not be 

placed within or under the Class B 

airspace area by the proposed 

modifications. The distance between 

SVH and the proposed outer limit of the 

Class B airspace will decrease, however, 

from 9.1 miles to 4.4 miles which will 

allow room for VFR operations at the 

airport as well. Therefore, the FAA did 

not concur with this comment. 

Comment: AOPA suggested that 

arrival routes be modified to allow 

aircraft to remain at a higher altitude 

and descend at a constant rate; that 

arrival routes be redesigned to avoid 

areas that would impact aviation 

businesses that rely on airspace 

availability; and that the FAA should 

modify procedures so that aircraft do 

not enter, exit, and then reenter the 

class B airspace. Additionally, AOPA 

said that the FAA should reduce the 

ceiling of the Charlotte Class B airspace 

from 10,000 feet to 8,500 feet. 

Response: Modifying arrival routes to 

allow arriving aircraft to remain at 

higher altitudes and descend at a 

constant rate would create a confliction 

with other traffic. Specifically, arriving 

aircraft must be descended so that 

departures can be climbed above this 

traffic. If arriving aircraft are not 

descended as they are now, then 

departures would have to be held down 

below 10,000 feet for an extended 

period of time. This creates conflictions 

between departure aircraft and arrival 

aircraft and does not allow departures to 

vertically exit the ceiling of class B 

airspace. The Standard Terminal Arrival 

Routes (STARs) at Charlotte have been 

in place for over 20 years. The design 

of these routes is based on other airport 

locations, airspace design, and traffic 

flows in the entire southeastern U.S. 

Changing these routes would have a 

major impact on arrival routes (and 

departure and overflight routes) to and 

from the Atlanta Airport, as well as 

other airports in the southeast. The 

proposed Class B modifications are 

intended, in part, to reduce the potential 

for IFR aircraft to enter, exit and then 

reenter the Charlotte Class B airspace 

area. Modifying facility procedures to 

keep aircraft within the current class B 

airspace boundaries would create 

bottlenecks and ‘‘choke points’’ and 

would reduce arrival capacity. 

Extensive vectoring would also be 

required, leading to increased controller 

workload, increased flying mileage, and 

added frequency congestion. The FAA 

is not aware of data that supports 

lowering the Charlotte Class B airspace 

ceiling to 8,500 feet. 

Comment: Skydive Carolina 

expressed concerns about the impact 

that the proposed expansion of Class B 

airspace to overlie the Chester-Catawba 

Regional airport (DCM) might have on 

its parachute jump activities, safety and 

on the future growth and expansion of 

its operations at DCM. Skydive Carolina 

also expressed concern that the heavy 

traffic projected in the future would 

increase the probability of ‘‘go arounds’’ 

wherein the jump aircraft is instructed 

by ATC to withhold jumpers due to 

traffic, fly beyond the drop point and 

then restart the pattern to let jumpers 

out. Skydive Carolina indicated that this 

maneuver would result in greater fuel 

consumption, more airframe time on the 

aircraft and longer time at jump altitude 

(i.e., 13,500 feet MSL) for jumpers that 

are not equipped with supplemental 

oxygen. 

Response: Although DCM now lies 

outside the boundary of Class B 

airspace, arrivals currently overfly DCM 

when CLT is on a north operation. 

Modeling of various traffic scenarios 

indicates that this situation will 

continue to exist after the third parallel 

runway is opened. Designing a ‘‘cutout’’ 

to exclude the area around DCM from 

the Class B airspace would require 

controllers to employ extensive 

vectoring to avoid the airspace over 

DCM. This would lead to increased 

controller workload, frequency 

congestion and decreased system 

efficiency. Regarding the concerns about 

‘‘go arounds,’’ even though Skydive 

Carolina does not currently operate in 

Class B airspace, there are still instances 

in which pilots are instructed to 

withhold the release of jumpers due to 

traffic. It is anticipated that these 

instances would not significantly 

increase if the skydive area is placed 

within Class B airspace. The FAA 

believes that the inclusion of the area 

above DCM in Class B airspace can be 

mitigated and parachute operations can 

be accommodated through a Letter of 

Agreement (LOA) between Charlotte 

Airport Traffic Control Tower and 

Skydive Carolina. LOAs have been used 

successfully to accommodate parachute 

activities at other Class B airspace 

locations. 

The Proposal 

The FAA is proposing an amendment 

to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations 

(14 CFR) part 71 to modify the 

Charlotte, NC Class B airspace area. This 

action (depicted on the attached chart) 

proposes to expand the lateral and 

vertical limits of the Charlotte Class B 

airspace area to provide the additional 

airspace needed to support operations of 

a third parallel runway and the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 9541 

implementation of RNAV departure 

procedures; contain ILS approach 

procedures for runways 23, 18L, 18C 

(formerly 18R but redesignated 

November 20, 2008) and the new 

runway (18R); and contain aircraft being 

vectored to a base leg from the west 

when CLT is on a north operation. The 

proposed revisions to the Charlotte 

Class B airspace area are discussed 

below. 

Except for Area A, which extends 

upward from the surface to and 

including 10,000 feet MSL within a 7 

NM radius of the CLT VOR/DME, the 

proposed descriptions of all other 

subareas that make up the Charlotte 

Class B airspace area would be 

reconfigured, redescribed and realigned 

by geographic position in relation to the 

airport rather than the current practice 

of combining all areas that share a 

common altitude floor into one large, 

complex subarea description. The 

current Charlotte Class B airspace area 

consists of six subareas (A through F) 

while the proposed configuration would 

consist of 11 subareas (A through K). 

Based on modeling of future traffic 

flows, there is a need to expand the 

lateral limits of Class B airspace to the 

north and south of CLT from the current 

25 NM arc out to the 30 NM arc, and 

to set the floor of Class B airspace in 

those sections at 4,000 feet MSL. The 

extensions to 30 NM are required to 

provide adequate vectoring areas for 

controllers to vector arrivals to the 

appropriate final approach course. A 

4,000 foot MSL floor is needed out to 

the 30 NM arc to provide sufficient 

airspace to separate aircraft assigned to 

different runways and to comply with 

simultaneous ILS procedures. 

Additionally, a review of radar data has 

revealed that, when CLT is on a north 

operation, a significant number of 

aircraft inbound from the southwest on 

either the UNARM ONE or ADENA 

TWO standard terminal arrival routes 

exit and reenter Class B airspace 

between the existing 6,000 foot MSL 

Class B airspace floor and the 4,600 foot 

MSL floor to the south-southwest of 

CLT. Lowering the Class B airspace floor 

to 4,000 feet MSL in that area will 

prevent these excursions. 

Another problem exists with aircraft 

established on the ILS approaches to 

runways 18L and 18C dropping below 

the floor of Class B airspace north of the 

airport with the existing Class B 

airspace configuration. These 

excursions occur prior to the point 

where the floor of Class B airspace 

drops from 3,600 feet MSL to 1,800 feet 

MSL. Consequently, aircraft are exiting 

and reentering Class B airspace while 

flying the published ILS procedures. To 

correct this situation, the FAA proposes 

to move the 1,800 foot MSL floor (Area 

B) from the current 11 NM arc outward 

to the 14 NM arc. This extension to the 

14 NM arc would only be made to the 

north of CLT (from the intersection of 

the 14 NM arc with new Highway 321 

northwest of the airport, then clockwise 

along the arc to the CLT 024°T/029°M 

radial). The remaining portion of Area B 

would continue to follow the 11 NM arc 

clockwise to the cutout for the AKH. 

This change would ensure that arrivals 

to runways 18L and 18C/36C, and the 

new runway (18R/36L), are retained 

within Class B airspace throughout the 

approach. In addition, in response to 

comments from the Informal Airspace 

Meetings, the FAA is proposing to 

widen the cutout in Area B around AKH 

to facilitate better access to and from 

that airport. 

With the implementation of RNAV 

departure procedures at CLT, the floor 

of Class B airspace to the east and west 

of the airport needs to be lowered. 

Departures on easterly and westerly 

tracks from the airport often exit and 

then reenter Class B airspace as they 

continue their climbs. To preclude this, 

the FAA proposes to lower the existing 

6,000 foot MSL floor (current Area E) to 

5,000 feet MSL and to lower the existing 

8,000 foot MSL floor (current Area F) to 

6,000 feet MSL. The existing area 

designations would be changed from the 

current Areas E and F to a new Area G 

(extending upward from 5,000 feet MSL) 

and a new Area K (extending upward 

from 6,000 feet MSL) west of CLT; and 

a new Area D (extending upward from 

5,000 feet MSL) and a new Area I 

(extending upward from 6,000 feet MSL) 

east of CLT (see attached chart). 

To provide an adequate vector area for 

runway 5 arrivals, it is necessary to 

lower the Class B airspace floor from 

6,000 feet MSL to 4,000 feet MSL floor 

in an area to the southwest of AKH. This 

new Area, designated Area F, would be 

bounded on the east by new Highway 

321, on the west by the 20 NM arc of 

the CLT VOR/DME and on the north by 

the power lines that extend in a 

southwesterly direction west of AKH. 

A further review of radar data 

revealed a need to lower the floor of 

Class B airspace to the northeast of CLT. 

Due to vectoring patterns and the 

descent profile of aircraft conducting 

the ILS RWY 23 approach, it is 

necessary to slightly extend the 3,600 

foot Class B airspace floor to the 

northeast of CLT. This would be 

accomplished by extending the lateral 

limits of the existing Area C from the 

current 20 NM arc out to the 23 NM arc. 

Finally, the Charlotte/Douglas 

International Airport reference point 

coordinates in the Class B airspace legal 

description would be updated to reflect 

current National Airspace System data. 

These changes are being proposed to 

ensure the containment of IFR aircraft 

within Class B airspace as required by 

FAA directives; accommodate the 

implementation of RNAV departure 

procedures; and support operations of a 

third parallel runway. 

All radials listed in the Charlotte 

Class B airspace description in this 

NPRM are stated in degrees relative to 

both True North and Magnetic North. 

Class B airspace areas are published 

in paragraph 3000 of FAA Order 

7400.9T, dated August 27, 2009 and 

effective September 15, 2009, which is 

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class B airspace area proposed 

in this document would be published 

subsequently in the Order. 

Regulatory Evaluation Summary 

Changes to Federal regulations must 

undergo several economic analyses. 

First, Executive Order 12866 directs 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 U.S. In developing U.S. 

standards, this 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 

proposed 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 be included in the 

preamble if a full regulatory evaluation 

of the cost and benefits is not prepared. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
9542 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Such a determination has been made for 

this proposed rule. The reasoning for 

this determination follows: 

After consultation with airports that 

participated in the Charlotte airport ad 

hoc advisory committee, the FAA 

expects the proposed modifications of 

the Class B airspace to result in minimal 

cost. One representative said the 

proposed changes would have 

‘‘absolutely no effect’’ on his airport and 

the pilots who use his airport reported 

that the changes were ‘‘negligible.’’ 

Another manager of an airport 

potentially affected by this proposed 

rulemaking reported that having the 

Class B airspace modified is not the 

ideal situation, his airport would not 

experience adverse changes to 

instrument approaches and therefore 

expected minimal, if any, economic 

impact. 

Of the six airports that participated in 

ad hoc advisory committee and that 

provided comments two expressed 

concerns of a possible economic impact. 

One airport reported that airplanes may 

to stop at other airports but this 

economic impact would be ‘‘hard to 

quantify’’ which the FAA deems as 

minimal cost. The other reported that 

most of its revenue is generated from a 

skydiving school that leases trailers and 

hangers from the airport in addition to 

the purchase of fuel. The airport 

manager reported that the skydiving 

classes go up to 14,500 feet and under 

this proposed rule change the class 

would have to coordinate their 

scheduling of flights with Charlotte. The 

FAA believes, however, that such flight 

coordination would result in only 

minimal costs. In sum the FAA believes 

the proposed rule would result in 

minimal costs. 

The benefits of this proposed rule are 

substantial resulting from the increased 

utilization of a new 9,000 feet runway. 

This runway will allow more 

commercial flights to efficiently land at 

Charlotte-Douglas International Airport. 

Initial 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 the proposal would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

as the economic impact is expected to 

be minimal. Based on the Small 

Business Administration small entity 

criterion for small government 

jurisdictions the rule would impact a 

substantial number of small entities. At 

least two of the regional airports are 

owned by governments with 

populations less than 50,000. We were 

unable to obtain publicly available 

revenue data. As the proposed rule 

would simply change the takeoff and 

landing patterns to these airports, we 

believe these changed patterns result in 

a minimal economic impact. Therefore 

the FAA certifies that this proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. We request comments from the 

potentially affected entities which 

would include estimated compliance 

cost and airport revenue, such that we 

could provide a measure of economic 

impact. 

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 

from establishing standards or engaging 

in related activities that create 

unnecessary obstacles to the foreign 

commerce of the U.S. Pursuant to these 

Acts, the establishment of standards is 

not considered an unnecessary obstacle 

to the foreign commerce of the U.S., so 

long as the standard has a legitimate 

domestic objective, such 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 

proposed rule to change the airspace 

classification for Charlotte airport in 

North Carolina and determined that it 

would not have a potential effect on 

trade-sensitive activities as discussed 

above. 

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 

$136.1 million in lieu of $100 million. 

This proposed rule does not contain 

such a mandate; therefore, the 

requirements of Title II of the Act do not 

apply. 

Conclusion 

FAA has, therefore, determined that 

this proposed rule is a minimal cost rule 

with substantial benefits and 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. 

FAA has, therefore, determined that 

this proposed 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. 

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. 

§ 71.1 [Amended] 

2. The incorporation by reference in 

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 9543 

Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

dated August 27, 2009, and effective 

September 15, 2009, is amended as 

follows: 

Paragraph 3000 Subpart B—Class B 

Airspace. 

* * * * * 

ASO NC B Charlotte, NC 

Charlotte/Douglas International Airport 

(Primary Airport) 

(Lat. 35°12′50′′ N., long. 80°56′35′′ W.) 

Charlotte VOR/DME 

(Lat. 35°11′25′′ N., long. 80°57′06′′ W.) 

Gastonia Municipal Airport 

(Lat. 35°12′10′′ N., long. 81°09′00′′ W.) 

Boundaries 

Area A. That airspace extending upward 

from the surface to and including 10,000 feet 

MSL within a 7-mile radius of the Charlotte 

VOR/DME. 

Area B. That airspace extending upward 

from 1,800 feet MSL to and including 10,000 

feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the 

Charlotte VOR/DME 024°T/029°M radial 14- 

mile fix; thence direct to the Charlotte VOR/ 

DME 032°T/037°M radial 11-mile fix, thence 

clockwise via the 11-mile arc of the Charlotte 

VOR/DME to lat. 35°09′37′′ N., long. 

81°10′21′′ W.; thence east to lat. 35°10′17′′ N., 

long. 81°08′10′′ W.; thence counterclockwise 

around a 2-mile radius of the Gastonia 

Municipal Airport to lat. 35°14′02′′ N., long. 

81°08′10′′ W.; thence west to intersect U.S. 

Highway 321 at lat. 35°15′00′′ N., long. 

81°11′21′′ W.; thence north along U.S. 

Highway 321 to the 14-mile arc of the 

Charlotte VOR/DME at lat. 35°19′20′′ N., long. 

81°11′13′′ W.; thence clockwise via the 14- 

mile arc to the point of beginning, excluding 

that airspace within Area A described above. 

Area C. That airspace extending upward 

from 3,600 feet MSL to and including 10,000 

feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the 

intersection of U.S. Highway 321 and the 

Charlotte VOR/DME 20-mile arc at lat. 

35°26′49′′ N., long. 81°12′44′′ W.; thence 

clockwise along the 20-mile arc to intersect 

the Marshall Steam Plant Rail Spur at lat. 

35°31′14′′ N., long. 81°00′42′′ W.; thence 

north along the Rail Spur to the Charlotte 

VOR/DME 25-mile arc at lat. 35°36′25′′ N., 

long. 80°58′57′′ W.; thence clockwise along 

the 25-mile arc to long. 80°46′00′′ W.; thence 

south along long. 80°46′00′′ W., to the 

Charlotte VOR/DME 23-mile arc; thence 

clockwise along the 23-mile arc to the 

Charlotte VOR/DME 067°T/072°M radial; 

thence southwest along the 067°T/072°M 

radial to the Charlotte VOR/DME 20-mile arc; 

thence clockwise along the 20-mile arc to the 

Charlotte VOR/DME 081°T/086°M radial; 

thence west along the 081°T/086°M radial to 

the Charlotte VOR/DME 11-mile arc; thence 

counterclockwise along the 11-mile arc to the 

Charlotte VOR/DME 032°T/037°M radial, 11- 

mile fix; thence direct to the Charlotte VOR/ 

DME 024°T/029°M radial, 14-mile fix; thence 

counterclockwise along the 14-mile arc of the 

Charlotte VOR/DME to intersect U.S. 

Highway 321 at lat. 35°19′20′′ N., long. 

81°11′13′′ W., thence north along U.S. 

Highway 321 to the point of beginning. 

Area D. That airspace extending upward 

from 5,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 

feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the 

Charlotte VOR/DME 081°T/086°M radial 11- 

mile fix; thence east along the 081°T/086°M 

radial to the 20-mile fix; thence clockwise 

along the 20-mile arc of the Charlotte VOR/ 

DME to lat. 34°56′07′′ N., long. 80°41′23′′ W.; 

thence north to the point of beginning. 

Area E. That airspace extending upward 

from 3,600 feet MSL to and including 10,000 

feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at lat. 

35°15′00′′ N., long. 81°11′21′′ W., thence east 

to lat. 35°14′02′′ N., long. 81°08′10′′ W.; 

thence clockwise along a 2-mile radius of the 

Gastonia Municipal Airport to lat. 35°10′17′′ 

N., long. 81°08′10′′ W.; thence west to 

intersect the Charlotte VOR/DME 11-mile arc 

at lat. 35°09′37′′ N., long. 81°10′21′′ W.; 

thence counterclockwise along the 11-mile 

arc to the Charlotte VOR/DME 081°T/86°M 

radial 11-mile fix; thence south direct to the 

Charlotte VOR/DME 147°T/152°M radial 25- 

mile fix; thence clockwise along the 25-mile 

arc of the Charlotte VOR/DME to lat. 

34°49′37′′ N., long. 81°12′05′′ W.; thence 

north to the Charlotte VOR/DME 218°T/ 

223°M radial 20-mile fix, thence clockwise 

along the 20-mile arc of the Charlotte VOR/ 

DME, to intersect U.S. Highway 321 at lat. 

34°57′21′′ N., long. 81°14′28′′ W.; thence 

north along U.S. Highway 321 to the point of 

beginning. 

Area F. That airspace extending upward 

from 4,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 

feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the 

intersection of the power lines and the 

Charlotte VOR/DME 20-mile arc at lat. 

35°08′08′′ N., long. 81°21′10′′ W.; thence east 

along the power lines to intersect U.S. 

Highway 321 at lat. 35°11′52′′ N., long. 

81°12′41′′ W.; thence south along U.S. 

Highway 321 to intersect the Charlotte VOR/ 

DME 20-mile arc at lat. 34°57′21′′ N., long. 

81°14′28′′ W.; thence clockwise along the 20- 

mile arc to the point of beginning. 

Area G. That airspace extending upward 

from 5,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 

feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the 

intersection of the power lines and the 

Charlotte VOR/DME 20-mile arc at lat. 

35°08′08′′ N., long. 81°21′10′′ W.; thence 

clockwise along the 20-mile arc to intersect 

U.S. Highway 321 at lat. 35°26′49′′ N., long. 

81°12′44′′ W.; thence south along U.S. 

Highway 321 to intersect the power lines at 

lat. 35°11′52′′ N., long. 81°12′41′′ W.; thence 

west along the power lines to the point of 

beginning. 

Area H. That airspace extending upward 

from 4,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 

feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at lat. 

35°37′15′′ N., long. 81°10′32′′ W.; thence 

direct to intersect the Charlotte VOR/DME 

30-mile arc at lat. 35°41′30′′ N., long. 

80°57′40′′ W.; thence clockwise along the 30- 

mile arc to long. 80°46′00′′ W.; thence south 

along long. 80°46′00′′ W., to intersect the 

Charlotte VOR/DME 25-mile arc; thence 

counterclockwise along the 25-mile arc to 

intersect the Marshall Steam Plant Rail Spur 

at lat. 35°36′25′′ N., long. 80°58′57′′ W.; 

thence south along the Rail Spur to intersect 

the Charlotte VOR/DME 20-mile arc at lat. 

35°31′14′′ N., long. 81°00′42′′ W.; thence 

counterclockwise along the 20-mile arc to 

intersect U.S. Highway 321 at lat. 35°26′49′′ 

N., long. 81°12′44′′ W.; thence north along 

U.S. Highway 321 to intersect the Charlotte 

VOR/DME 25-mile arc at lat. 35°32′26′′ N., 

long. 81°13′44′′ W.; thence clockwise along 

the 25-mile arc to intersect the Charlotte 

VOR/DME 337°T/342°M radial; thence 

northwest along the 337°T/342°M radial to 

the point of beginning. 

Area I. That airspace extending upward 

from 6,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 

feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the 

Charlotte VOR/DME 062°T/067°M radial, 30- 

mile fix, thence southwest along the 062°T/ 

067°M radial to the 25-mile fix; thence 

clockwise along the Charlotte VOR/DME 25- 

mile arc to the Charlotte VOR/DME 120°T/ 

125°M radial; thence southeast along the 

120°T/125°M radial to the 30-mile fix; thence 

clockwise along the Charlotte VOR/DME 30- 

mile arc to lat. 34°44′58′′ N., long. 80°39′47′′ 

W.; thence north direct to intersect the 

Charlotte VOR/DME 20-mile arc at lat. 

34°56′07′′ N., long. 80°41′23′′ W.;, thence 

counterclockwise along the 20-mile arc to the 

Charlotte VOR/DME 067°T/072°M radial; 

thence northeast along the 067°T/072°M 

radial to the 23-mile arc; thence 

counterclockwise along the 23-mile arc to 

long. 80°46′00′′ W.; thence north along long. 

80°46′00′′ W., to the Charlotte VOR/DME 30- 

mile arc; thence clockwise along the 30-mile 

arc to the point of beginning. 

Area J. That airspace extending upward 

from 4,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 

feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the 

Charlotte VOR/DME 147° radial 25-mile fix; 

thence direct to intersect the Charlotte VOR/ 

DME 30-mile arc at lat. 34°44′58′′ N., long. 

80°39′47′′ W.; thence clockwise along the 

Charlotte VOR/DME 30-mile arc to lat. 

34°44′01′′ N., long. 81°12′05′′ W.; thence 

north to intersect the Charlotte VOR/DME 25- 

mile arc at lat. 34°49′37′′ N., long. 81°12′05′′ 

W.; thence counterclockwise along the 

Charlotte VOR/DME 25-mile arc to the point 

of beginning. 

Area K. That airspace extending upward 

from 6,000 feet MSL to and including 10,000 

feet MSL bounded by a line beginning at the 

Charlotte VOR/DME 293°T/298°M radial, 30- 

mile fix; thence clockwise along the Charlotte 

VOR/DME 30-mile arc to lat. 35°41′30′′ N., 

long. 80°57′40′′ W.; thence southwest direct 

to intersect the Charlotte VOR/DME 337°(T)/ 

342°(M) at lat. 35°37′15′′ N., long. 81°10′32′′ 

W.; thence southeast along the 337°T/342°M 

radial to the Charlotte VOR/DME 25-mile arc; 

thence counterclockwise along the 25-mile 

arc to intersect U.S. Highway 321 at lat. 

35°32′26′′ N., long. 81°13′44′′ W., thence 

south along new Highway 321 to intersect the 

Charlotte VOR/DME 20-mile arc at lat. 

35°26′49′′ N., long. 81°12′44′′ W.; thence 

counterclockwise along the 20-mile arc to the 

Charlotte VOR/DME 218°T/223°M radial; 

thence south to intersect the Charlotte VOR/ 

DME 30-mile arc at lat. 34°44′01′′ N., long. 

81°12′05′′ W.; thence clockwise along the 30- 

mile arc to the Charlotte VOR/DME 242°T/ 

247°M radial, thence northeast along the 

242°T/247°M radial to the Charlotte VOR/ 

DME 25-mile arc; thence clockwise along the 

25-mile arc to the Charlotte VOR/DME 

293°T/298°M radial; thence northwest along 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
9544 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 41 / Wednesday, March 3, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the 293°T/298°M radial to the point of 

beginning. 

* * * * * 

Issued in Washington, DC, on February 23, 

2010. 

Edith V. Parish, 

Manager, Airspace and Rules Group. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4377 Filed 3–2–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Bureau of Prisons 

28 CFR Part 545 

[BOP Docket No. BOP 1152–P] 

RIN 1120–AB52 

Inmate Work and Performance Pay 

Program 

AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau 

of Prisons (Bureau) proposes to 

streamline regulations on inmate work 

and performance pay by removing 

redundant language and provisions that 

relate solely to staff guidance. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

postmarked and electronic comments 

must be submitted on or before May 3, 

2010. Commenters should be aware that 

the electronic Federal Docket 

Management System will not accept 

comments after Midnight Eastern Time 

on the last day of the comment period. 

ADDRESSES: Comments should be 

submitted to the Rules Unit, Office of 

General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, 320 

First Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20534. You may view an electronic 

version of this rule at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. You may also 

comment on this regulation via the 

Internet at BOPRULES@BOP.GOV or by 

using the http://www.regulations.gov 

comment form for this regulation. When 

submitting comments electronically you 

must include the BOP Docket No. in the 

subject box. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sarah Qureshi, Office of General 

Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 

307–2105. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Posting of Public Comments 

Please note that all comments 

received are considered part of the 

public record and made available for 

public inspection online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Such information 

includes personal identifying 

information (such as your name, 

address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter. 

If you want to submit personal 

identifying information (such as your 

name, address, etc.) as part of your 

comment, but do not want it to be 

posted online, you must include the 

phrase ‘‘PERSONAL IDENTIFYING 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You must also locate 

all the personal identifying information 

you do not want posted online in the 

first paragraph of your comment and 

identify what information you want 

redacted. 

If you want to submit confidential 

business information as part of your 

comment but do not want it to be posted 

online, you must include the phrase 

‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You must also 

prominently identify confidential 

business information to be redacted 

within the comment. If a comment 

contains so much confidential business 

information that it cannot be effectively 

redacted, all or part of that comment 

may not be posted on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Personal identifying information 

identified and located as set forth above 

will be placed in the agency’s public 

docket file, but not posted online. 

Confidential business information 

identified and located as set forth above 

will not be placed in the public docket 

file. If you wish to inspect the agency’s 

public docket file in person by 

appointment, please see the ‘‘For 

Additional Information’’ paragraph. 

The reason that the Bureau is 

requesting electronic comments before 

Midnight Eastern Time on the day the 

comment period closes is because the 

inter-agency Regulations.gov/Federal 

Docket Management System (FDMS) 

which receives electronic comments 

terminates the public’s ability to submit 

comments at Midnight on the day the 

comment period closes. Commenters in 

time zones other than Eastern may want 

to take this fact into account so that 

their electronic comments can be 

received. The constraints imposed by 

the Regulations.gov/FDMS system do 

not apply to U.S. postal comments 

which will be considered as timely filed 

if they are postmarked before Midnight 

on the day the comment period closes. 

Discussion 

In this document, the Bureau 

proposes to streamline regulations on 

inmate work and performance pay by 

deleting redundant language and 

provisions that relate solely to staff 

guidance. Below is a section-by-section 

explanation of the proposed revisions. 

Section 545.20 Purpose and scope. 

This section describes the purpose of 

the Inmate Work and Performance Pay 

(IPP) program of the Bureau of Prisons 

(Bureau). This section is derived from 

current § 545.20(a). The second sentence 

of current subparagraph (a), regarding 

the requirement for physically and 

mentally able sentenced inmates to 

participate in the work program, is 

deleted because the concept is repeated 

in the subsequent regulation. Current 

paragraph (b), regarding the Warden’s 

ability to grant performance pay to 

qualified inmates, is deleted because the 

concept is later repeated in a regulation 

exclusively devoted to performance pay. 

Section 545.21 Definitions. This 

section derives almost verbatim from 

the current § 545.21, and defines terms 

used in the rest of the subpart, including 

‘‘physically and mentally able,’’ 

‘‘institution work assignment,’’ ‘‘industry 

assignment,’’ ‘‘commissary assignment,’’ 

and other terms. 

Deleted § 545.22. This section, 

regarding the institution work and 

performance pay committee, has been 

deleted because it is guidance to staff 

that need not be in regulation text. This 

current regulation explains that the 

Warden at each Bureau facility 

establishes an Institution Inmate Work 

and Performance Pay Committee to 

administer the institution’s work and 

performance pay program, comprised of 

an Associate Warden, the Inmate 

Performance Pay Coordinator, and any 

other member(s) the Warden considers 

appropriate. The Committee is 

responsible for approving various 

aspects of the inmate work and 

performance pay program specific to 

that Committee’s facility, including the 

number of inmates and pay grades for 

each work detail, job descriptions, 

performance standards, budgeting 

issues, and other such administrative 

concerns. We will retain this language 

in implementing text in the relevant 

Bureau policy. 

Section 545.22 Inmate work/ 

program assignment. This section 

derives from current § 545.23. It 

explains that each sentenced inmate 

who is physically and mentally able 

must participate in an institutional, 

industrial, or commissary work program 

unless an exception applies. An inmate 

may be authorized to not participate in 

IPP if the inmate instead participates in 

an education, vocational, or drug abuse 

treatment program, on either a full or 

part-time basis, if it is required by 

Bureau policy or statute (for example, 

the Literacy Program) or with the 

approval of the Warden or designee. An 

inmate may also be excepted from IPP 

participation if the inmate is a pretrial 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1