Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 57 / Thursday, March 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 14385 

That airspace extending upward from 

1,200 feet above the surface bounded on the 

west by V–269; on the east by V–484; and on 

the south by V–32; excluding existing 

controlled airspace above 8,500 feet MSL; 

excluding that airspace designated for federal 

airways; excluding the portions within 

Restricted Area R–6404 and Lucin MOA 

during their published hours of designation. 

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on March 

12, 2010. 

Robert Henry, 

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, 

Western Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6656 Filed 3–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2010–0001; Airspace 

Docket No. 10–ASO–10] 

Revocation of Class D and E Airspace; 

Panama City, FL 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action would remove 

Class D and Class E airspace areas at 

Panama City-Bay County Airport, 

Panama City, FL, as the old airport and 

control tower is scheduled to be closed. 

Controlled airspace will be established 

for the new airport under separate 

rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 10, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule 

to: U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590–0001; Telephone: 1–800– 

647–5527; Fax: 202–493–2251. You 

must identify the Docket Number FAA– 

2010–0001; Airspace Docket No. 10– 

ASO–10, at the beginning of your 

comments. You may also submit and 

review received comments through the 

Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Melinda Giddens, Airspace Specialist, 

Operations Support Group, Eastern 

Service Center, Air Traffic Organization, 

Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. 

Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; 

telephone (404) 305–5610. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

Interested persons are invited to 

comment on this rule 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– 

2010–0001 and Airspace Docket No. 10– 

ASO–10) and be submitted in triplicate 

to the Docket Management System (see 

ADDRESSES section for address and 

phone number). You may also submit 

comments through the Internet at 

http://222.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 No. FAA–2010–0001; Airspace 

Docket No. 10–ASO–10.’’ The postcard 

will be date/time stamped and returned 

to the commenter. 

All communications received before 

the specified closing date for comments 

will be considered before taking action 

on the proposed rule. The proposal 

contained in this notice may be changed 

in light of the comments received. A 

report summarizing each substantive 

public contact with FAA personnel 

concerned with this rulemaking will be 

filed in the docket. 

Availability of NPRMs 

An electronic copy of this document 

may be downloaded from and 

comments submitted through http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Recently 

published rulemaking documents can 

also be accessed through the FAA’s web 

page at http://www.faa.gov/ 

airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/ 

publications/airspace_amendments/. 

You may review the public docket 

containing the rule, 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 Avenue, College Park, Georgia 

30337. 

Persons interested in being placed on 

a mailing list for future NPRM’s should 

contact the FAA’s Office of Rulemaking, 

(202) 267–9677, to request a copy of 

Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking Distribution 

System, which describes the application 

procedure. 

The Proposal 

The FAA is considering an 

amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to remove 

Class D and E airspace at Panama CityBay County Airport, Panama City, FL. 

Panama City-Bay County Airport is 

closing to allow establishment of 

controlled airspace at the new airport, 

which is being proposed under separate 

rulemaking. Also, Class E airspace for 

Tyndall AFB would be re-established 

under separate rulemaking. 

Class D airspace designations, Class E 

airspace designations as extensions to a 

Class D surface area (E4), and Class E5 

designations are published in 

Paragraphs 5000, 6004 and 6005, 

respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9T, 

signed August 27, 2009, and effective 

September 15, 2009, which is 

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class D and E airspace 

designations listed in this document 

would be published subsequently in the 

Order. 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. It, 

therefore, (1) is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant 

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant 

preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation 

as the anticipated impact is so minimal. 

Since this is a routine matter that will 

only affect air traffic procedures and air 

navigation, it is certified that this 

proposed rule, when promulgated, 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the criteria of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

The FAA’s authority to issue rules 

regarding aviation safety is found in 

Title 49 of the United States Code. 

Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. This proposed 

rulemaking is promulgated under the 

authority described in Subtitle VII, Part, 

A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

14386 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 57 / Thursday, March 25, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

1 16 U.S.C. 824. 

2 Id. 824o(d)(2). 

3 Id. 824o(e)(3). 

4Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric 

Reliability Organization; and Procedures for the 

Establishment, Approval, and Enforcement of 

Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC 

Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,204, order on reh’g, Order No. 

672–A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,212 (2006). 

5North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 

FERC ¶ 61,062, order on reh’g & compliance, 117 

FERC ¶ 61,126 (2006), aff’d sub nom. Alcoa, Inc. 

v. FERC, 564 F.3d 1342 (DC Cir. 2009). 

6 Mandatory Reliability Standards for the BulkPower System, Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. 

¶ 31,242, order on reh’g, Order No. 693–A, 120 

FERC ¶ 61,053 (2007). 

prescribing regulations to assign the use 

of airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This proposed regulation is 

within the scope of that authority as it 

proposes to remove Class D and E 

airspace at Panama City-Bay County 

Airport, Panama City, FL. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71 

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, 

Navigation (Air). 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

authority delegated to me, 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 Federal Aviation 

Administration Order 7400.9T, Airspace 

Designations and Reporting Points, 

signed August 27, 2009, and effective 

September 15, 2009, is amended as 

follows: 

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace. 

* * * * * 

ASO FL D Panama City, FL [Removed] 

* * * * * 

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace 

Designated as an Extension to a Class D 

Surface Area. 

* * * * * 

ASO FL E4 Panama City, FL [Removed] 

* * * * * 

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas 

Extending Upward from 700 feet or More 

Above the Surface of the Earth. 

* * * * * 

ASO FL E5 Panama City, FL [Removed] 

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on March 

17, 2010. 

Michael Vermuth, 

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, 

Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic 

Organization. 

[FR Doc. 2010–6665 Filed 3–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

18 CFR Part 40 

[Docket No. RM10–6–000] 

Interpretation of Transmission 

Planning Reliability Standard 

March 18, 2010. 

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: Requirement R1.3.10 of the 

Commission-approved transmission 

planning Reliability Standard TPL–002– 

0 provides that planning authorities and 

transmission planners must consider in 

their planning studies the effects of the 

operation of their protection systems, 

including backup and redundant 

protection systems. The North American 

Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), 

the Commission-certified electric 

reliability organization, requests 

approval of an interpretation of 

Reliability Standard TPL–002–0. In this 

order, the Commission proposes to 

reject NERC’s proposed interpretation of 

Requirement R1.3.10 of Reliability 

Standard TPL–002–0 and, instead, 

proposes an alternative interpretation of 

the provision. 

DATES: Comments are due May 10, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by docket number by any of 

the following methods: 

• Agency Web Site: http://ferc.gov. 

Documents created electronically using 

word processing software should be 

filed in native applications or print-toPDF format and not in a scanned format. 

• Mail/Hand Delivery: Commenters 

unable to file comments electronically 

must mail or hand deliver an original 

and 14 copies of their comments to: 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 

Secretary of the Commission, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ron LeComte (Legal Information), Office 

of General Counsel, 888 First Street, 

NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

ron.lecomte@ferc.gov. 

Eugene Blick (Technical Information), 

Office of Electric Reliability, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

eugene.blick@ferc.gov. 

Edward Franks (Technical Information), 

Office of Electric Reliability, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

edward.franks@ferc.gov. 

Lauren Rosenblatt (Legal Information), 

Office of Enforcement, 888 First 

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, 

lauren.rosenblatt@ferc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

1. On November 17, 2009, the North 

American Electric Reliability 

Corporation (NERC) submitted a 

petition (NERC Petition) requesting 

approval of NERC’s interpretation of 

Requirement R1.3.10 of Commissionapproved transmission planning 

Reliability Standard TPL–002–0 (System 

Performance Following Loss of a Single 

Bulk Electric System Element). NERC 

developed the interpretation in response 

to a request for interpretation submitted 

to NERC by PacifiCorp on January 12, 

2009. The Commission proposes to 

reject the NERC proposed interpretation 

of Requirement R1.3.10 of Reliability 

Standard TPL–002–0 and, instead, 

proposes an alternative interpretation of 

the provision. 

I. Background 

2. Section 215 of the Federal Power 

Act (FPA) requires a Commissioncertified Electric Reliability 

Organization (ERO) to develop 

mandatory and enforceable Reliability 

Standards, which are subject to 

Commission review and approval.1

Specifically, the Commission may 

approve, by rule or order, a proposed 

Reliability Standard or modification to a 

Reliability Standard if it determines that 

the Standard is just, reasonable, not 

unduly discriminatory or preferential, 

and in the public interest.2 Once 

approved, the Reliability Standards may 

be enforced by the ERO, subject to 

Commission oversight, or by the 

Commission independently.3

3. Pursuant to section 215 of the FPA, 

the Commission established a process to 

select and certify an ERO,4 and 

subsequently certified NERC.5 On April 

4, 2006, NERC submitted to the 

Commission a petition seeking approval 

of 107 proposed Reliability Standards. 

On March 16, 2007, the Commission 

issued a Final Rule, Order No. 693,6

approving 83 of the 107 Reliability 

Standards, including transmission 

planning Reliability Standards TPL– 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS