Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2012 / Notices 27537 

similarly affected by a proposed DOT 

program, policy or activity. 

f. Adverse effects means the totality of 

significant individual or cumulative human 

health or environmental effects, including 

interrelated social and economic effects, 

which may include, but are not limited to: 

Bodily impairment, infirmity, illness or 

death; air, noise, and water pollution and soil 

contamination; destruction or disruption of 

man-made or natural resources; destruction 

or diminution of aesthetic values; destruction 

or disruption of community cohesion or a 

community’s economic vitality; destruction 

or disruption of the availability of public and 

private facilities and services; vibration; 

adverse employment effects; displacement of 

persons, businesses, farms, or nonprofit 

organizations; increased traffic congestion, 

isolation, exclusion or separation of minority 

or low-income individuals within a given 

community or from the broader community; 

and the denial of, reduction in, or significant 

delay in the receipt of, benefits of DOT 

programs, policies, or activities. 

g. Disproportionately high and adverse 

effect on minority and low-income 

populations means an adverse effect that: 

(1) Is predominately borne by a minority 

population and/or a low-income population, 

or 

(2) Will be suffered by the minority 

population and/or low-income population 

and is appreciably more severe or greater in 

magnitude than the adverse effect that will be 

suffered by the non-minority population and/ 

or non-low-income population. 

h. Programs, policies, and/or activities 

mean all projects, programs, policies, and 

activities that affect human health or the 

environment, and which are undertaken or 

approved by DOT. These include, but are not 

limited to, permits, licenses, and financial 

assistance provided by DOT. Interrelated 

projects within a system may be considered 

to be a single project, program, policy or 

activity for purposes of this Order. 

i. Regulations and guidance means 

regulations, programs, policies, guidance, 

and procedures promulgated, issued, or 

approved by DOT. 

Dated: May 2, 2012. 

Ray LaHood, 

Secretary of Transportation. 

[FR Doc. 2012–11309 Filed 5–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Notice of Passenger Facility Charge 

(PFC) Approvals and Disapprovals 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Monthly Notice of PFC 

Approvals and Disapprovals. In April 

2012, there were two applications 

approved. This notice also includes 

information on one application, 

approved in March 2012, inadvertently 

left off the March 2012 notice. 

Additionally, two approved 

amendments to previously approved 

applications are listed. 

SUMMARY: The FAA publishes a monthly 

notice, as appropriate, of PFC approvals 

and disapprovals under the provisions 

of the Aviation Safety and Capacity 

Expansion Act of 1990 (Title IX of the 

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 

1990) (Pub. L. 101–508) and Part 158 of 

the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 

CFR Part 158). This notice is published 

pursuant to paragraph d of § 158.29. 

PFC Applications Approved 

Public Agency: Tri-Cities Airport 

Commission, Blountsville, Tennessee. 

Application Number: 12–04–C–00– 

TRI. 

Application Type: Impose and use a 

PFC. 

PFC Level: $4.50. 

Total PFC Revenue Approved in This 

Decision: $489,869. 

Earliest Charge Effective Date: June 1, 

2014. 

Estimated Charge Expiration Date: 

January 1, 2015. 

Class of Air Carriers Not Required to 

Collect PFC’s: Nonscheduled/ondemand air carriers filing FAA Form 

1800–31. 

Determination: Approved. Based on 

information submitted in the public 

agency’s application, the FAA has 

determined that the proposed class 

accounts for less than 1 percent of the 

total annual enplanements at Tri-Cities 

Regional Airport. 

Brief Description of Projects Approved 

for Collection and Use: 

Taxiway R extension and road 

relocation—design. 

Runway 5/23 pavement 

rehabilitation—design. 

Property acquisition—parcel 40. 

In-line baggage system. 

Runway high speed snow removal 

broom. 

Taxiway R extension and road 

relocation—construction. 

PFC administrative costs. 

Decision Date: March 27, 2012. 

For Further Information Contact: 

Cynthia Wills, Memphis Airports 

District Office, (901) 322–8190. 

Public Agency: Great Falls 

International Airport Authority, Great 

Falls, Montana. 

Application Number: 12–04–C–00– 

GTF. 

Application Type: Impose and use a 

PFC. 

PFC Level: $4.50. 

Total PFC Revenue Approved in This 

Decision: $4,040,904. 

Earliest Charge Effective Date: 

November 1, 2016. 

Estimated Charge Expiration Date: 

June 1, 2021. 

Class of Air Carriers Not Required to 

Collect PFC’S: Air taxi/commercial 

operators filing FM Form 1800–31. 

Determination: Approved. Based on 

information submitted in the public 

agency’s application, the FAA has 

determined that the proposed class 

accounts for less than 1 percent of the 

total annual enplanements at Great Falls 

International Airport. 

Brief Description of Projects Approved 

for Collection and Use: 

Correct runway 3/21 line of sight 

deficiency. 

Install category III instrument landing 

system. 

2005 purchase of airport power 

sweeper. 

Terminal rehabilitation, phase I. 

Purchase airport snow removal truck/ 

plow. 

Design and construct noise mitigation 

measures for residences. 

Decision Date: April 12, 2012. 

For Further Information Contact: 

Jason Garwood, Helena Airports District 

Office, (406) 449–5078. 

Public Agency: Port of Pasco, Pasco, 

Washington. 

Application Number: 12–08–C–00– 

PSC. 

Application Type: Impose and use a 

PFC. 

PFC Level: $4.50. 

Total PFC Revenue Approved in This 

Decision: $3,865,000. 

Earliest Charge Effective Date: May 1, 

2015. 

Estimated Charge Expiration Date: 

April 1, 2022. 

Class of Air Carriers Not Required to 

Collect PFC’s: None. 

Brief Description of Projects Approved 

for Collection and Use: 

Terminal area plan. 

Terminal building rehabilitation. 

Runway sweeper acquisition. 

PFC administration. 

Decision Date: April 12, 2012. 

For Further Information Contact: 

Trang Tran, Seattle Airports District 

Office, (425) 227–1662. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

27538 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 91 / Thursday, May 10, 2012 / Notices 

1FAA, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee 

(ARAC)—New Task (76 FR 21936). 

AMENDMENTS TO PFC APPROVALS

Amendment No. city, State Amendment 

approved date 

Original 

approved net 

PFC revenue 

Amended 

approved net 

PFC revenue 

Original 

estimated 

charge 

exp. date 

Amended 

estimated 

charge 

exp. date 

11–11–C–01–RNO Reno, NV .............................................. 04/03/12 $25,491,376 $33,933,876 04/01/17 07/01/18 

07–02–C–01–CLT ................................................................ 04/11/12 144,557,137 143,057,137 12/01/18 12/01/18 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 3, 2012. 

Joe Hebert, 

Manager, Financial Analysis and Passenger 

Facility Charge Branch. 

[FR Doc. 2012–11231 Filed 5–9–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee—Continuing a Task 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of continuing a task 

assignment for the Aviation Rulemaking 

Advisory Committee (ARAC). 

SUMMARY: The FAA assigned the 

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 

Committee (ARAC) a continuing task to 

provide advice and recommendations to 

the FAA about implementing a process 

for prioritizing rulemaking projects. 

This task addresses, in part, one of the 

Department of Transportation’s Future 

of Aviation Advisory Committee 

(FAAC) recommendations. This notice 

informs the public of a continuing 

ARAC activity and does not solicit 

membership for the existing Rulemaking 

Prioritization Working Group (RPWG). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Katherine Haley, Office of Rulemaking, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202– 

493–5708, facsimile: 202–267–5075; 

email: Katherine.L.Haley@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The FAA established ARAC to 

provide advice and recommendations to 

the FAA Administrator on the FAA’s 

rulemaking activities. ARAC’s objectives 

are to improve the development of the 

FAA’s regulations by providing 

information, advice, and 

recommendations related to aviation 

issues. 

In April 2011, the FAA tasked ARAC 

to provide advice and recommendations 

on developing a framework and 

methodologies to assist the FAA in 

assessing and sequencing potential 

rulemaking projects.1 The FAA 

provided the RPWG with a set of issues 

to test the framework and 

methodologies. The RPWG conducted 

its task from June to December 2011 and 

submitted recommendations to ARAC 

on December 14, 2011. ARAC accepted 

the recommendations on December 16, 

2011 and forwarded them to the FAA. 

The entire recommendation report can 

be found at: http://www.faa.gov/

regulations_policies/rulemaking/

committees/arac/. 

The March 2012 ARAC Executive 

Committee meeting included a 

discussion of continuing the task to 

further test the RPWG’s methodology. 

This notice advises the public that the 

FAA has assigned, and the ARAC 

Executive Committee has accepted, the 

task to test the methodology and to 

develop a report including 

recommendations explaining the 

results. 

The Task 

The FAA has tasked the RPWG to 

provide advice and recommendations to 

further test the recommended 

methodology. 

The RPWG is expected to develop a 

report containing recommended 

changes to the methodology. This report 

should document both majority and 

minority positions on the findings and 

the rationale for each position. Any 

disagreements should be documented, 

including the rationale for each position 

and the reasons for the disagreement. 

In developing its recommendations, 

the RPWG shall: 

1. Review the RPWG Phase I 

Recommendation Report. 

2. Test the methodology and the tools 

using a subset of completed rulemakings 

provided by the FAA. 

3. Develop measurable scoring 

evaluation to evaluate projects against 

each other. 

4. Evaluate the results of the test and 

refine the process and the tools 

accordingly. 

Schedule: The recommendations must 

be forwarded to the ARAC Executive 

Committee for review and approval no 

later than September 2012. The RPWG 

may be asked to clarify the report 

between September and December 2012. 

ARAC Acceptance of Task 

The ARAC Executive Committee has 

accepted the continuing task using 

members of the existing RPWG. The 

RPWG serves as staff to ARAC and 

assists in the analysis of the assigned 

task. ARAC must review and approve 

the RPWG’s recommendations. If ARAC 

accepts the working group’s 

recommendations, it will send them to 

the FAA. 

Working Group Activity 

The RPWG must comply with the 

procedures adopted by ARAC. As part 

of the procedures, the RPWG must: 

1. Recommend a work plan for 

completion of the task, including the 

rationale supporting such a plan, for 

consideration at the next ARAC 

Executive Committee meeting held 

following publication of this notice. 

2. Provide a status report at each 

meeting of the ARAC Executive 

Committee. 

3. Draft the recommendation report 

and required analyses and/or any other 

related materials or documents. 

4. Present the final recommendations 

to the ARAC Executive Committee for 

review and approval. 

Participation in the Working Group 

The existing RPWG is comprised of 

technical experts having an interest in 

the assigned task. A working group 

member need not be a representative or 

a member of the full committee. 

All existing RPWG members who 

choose to participate in this task must 

actively participate by attending all 

meetings, and providing written 

comments when requested to do so. 

Each member must devote the resources 

necessary to support the working group 

in meeting any assigned deadlines. Each 

member must keep their management 

chain, and those they may represent, 

advised of working group activities and 

decisions to ensure the proposed 

technical solutions do not conflict with 

their sponsoring organization’s position 

when the subject is presented to ARAC 

for approval. Once the RPWG has begun 

deliberations, members will not be 

added or substituted without the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES