46380 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices 

1For clarity, this guidance will continue to use 

the term ‘‘Secretary’’ in this context. 

whole or in part, no later September 3, 

2015. 

The following is a brief overview of 

the request: 

The Upper Cumberland Regional 

Airport is proposing the release of two 

tracts of property consisting of 10.33 

acres and 36.84 acres to allow the 

property to be used as wetland 

mitigation for projects in the area 

unrelated to the airport. These 

properties are non-contiguous to the 

airport and located on Breeding Swamp 

Road approximately 3 miles southeast of 

the airport and Franks Ferry Road 

approximately 13 miles southwest of the 

airport. 

Any person may inspect, by 

appointment, the request in person at 

the FAA office listed above under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Issued in Memphis, TN on July 28, 2015. 

Phillip J. Braden, 

Manager, Memphis Airports District Office. 

[FR Doc. 2015–19141 Filed 8–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

[Docket No. FAA–2015–2836] 

Guidance on the Procedures and 

Process To Petition the Secretary 

Under the Airport and Airways 

Improvement Act 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) is issuing 

guidance on the procedures and process 

to petition the Secretary under 49 U.S.C. 

47106(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Airport and 

Airways Improvement Act of 1982, as 

amended. Although this provision has 

been in effect since 1992, the FAA did 

not receive the first petition under this 

provision until 2010. This guidance is 

intended to provide detail and clarity 

about who may petition the Secretary, 

when such a petition may be filed, how 

the petition may be made, and the 

procedures and process to petition the 

Secretary under this Section of the 

Airport and Airways Improvement Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 5, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number FAA–2015–2836 

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: The FAA will post all 

comments it receives, without change, 

to http://www.regulations.gov, including 

any personal information the 

commenter provides. Using the search 

function of the docket Web site, anyone 

can find and read the electronic form of 

all comments received into any FAA 

docket, including the name of the 

individual sending the comment (or 

signing the comment for an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement can be 

found in the Federal Register published 

on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–19478), 

as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

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: Ms. 

Daphne Fuller, Assistant Chief Counsel. 

Mailing address: Federal Aviation 

Administration, 800 Independence Ave. 

SW., Washington, DC 20591. Telephone: 

(202) 267–3199. Email address: 

Daphne.Fuller@faa.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FAA 

requests comments, suggestions and 

recommendations that will assist the 

agency in assessing and understanding 

the potential effects and implications of 

providing guidance on the procedures 

for and process of the right to petition 

the Secretary under 49 U.S.C. Section 

47106(c)(1)(A)(ii). 

I. Background 

In 1982, Congress enacted the Airport 

and Airway Improvement Act (AAIA) 

(Pub. L. 97–248). Relevant portions of 

the AAIA are codified in 49 U.S.C. 

Chapter 471, Subchapter I, Airport 

Improvement. The AAIA, among other 

items, established the current-day 

Airport Improvement Program (AIP) that 

is administered by the FAA’s Office of 

Airports. Through the AIP, the FAA 

provides grants to public agencies — 

and, in limited cases, to private airport 

owners and operators—for the planning 

and development of public-use airports 

that are included in the National Plan of 

Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). 

The current AIP program built on earlier 

grant programs that are funded through 

a variety of user fees and fuel taxes. For 

more information on the history of the 

AIP and predecessor grant programs, see 

http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/. 

The AAIA also provides certain 

prerequisites and conditions that an 

airport sponsor must meet in order to be 

eligible for consideration of AIP 

funding. In 1992, Congress amended 

various provisions of the AAIA with the 

Airport and Airway Safety, Capacity, 

Noise Improvement, and Intermodal 

Transportation Act, Pub. L. 102–581. 

Section 113(b), Public Access and 

Participation with Respect to Airport 

Projects, amended Section 509(b)(6)(A) 

of the AAIA (49 U.S.C. 47106(c)(1)(A)) 

by inserting the following: 

(ii) the sponsor of the project certifies to 

the Secretary that the airport management 

board either has voting representation from 

the communities where the project is located 

or has advised the communities that they 

have the right to petition the Secretary 

concerning a proposed project. 

The Secretary of the U.S. Department 

of Transportation has delegated the 

responsibility to respond to a petition 

under Section 47106 to the 

Administrator of the FAA, 49 CFR 

1.83(a)(9). The Administrator has 

further delegated the authority to 

administer this provision to the 

Associate Administrator for the Office of 

Airports (ARP–1). Order 1100.154A.1

The requirement for a sponsor to 

provide such certification to the FAA is 

incorporated into FAA Order 5050.4B, 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Implementing Instructions for 

Airport Actions, par. 1203. 

II. Purpose 

After receiving a small number of 

submissions under this provision, the 

Associate Administrator for the Office of 

Airports has determined it would be 

helpful and appropriate to provide the 

public with more guidance on the 

procedures and processes associated 

with this provision: 

The Secretary may approve an application 

under this subchapter for an airport 

development project involving the location of 

an airport or runway or a major runway 

extension only if the sponsor certifies to the 

Secretary that the airport management board 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices 46381 

2As a starting point, the FAA notes that it is 

unable to locate any legislative history for Section 

47106(c) that would be helpful in determining the 

Congressional intent with respect with 

requirements of the statute. In interpreting this 

section, the Secretary is guided by context and the 

common meaning of the terms as informed by his 

understanding of airports and the airport 

development process. 

3Should the FAA prepare an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) for a project to which 

§ 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii) applies, or an EIS under MAP– 

21, Section 1319, the time to file a petition to the 

Secretary will begin to run when the community is 

informed of its right to file such a petition by the 

airport sponsor and will expire 30 days after such 

notification. 

4A relocated threshold leaves the pavement 

usable only for taxiing. 5Pavement beyond a dislocated threshold is 

available for takeoff. 

has voting representation from the 

communities in which the project is located 

or has advised the communities that they 

have the right to petition the Secretary about 

a proposed project[.] 

49 U.S.C. Section 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii).2

III. Proposed Guidance 

A. Where To File 

The Secretary of the U.S. Department 

of Transportation has delegated the 

responsibility to respond to a petition 

under Section 47106 to the 

Administrator of the FAA. Accordingly, 

any petition under this statutory 

provision should be addressed to the 

Associate Administrator for the Office of 

Airports, 800 Independence Avenue 

SW., Washington, DC 20591. 

B. Form and Substance 

The statute does not prescribe any 

specific format prescribed for the 

submission of a petition. The petition 

should be a concise statement 

describing the project to which the 

petitioner objects, and clearly indicating 

the petitioner’s specific objection to the 

project. The petition must also include 

a description of the result the petitioner 

is seeking. The petition should normally 

not exceed ten (10) pages. Upon 

application from the petitioner, the 

Administrator will consider extending 

the length of a petition for a large, 

complex project. Petitions must be 

legible and must be signed by the 

petitioner(s), who must be a duly 

authorized representative(s) of the 

community (see Section III.D.4 of this 

Federal Register notice). The FAA will 

not consider any petition that is not 

signed by the petitioner(s). 

C. Time To File a Petition 

A petition filed under section 

47106(c)(1)(A)(ii) should be filed only 

after the Airport Sponsor notifies a 

community of its right to file a petition. 

Petitions to the Secretary pursuant to 

Section 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii) must be 

submitted within thirty (30) days after 

the FAA gives notice that the sponsor 

has presented evidence that the 

requirements of Section 

47106(c)(1)(A)(ii) have been fulfilled. 

Although the environmental analysis 

and the grant decisions are separate 

processes and decision, grant-related 

findings that are preconditions of 

issuing a grant are often made in the 

environmental ROD. Typically, the FAA 

demonstrates that the sponsor has 

satisfied the requirements of Section 

47106(c)(1)(A)(ii) in its Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). 

Generally, the FEIS will contain a 

certification from the Airport Sponsor 

either that each community in which 

the project is located has a voting 

member on its airport management 

board, or that each community in which 

the project is located has been advised 

of its right to petition the Secretary. 

Normally the Airport Sponsor will have 

notified each of the communities prior 

to the publication of an FEIS, allowing 

communities at least 30 days to prepare 

and file a petition.3 The thirty-day time 

to file ensures that communities without 

voting representation on the airport 

management board have the same 

ability to object to or provide input on 

a project prior to a final decision that 

grant-related preconditions have been 

met as those communities that do have 

voting representation on the airport 

management board. Additionally, the 

30-day period coincides with the 

Council on Environmental Quality’s 

(CEQ) requirement that imposes a 30- 

day ‘‘cooling off’’ period on federal 

agencies between the publication of an 

FEIS and a Record of Decision (ROD). 

However, the FAA may also provide 

notice that the sponsor has fulfilled the 

requirements of Section 

47106(c)(1)(A)(ii) through a Draft EA, a 

Final EA, a Draft EIS, or via a separate 

Federal Register Notice. This type of 

FAA notice would also start the 30-day 

time limit for a community to file a 

petition pursuant to Section 

47106(c)(1)(A)(ii). 

D. Definitions 

(1) Location of an Airport 

For purposes of Section 

47106(c)(1)(A)(ii), location of an airport 

means approval of an airport at a 

location where no airport exists. This 

definition is consistent with the 

definition of the term airport location 

approval found in FAA Order 5050.4B, 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Implementing Instructions for 

Airport Actions (April 2006). Order 

5050.4B defines airport location 

approval as approval of a new public 

use airport at a location where no 

airport exists. (Order 5050.4B, ¶¶ 9.p 

and 203). In interpreting Section 

47106(c)(1)(A)(ii), it is appropriate to be 

consistent with other FAA 

interpretations of similar terms. 

Defining the term location of an airport 

consistently with the definition in the 

most current version of Order 5050.4B 

avoids confusion that could be caused 

by applying different definitions 

depending on the circumstances of the 

inquiry. 

(2) Location of a Runway 

While other FAA documents have 

referred to the location of a runway, 

none have defined the term. Because the 

term is similar to the term ‘‘location of 

an airport,’’ it is appropriate to define 

the terms in a similar manner. For 

purposes of Section 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii), 

location of a runway refers to decisions 

approving the site of a new or relocated 

runway where a runway does not 

currently exist. 

(3) Major Runway Extension 

Order 5050.4B defines a major 

runway extension as one that creates a 

significant impact to an affected 

environmental resource (including 

noise), or one that permanently removes 

a relocated threshold.4 Removal of a 

dislocated threshold is not considered a 

runway extension.5 The definition of 

major runway extension that appears in 

Order 5050.4B, ¶9.l will be used in 

interpreting Section 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii). 

(4) Communities in Which the Project Is 

Located 

The term community is not defined in 

the statute. In the enabling legislation, 

this provision was entitled ‘‘Public 

Participation With Respect to Airport 

Projects.’’ The term ‘‘community’’ will 

be defined as a jurisdictional authority, 

that is, a political subdivision of a state, 

such as a town, township, city, or 

county. Defining community as a 

jurisdictional authority is consistent 

with the context of Section 47106(c). 

For example, in subsection (A)(i) the 

statute speaks of ‘‘objectives of any 

planning that the community has 

carried out.’’ Typically, only political 

subdivisions of a state, such as those 

described above, would have planning 

authority. Similarly, in the FAA’s 

experience, only a jurisdictional 

authority or political subdivision would 

be considered for voting representation 

on the airport’s governing authority. It is 

only in the absence of such voting 

representation of a jurisdictional 

authority or political subdivision that 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
46382 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 149 / Tuesday, August 4, 2015 / Notices 

1Note: The title of the organization as 

documented in the 1993 United States Court of 

Appeals case National Parks Conservation 

Association, et al. v Federal Aviation 

Administration, et al. 

2Other parties to the suit included the Southern 

Utah Wilderness Alliance, the Sierra Club, and 

Deborah L. Threedy. 

the statute provides the opportunity to 

petition the Secretary. 

Defining community as a 

jurisdictional authority or political 

subdivision is also consistent with the 

definition of community in Order 

5050.4B, ¶1203(b)(1). 

Accordingly, only a political 

subdivision of a state that enjoys general 

jurisdiction, or a Tribal government 

meets the definition of community in 

this context. Political subdivisions of a 

state that have a specific, substantive 

authority, such as water districts or 

school districts, do not adequately 

represent the interests of the community 

at large. They are not required to 

balance the interests of the whole 

community on a wide range of issues. 

Rather, they seek to promote their 

specific substantive interest. 

Additionally, water districts or school 

districts would not normally be invited 

to sit on an airport management board. 

Thus, only a political subdivision of a 

state which enjoys general jurisdiction 

is a community entitled to file a petition 

under Section 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii). 

Finally, under the statute, a 

community is only eligible to petition 

under Section 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii) if the 

project is located in the community. If 

land is disturbed in the community, 

then the project is considered to be 

located in that community. The courts 

have also provided instruction on when 

a project is located in a community. In 

City of Bridgeton v. FAA, 212 F. 3d 448 

(8th Cir. 2000), the court determined 

that a community in which there was no 

construction and no significant noise 

impact could not challenge the failure to 

notify it that it could petition the 

Secretary. Thus, outside the 

construction context, a project may be 

located in a community only if the 

project will have a significant impact on 

the community. For example, where a 

project will cause a significant noise 

impact on a community, the project is 

located in that community. If the project 

does not create a significant impact in 

the community, the community will 

have no right to petition the Secretary. 

E. Other Considerations 

There are currently ten states that 

participate in the FAA’s State Block 

Grant Program (SBGP). Under the 

program, the State agency (usually the 

aviation division of the state 

Department of Transportation) assumes 

responsibility for administering AIP 

grants and if applicable, discretionary 

grants for non-primary airports. See 49 

U.S.C. Section 47128. As part of the 

responsibility, the state assumes various 

responsibilities for the FAA including 

reviewing and approving proposed 

changes to the Airport Layout Plan 

(ALP) and compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

The FAA interprets 49 U.S.C. Section 

47106(c)(1)(A)(ii) as not being 

applicable to a project approved and 

administered as part of a state block 

grant. The plain language of this 

statutory provision states that this 

Section is triggered when a proponent 

submits a project grant application to 

the FAA. In the case of the SBGP, no 

such request is made as the funds are 

given to the states as a block and the 

state assumes responsibility for 

administering those funds. Participants 

in the SBGP are required to engage 

communities according to FAA 

guidance and to circulate the draft EA 

if warranted. Some who have sought to 

use this provision have argued that it 

should apply to State Block Grant 

projects. The FAA invites comments on 

this interpretation. 

F. Agency Response 

The FAA will provide a written 

response to a petition to the Secretary. 

The FAA may respond by outlining the 

issues raised in the petition and 

providing its responses either within the 

environmental record of decision, or it 

may elect to respond in a separate 

document. 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 47106(c)(1)(A)(ii), 14 

CFR part 1. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on July 29, 

2015. 

Elliott Black, 

Director, Office of Airport Planning and 

Programming APP–001. 

[FR Doc. 2015–19144 Filed 8–3–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Notice of Availability of the Record of 

Decision (ROD) for the Cal Black 

Memorial Airport, Halls Crossing 

Replacement Airport 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and 

Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), 

the Federal Aviation Administration 

announces the availability of the Record 

of Decision for the Cal Black Memorial 

Airport, replacement airport for the 

Halls Crossing Airport. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD may be 

viewed during regular business hours at 

the following locations: 

1. Federal Aviation Administration 

Airports Division, Suite 315, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057. 

2. Federal Aviation Administration, 

Airports District Office, Suite 224, 

26805 East 68th Avenue, Denver, CO 

80249. 

3. San Juan County Courthouse, 

County Executive Office, 117 S. Main, 

Monticello, Utah 84535. 

The ROD will also be available on the 

following Web site: http://

halls.crossing.airportnetwork.com/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Janell Barrilleaux, Environmental 

Program Manager, Federal Aviation 

Administration Airports Division, 

Northwest Mountain Region, 1601 Lind 

Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057. Mrs. 

Barrilleaux may be contacted during 

business hours at (425) 227–2611 

(phone), (425) 227–1600 (fax), or via 

email at Janell.Barrilleaux@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Halls 

Crossing replacement airport was 

originally proposed in 1966 due to the 

inadequacy of the existing Halls 

Crossing airstrip. After completion of 

numerous planning studies, the Federal 

Aviation Administration completed an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

(June, 1990) with the cooperation of the 

National Park Service (NPS) and the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). A 

Record of Decision (ROD) was issued in 

August 1990 approving the 

development of what is now named the 

Cal Black Memorial Airport. 

Concurrently, the BLM approved an 

amendment of a land plan which 

allowed the conveyance of land to San 

Juan County for the construction of the 

new airport. 

In 1990, the National Parks 

Conservation Association (NPCA),1 et 

al.2 brought suit concerning the 

adequacy of the 1990 Final EIS and the 

adequacy of the BLM plan amendment 

and land transfer process. In its July 7, 

1993 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the Tenth Circuit concluded that 

‘‘the action of FAA approving the 

project based on a finding of ‘no 

significant impact’ and ‘no significant 

adverse impact’ [was] arbitrary and 

capricious.’’ The court proceeding 

stated: 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES