60310 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 193 / Tuesday, October 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in 

paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. Information may 

be emailed to: 9-ANM-LAACO-AMOCRequests@faa.gov. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/

certificate holding district office. 

(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable 

level of safety may be used for any repair 

required by this AD if it is approved by the 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles 

ACO, to make those findings. For a repair 

method to be approved the repair must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

(k) Related Information 

(1) For more information about this AD, 

contact Eric Schrieber, Aerospace Engineer, 

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los 

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 

90712–4137; phone: 562–627–5348; fax: 562– 

627–5210; email: Eric.Schrieber@faa.gov. 

(2) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Boeing Commercial 

Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services 

Management, 3855 Lakewood Boulevard, MC 

D800–0019, Long Beach, CA 90846–0001; 

telephone: 206–544–5000, extension 2; fax: 

206–766–5683; Internet https://

www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this 

referenced service information at the FAA, 

Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information 

on the availability of this material at the 

FAA, call 425–227–1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

September 27, 2015. 

Michael Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–25271 Filed 10–5–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 93 

[Docket No.: FAA–2015–3980; Notice No. 

15–09] 

RIN 2120–AK74 

Pearson Field Airport Special Flight 

Rules Area 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is proposing to 

establish a Special Flight Rules Area in 

the vicinity of Pearson Field Airport, 

Vancouver, Washington. Pearson Field 

Airport is located approximately three 

nautical miles northwest of Portland 

International Airport, Portland, Oregon. 

The close proximity of the airport traffic 

patterns and approach courses create 

converging flight paths between traffic 

on approach to Portland International 

Airport and traffic at Pearson Field 

Airport, increasing the risk for near midair collision, mid-air collision and wake 

turbulence events. The intended effect 

of this action is to mitigate the 

identified risk by establishing operating 

requirements applicable to all aircraft 

when operating within a designated area 

at Pearson Field Airport, which would 

increase overall system efficiency and 

safety. 

DATES: Send comments on or before 

December 7, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2015–3980 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 

553(c), DOT solicits comments from the 

public to better inform its rulemaking 

process. DOT posts these comments, 

without edit, including any personal 

information the commenter provides, to 

http://www.regulations.gov, as 

described in the system of records 

notice (DOT/ALL–14 FDMS), which can 

be reviewed at http://www.dot.gov/

privacy. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

http://www.regulations.gov at any time. 

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or go to the Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical questions concerning this 

action, contact Jon M. Stowe, Airspace 

and Rules Team, AJV–113, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–8783; email jon.m.stowe@faa.gov. 

For legal questions concerning this 

action, contact Lorelei Peter, Office of 

Chief Counsel, AGC–200, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 

267–3073; email lorelei.peter@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 

United States Code (49 U.S.C.). Subtitle 

I, section 106 describes the authority of 

the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, 

Aviation Programs, describes in more 

detail the scope of the agency’s 

authority. 

This rulemaking is promulgated 

under the authority described in 49 

U.S.C. 106(f), which establishes the 

authority of the Administrator to 

promulgate regulations and rules. This 

rulemaking also is promulgated under 

the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 

40103, which vests the Administrator 

with broad authority to prescribe 

regulations to assign the use of airspace 

necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft 

and the efficient use of airspace, and 49 

U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the 

Administrator to promote safe flight of 

civil aircraft in air commerce by 

prescribing regulations and minimum 

standards for other practices, methods, 

and procedures necessary for safety in 

air commerce and national security. 

I. Executive Summary 

This NPRM proposes to establish a 

special flight rules area (SFRA) around 

Pearson Field Airport (Pearson Field) in 

which pilots would have to follow 

mandatory procedures. These 

procedures are necessary to assist in the 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 193 / Tuesday, October 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 60311 

separation of air traffic, and to ensure 

pilots are aware of potential traffic 

conflicts between aircraft operating at 

Pearson Field and Portland 

International Airport. The purpose is to 

ensure safety of flight for aircraft 

operating at Pearson Field Airport and 

the adjacent Portland International 

Airport. 

II. Background and History 

Pearson Field is located on the north 

bank of the Columbia River in 

Vancouver, Washington, approximately 

three nautical miles west of Portland 

International Airport, Portland, Oregon. 

Pearson Field is part of the Fort 

Vancouver National Historic Site, and is 

listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places. It is one of the oldest 

airports in the United States, and the 

longest continually operating airport 

west of the Mississippi. Pearson Field 

does not have an air traffic control 

tower. 

Portland International Airport is 

located 10 miles northeast of downtown 

Portland and has over 300,000 annual 

operations, primarily scheduled air 

carriers conducting operations under 

title 14 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) part 121. It serves 

northern Oregon and southwest 

Washington with service to 120 cities 

worldwide. Due to the continued 

growth of Portland International Airport 

and the close proximity of Pearson 

Field, the FAA has identified safety 

issues. 

The airspace area surrounding 

Pearson Field is excluded from the 

Portland International Airport Class C 

airspace area and is commonly referred 

to as the Pearson cutout. The runway 08 

threshold at Pearson Field is directly 

below the instrument landing system 

(ILS) final approach course to Portland 

International Airport’s runway 10L. 

Additionally, runway 10L was 

expanded to accommodate heavy 

aircraft and Boeing 757s. These 

operations increase the risk of wake 

turbulence events between Portland 

International Airport arrivals to runway 

10L or departures from runway 28L/28R 

and aircraft operating at Pearson Field. 

The Airport/Facility Directory (A/FD) 

lists the traffic pattern altitude at 

Pearson Field as 1029 feet mean sea 

level (MSL) or 1000 feet above ground 

level (AGL). The A/FD also instructs 

aircraft operating over the runway 

centerline or extended runway 

centerline at Pearson Field to ‘‘maintain 

at or below 700 feet MSL due to traffic 

and wake turbulence from overflying 

aircraft to/from Portland International 

Airport Runway 10L/28R.’’ This is 

because aircraft established on the 

Portland International Airport ILS final 

approach course to runway 10L pass 

directly over Pearson’s runway 08 

threshold at 1091 feet MSL (1062 feet 

AGL). The close proximity of the traffic 

pattern and the approach course create 

converging flight paths between aircraft 

on approach to Portland International 

Airport’s runway 10L/10R and aircraft 

operating at Pearson Field. 

These converging flight paths and the 

lack of vertical separation create 

potential safety concerns for aircraft 

operating at both Pearson Field and 

Portland International Airport, 

including risk of mid-air collision and 

wake turbulence events. There is no 

requirement for pilots to establish 

communications with air traffic control 

to receive traffic advisories. In 

particular, when Portland International 

Airport is operating on an east traffic 

flow and weather permits aircraft to 

operate under visual flight rules (VFR) 

at Pearson Field the occurrence of traffic 

collision avoidance system (TCAS) 

resolution advisories (RA) increases. 

To mitigate the identified risk, FAA’s 

Portland Approach Control took 

measures to increase safety, which 

included training controllers regarding 

flight paths into and out of Pearson 

Field, and refresher training regarding 

RAs, safety alerts and wake turbulence. 

Portland Air Traffic Control Tower 

established the ‘‘Pearson Advisory’’ 

position to provide traffic advisories to 

aircraft operating at Pearson Field. 

Additionally, recommended pilot 

communications and procedures were 

placed in the A/FD, which are voluntary 

but not required. While these 

mitigations have increased safety and 

pilot awareness, 20 TCAS RAs were 

reported and logged by air traffic control 

during calendar year 2014 and reflect an 

ongoing safety concern. 

III. The Proposed Rule 

To address the safety concerns 

between traffic operating at Pearson 

Field and Portland International 

Airport, the FAA is proposing to 

establish a SFRA at Pearson Field by 

adding new subpart N to part 93, where 

special air traffic rules are codified. The 

proposed rule provides a description of 

the airspace area (proposed § 93.162), 

communication requirements in the 

SFRA for both inbound and outbound 

flights (proposed § 93.163(a)), and 

procedural requirements necessary to 

reduce the risks associated with the 

operation (proposed § 93.163(c)). 

This action proposes to make the 

following voluntary practices in the A/ 

FD and air traffic procedures applicable 

in the Pearson Field SFRA and 

mandatory for all pilots unless 

otherwise authorized by Air Traffic 

Control (ATC): 

• Pilots must establish two-way radio 

communications with Pearson Advisory 

on the common traffic advisory 

frequency for the purpose of receiving 

air traffic advisories prior to entering the 

SFRA or taxiing onto the runway for 

departure. Additionally, pilots must 

continuously monitor the frequency at 

all times while operating within the 

designated airspace. 

• When operating over the extended 

centerline of Pearson Field Runway 8/ 

26, pilots must maintain an altitude at 

or below 700 feet MSL. 

• Pilots must obtain the Pearson Field 

weather prior to establishing two-way 

communications with Pearson 

Advisory. 

• Pilots must remain outside Portland 

Class C Airspace. 

• Pilots must make a right-hand 

traffic pattern when operating to/from 

Pearson Field Runway 26. 

• Pilots may operate in the area 

without establishing two-way radio 

communication, in the event of radio 

failure, provided that weather 

conditions at Pearson Field are at or 

above basic VFR weather minimums. 

IV. 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 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
60312 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 193 / Tuesday, October 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

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 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 proposed rule. The reasoning for 

this determination follows: 

Due to the continued growth of 

Portland International Airport and the 

close proximity of Pearson Field, safety 

issues have been identified. To address 

the safety concerns between traffic 

operating at Pearson Field and Portland 

International Airport, the FAA is 

proposing to establish a SFRA at 

Pearson Field in part 93. The proposed 

rule provides a description of the area, 

communication requirements for both 

inbound and outbound flights, and 

procedural requirements necessary to 

reduce the risks associated with the 

operation. 

Currently, pilots voluntarily comply 

with procedures in the A/FD, to 

establish two-way radio 

communications with Pearson 

Advisory, and to maintain at or below 

700 feet above mean sea level when 

operating over the extended centerline 

of Pearson Field Runway 8/26. 

Additionally, air traffic control instructs 

pilots on Pearson advisory to obtain the 

Pearson Field weather, and to remain 

outside Portland Class C Airspace. As a 

result of being required to remain 

outside of Portland’s Class C Airspace, 

pilots must make a non-standard right 

traffic pattern if landing on runway 26 

at Pearson Field. Twenty TCAS 

resolution advisories (RAs) were 

reported and logged by air traffic control 

during calendar year 2014 reflecting an 

ongoing safety concern. By making the 

voluntary compliance mandatory, the 

FAA expects a decrease in the 

occurrence of, and will avoid an 

increase in, RAs. Thus, the cost of the 

rule would be minimal. 

The 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. 

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 proposed 

rule does not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities for the 

following reasons. With this proposed 

rule, the procedures and voluntary 

practices already in place would 

become mandatory. The intended effect 

of this action is to mitigate the 

identified risk by establishing 

requirements necessary when operating 

within an established area at Pearson 

Field, and to increase overall system 

efficiency and safety; the expected 

outcome will have only a minimal 

impact on any small entity affected by 

this rulemaking action. 

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 

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 proposed rule 

and determined that the rule would 

protect safety 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 

proposed 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 notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

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 ICAO Standards and 

Recommended Practices to the 

maximum extent practicable. The FAA 

has reviewed the corresponding ICAO 

Standards and Recommended Practices 

and has identified no corresponding 

standards with these regulations. 

G. Environmental Analysis 

FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA 

actions that are categorically excluded 

from preparation of an environmental 

assessment or environmental impact 

statement under the National 

Environmental Policy Act in the 

absence of extraordinary circumstances. 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 193 / Tuesday, October 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 60313 

The FAA has determined this 

rulemaking action qualifies for the 

categorical exclusion identified in 

paragraph 312f and involves no 

extraordinary circumstances. 

V. Executive Order Determinations 

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

The FAA has analyzed this proposed 

rule under the principles and criteria of 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The 

agency has determined that this action 

would 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, would not have Federalism 

implications. 

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

The FAA analyzed this proposed 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 would not 

be a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

the executive order and would not be 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation 

Executive Order 13609, Promoting 

International Regulatory Cooperation, 

(77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) 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. 

VI. Additional Information 

A. Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written comments, data, or 

views. The agency also invites 

comments relating to the economic, 

environmental, energy, or federalism 

impacts that might result from adopting 

the proposals in this document. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the proposal, explain 

the reason for any recommended 

change, and include supporting data. To 

ensure the docket does not contain 

duplicate comments, commenters 

should send only one copy of written 

comments, or if comments are filed 

electronically, commenters should 

submit only one time. 

The FAA will file in the docket all 

comments it receives, as well as a report 

summarizing each substantive public 

contact with FAA personnel concerning 

this proposed rulemaking. Before acting 

on this proposal, the FAA will consider 

all comments it receives on or before the 

closing date for comments. The agency 

may change this proposal in light of the 

comments it receives. 

Proprietary or Confidential Business 

Information: Commenters should not 

file proprietary or confidential business 

information in the docket. Such 

information must be sent or delivered 

directly to the person identified in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this document, and marked as 

proprietary or confidential. If submitting 

information on a disk or CD ROM, mark 

the outside of the disk or CD ROM, and 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

proprietary or confidential. 

Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is 

aware of proprietary information filed 

with a comment, the agency does not 

place it in the docket. It is held in a 

separate file to which the public does 

not have access, and the FAA places a 

note in the docket that it has received 

it. If the FAA receives a request to 

examine or copy this information, it 

treats it as any other request under the 

Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 

552). The FAA processes such a request 

under Department of Transportation 

procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. 

B. Availability of Rulemaking 

Documents 

An electronic copy of rulemaking 

documents may be obtained from the 

Internet by— 

• Searching the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (http://www.regulations.gov); 

• Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and 

Policies Web page at http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies or 

• Accessing the Government Printing 

Office’s Web page at http://

www.fdsys.gov. 

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) 267–9677. Commenters 

must identify the docket or notice 

number of this rulemaking. 

All documents the FAA considered in 

developing this proposed rule, 

including economic analyses and 

technical reports, may be accessed from 

the Internet through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal referenced above. 

C. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

(SBREFA) 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 http://

www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/

rulemaking/sbre_act/. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 93 

Air traffic control, Airports, 

Navigation (air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Federal Aviation Administration 

proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, 

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(f), 106(g), 40103, 

40106, 40109, 40113, 44502, 44514, 44701, 

44715, 44719, 46301. 

■ 2. Add subpart N to part 93 to read as 

follows: 

Subpart N—Pearson Field (Vancouver, 

WA) Airport Traffic Rule 

Sec. 

93.161 Applicability. 

93.162 Description of area. 

93.163 Aircraft operations. 

§ 93.161 Applicability. 

This subpart prescribes special air 

traffic rules for aircraft conducting VFR 

operations in the vicinity of the Pearson 

Field Airport in Vancouver, 

Washington. 

§ 93.162 Description of area. 

The Pearson Field Airport Special 

Flight Rules Area is designated as that 

airspace extending upward from the 

surface to but not including 1,100 feet 

MSL in an area bounded by a line 

beginning at the point where the 019° 

bearing from Pearson Field intersects 

the 5-mile arc from Portland 

International Airport extending 

southeast to a point 11⁄2 miles east of 

Pearson Field on the extended 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
60314 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 193 / Tuesday, October 6, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

centerline of Runway 8/26, thence south 

to the north shore of the Columbia 

River, thence west via the north shore 

of the Columbia River to the 5-mile arc 

from Portland International Airport, 

thence clockwise via the 5-mile arc to 

point of beginning. 

§ 93.163 Aircraft operations. 

(a) Unless otherwise authorized by 

ATC, no person may operate an aircraft 

within the airspace described in 

§ 93.162, or taxi onto the runway at 

Pearson Field, unless— 

(1) That person establishes two-way 

radio communications with Pearson 

Advisory on the common traffic 

advisory frequency for the purpose of 

receiving air traffic advisories and 

continues to monitor the frequency at 

all times while operating within the 

specified airspace. 

(2) That person has obtained the 

Pearson Field weather prior to 

establishing two-way communications 

with Pearson Advisory. 

(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of 

paragraph (a) of this section, if two-way 

radio communications failure occurs in 

flight, a person may operate an aircraft 

within the airspace described in 

§ 93.162, and land, if weather 

conditions are at or above basic VFR 

weather minimums. If two-way radio 

communications failure occurs while in 

flight under IFR, the pilot must comply 

with § 91.185 of this chapter. 

(c) Unless otherwise authorized by 

ATC, persons operating an aircraft 

within the airspace described in 

§ 93.162 must— 

(1) When operating over the extended 

centerline of Pearson Field Runway 8/ 

26, maintain an altitude at or below 700 

feet above mean sea level. 

(2) Remain outside Portland Class C 

Airspace. 

(3) Make a right traffic pattern when 

operating to/from Pearson Field Runway 

26. 

Issued in Washington, DC, under the 

authority of 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 40103, and 

44701(a)(5) on September 29, 2015. 

Jodi S. McCarthy, 

Director, Airspace Services. 

[FR Doc. 2015–25344 Filed 10–5–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2013–0388; FRL–9935–08– 

Region 6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Infrastructure and Interstate Transport 

State Implementation Plan for the 2010 

Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Clean Air 

Act (CAA) the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

elements of a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submission from the State of Texas 

for the Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). The submittal addresses how 

the existing SIP provides for 

implementation, maintenance, and 

enforcement of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

(infrastructure SIP or i-SIP). This i-SIP 

ensures that the State’s SIP is adequate 

to meet the state’s responsibilities under 

the CAA. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before November 5, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R06–OAR–2013–0388, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions. 

• Email: Nevine Salem at 

salem.nevine@epa.gov. 

• Mail or delivery: Guy Donaldson, 

Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD–L), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 

Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 

75202–2733. Deliveries are accepted 

only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 

p.m. weekdays, and not on legal 

holidays. Special arrangements should 

be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2013– 

0338. The EPA’s policy is that all 

comments received will be included in 

the public docket without change, and 

may be made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. The 

www.regulations.gov Web site is an 

‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through www.regulations.gov, 

your email address will be 

automatically captured and included as 

part of the comment that is placed in the 

public docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, the EPA recommends that 

you include your name and other 

contact information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption, and be free of any 

defects or viruses. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. The EPA will generally not 

consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional information on submitting 

comments, please visit http://

www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available at 

either location (e.g., CBI). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Nevine Salem, 214–665–7222, 

salem.nevine@epa.gov. To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment with her or Bill Deese at 

214–665–7253. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. 

I. Background 

On June 22, 2010, the EPA revised the 

primary SO2 NAAQS (hereafter the 2010 

SO2 NAAQS) to establish a new 1-hour 

standard, with a level of 75 parts per 

billion, based on the 3-year average of 

the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour 


rmajette on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS