[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 61 (Tuesday, March 31, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17142-17147]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07353]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA-2013-0513]

Registration and Financial Security Requirements for Brokers of
Property and Freight Forwarders; Association of Independent Property
Brokers and Agents' Exemption Application

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

ACTION: Notice of denial of application for exemption.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: FMCSA denies an application from the Association of
Independent Property Brokers and Agents (AIPBA) for an exemption for
all property brokers and freight forwarders from the $75,000 bond
provision included in section 32918 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), now codified in 49 U.S.C. 13906. AIPBA
filed its request pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 13541 on August 14, 2013. On
December 26, 2013, FMCSA published a notice in the Federal Register
requesting comments from all interested parties on AIPBA's exemption
application. After reviewing the public comments, the Agency has
concluded that the exemption should be denied on the basis that 49
U.S.C.13541 does not give FMCSA the authority to essentially nullify a
statutory provision by exempting the entire class of persons subject to
the provision. Furthermore, even if the Agency had the authority to
issue such a blanket exemption, AIPBA's exemption application does not
meet the factors provided in section 13541 because (1) the new $75,000
bond requirement is necessary to carry out the National Transportation
Policy at 49 U.S.C.13101, (2) there has been no showing that the
$75,000 requirement ``is not needed to protect shippers from the abuse
of market power'' and (3) the requested exemption is not in the public
interest.

DATES: This decision is effective March 31, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief of Driver and
Carrier Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC
20590.

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents,
including those referenced in this document, or to read comments
received, go to:
     Regulations.gov, http://www.regulations.gov, at any time
and insert FMCSA-2013-0513 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then click
``Search.''
     Docket Management Facility, Room W12-140, DOT Building,
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590. You may view the docket
online by visiting the facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday except Federal holidays.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    AIPBA's exemption application and all public comments are available
in the public docket. To view comments filed in this docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov and click on the ``Read Comments'' box in
the upper right hand side of the screen. Then, in the ``Keyword'' box,
insert ``FMCSA-2013-0513'' and click ``Search.'' Next, click ``Open
Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column. Finally, in the ``Title''
column, click on the document you would like to review. If you do not
have access to the Internet, you may view the docket by visiting the
Docket Management Facility at the address above.

Privacy Act

    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 www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Legal Basis for the Exemption Application and Proceeding

    Section 13541(a) of title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.
13541) requires the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to exempt a
person, class of persons, or a transaction or service from the
application, in whole or in part, of a provision of 49 U.S.C., Subtitle
IV, Part B (Chapters 131-149), or to use the exemption authority to
modify the application of a provision of 49 U.S.C. Chapters 131-149 as
it applies to such person, class, transaction, or service when the
Secretary finds that the application of the provision:
     Is not necessary to carry out the transportation policy of
49 U.S.C. 13101

     Is not needed to protect shippers from the abuse of market
power or that the transaction or service is of limited scope; and
     Is in the public interest.
The exemption authority provided by section 13541 ``may not be used to
relieve a person from the application of, and compliance with, any law,
rule, regulation, standard, or order pertaining to cargo loss and
damage [or] insurance . . . .'' 49 U.S.C. 13541(e)(1).
    AIPBA seeks an exemption from the $75,000 financial security
requirements for brokers and freight forwarders at 49 U.S.C. 13906 (b)
& (c). Section 13906 is located in 49 U.S.C. Subtitle IV Part B
(chapter 139) and therefore may be considered within the general scope
of the exemption authority provided by section 13541. The Secretary may
begin a section 13541 exemption proceeding on the application of an
interested party. 49 U.S.C. 13541(b). See, e.g., Motor Carrier
Financial Information Reporting Requirements-Request for Public
Comments, 68 FR 48987 (Aug. 15, 2003). The Secretary may ``specify the
period of time during which an exemption'' is effective and may revoke
the exemption ``to the extent specified, on finding that application of
a provision of [49 U.S.C. Chapters 131-149] to the person, class, or
transportation is necessary to carry out the transportation policy of
[49 U.S.C.] section 13101.'' 49 U.S.C. 13541(c), (d).
    The Administrator of FMCSA has been delegated authority under 49
CFR 1.87 to carry out the functions vested in the Secretary by 49
U.S.C. 13541.

Background

    On July 6, 2012, the President signed MAP-21 into law, which
included a number of mandatory, non-discretionary changes to FMCSA
programs. Some of these changes amended the financial security
requirements applicable to property brokers and freight forwarders
operating under FMCSA's jurisdiction. Pub.L. 112-141, Sec.  32918, 126
Stat. 405 (codified at 49 U.S.C. 13906(b) & (c)). More specifically, 49
U.S.C. 13906(b) and (c) requires brokers and freight forwarders to
provide evidence of minimum financial security in the amount of
$75,000.
    On September 5, 2013, FMCSA published guidance (78 FR 54720)
``concerning the implementation of certain provisions of . . . (MAP-21)
concerning persons acting as a broker or a freight forwarder.'' On
October 1, 2013, FMCSA issued regulations requiring brokers and freight
forwarders to have a $75,000 surety bond or trust fund in effect. 49
CFR 387.307(a), 387.403(c); 78 FR 60226, 60233.
    On November 14, 2013, after initially filing a complaint and then
voluntarily dismissing the case in district court, AIPBA filed a
petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit. Association of Independent Property Brokers and Agents, Inc.
v. Foxx, No. 13-15238-D (11th Cir.). The petition alleges that the
Agency's October 1, 2013 final rule was improperly issued without
notice and comment. The court, upon AIPBA's request, has stayed the
case pending the resolution of this exemption proceeding.
    On January 23, 2015, AIPBA instituted another proceeding in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
seeking to invalidate the $75,000 bond requirement from 49 U.S.C.
13906. Association of Independent Property Brokers and Agents, Inc. v.
Foxx et al, No. 5:15-cv-00038-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla.). No additional briefs
or rulings have been filed in the district court case.

AIPBA Exemption Application

    In an August 14, 2013 letter to the Secretary, AIPBA, through its
counsel, requested that the Department ``permanently exempt all
property brokers and freight forwarders from the $75,000 broker bond
provision of MAP-21. . . .'' AIPBA argues that the ``$75,000 broker
surety bond amount is not necessary to carry out the transportation
policy of section 13101, [or] . . . to protect shippers from the abuse
of market power . . . and . . . is not in the public interest.'' AIPBA
seeks a categorical exemption ``so that property brokers and forwarders
can continue to do business under the existing bond regulations.'' A
copy of the exemption application is included in the docket referenced
at the beginning of this notice.
    First, AIPBA believes that the $75,000 bond requirement is contrary
to the transportation policy of 49 U.S.C. 13101 because it violates the
federal government's policy to ``encourage fair competition, and
reasonable rates for transportation by motor carriers of property'' and
to ``allow a variety of quality and price options to meet changing
market demands and the diverse requirements of the shipping and
traveling public,'' citing 49 U.S.C. 13101(a) (2)(A),(D).
    AIPBA also argues that the $75,000 broker bond requirement ``is not
necessary to protect shippers from the abuse of market power.''
According to AIPBA,''[t]he unnecessarily high $75,000 broker bond
requirement will cause the majority of property brokers to leave the
marketplace, which will expose shippers to abuses of market power by
the few large property brokers able to stay in business.''
    With regard to the public interest, AIPBA believes that the new
bond requirement will ``cause a significant increase in consumer prices
once the supply of property brokers is drastically reduced.'' AIPBA
indicated that a lack of competition will require shippers to pay more
for transportation services. In addition to predicting that small and
mid-sized brokers will be forced out of the marketplace due to the new
higher bond requirement, AIPBA believes the new requirement will serve
as a barrier to entry into the marketplace for other property brokers.
    Finally, while AIPBA acknowledges that ``there are certain
regulations from which [the Secretary] cannot issue exemptions,'' it
believes that:

``. . . the broker bond does not fall into one of the listed
categories. Specifically, the bond is a financial security rather
than a type of required insurance, a distinction emphasized in 49
U.S.C 13906 by the choice of a bond or insurance as well as MAP-21's
proposed amendment to 49 U.S.C. 13906, which still requires the
broker bond but deletes all reference to insurance.''

Request for Comments

    On December 26, 2013, FMCSA requested public comment on the AIPBA
exemption application (78 FR 78472). Specifically, FMCSA requested
comments on whether the Agency should grant or deny AIPBA's
application, in whole or in part. The Agency also requested comments on
how it should apply 49 U.S.C. 13541(a)(1-3) to AIPBA's request.

Discussion of Public Comments

General Discussion

    FMCSA received 80 responses to the December 26, 2013, notice, 23 of
which were anonymous. Most of the commenters (52, including 16 of the
anonymous commenters) supported the AIPBA application for an exemption
and 26 (including 7 of the anonymous commenters) opposed the request.
The named commenters are: Micah Applebee; AIPBA; Dave Britton; William
Cohen; Gerard Coyle; Sue Cuthbertson; Raymond Donahue; Rodney
Falkenstein; Christine Friend; Philip Fulmer; Kelley Gabor; Ray Gerdes;
Kathy Harris; David Hoke; Scott Housely; Matt Kloss; James Lamb (2
responses); Deborah J. Larson; Lew Levy; Stuart Looney (LineHaul
Logistics, Inc.); Angela Maccombs; Michael Majerek; Mike Manzella;
Aaron Menice; Deborah McCoy; Jenny Merkey; Michael Millard (2
responses); John Miller; Gaetono P. Monteleone

(Transport Management Service Corporation); Ronald Morales; Hugh Nolan;
Chris Olson; Charles Onsum; the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
Association (OOIDA); M. Peters; James Powers; Roger's Freight, LLC;
James Randolph; Kevin Reidy; Paul Rosenweig, Jr.; Bev Smith; Michael
Stanley (SMS Transportation); Robert Schwartz; Tracey Spence; the
Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA); Kelly Swickard; John
Thomas; The Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA); Veles
Logistics, Inc.; Patrick Walsh; Werner Enterprises, Inc.; and, Gregory
Williamson (Williamson's Enterprises). One commenter provided only his
first name, Larry, and one hand-written comment (from Mike) included an
illegible last name.
    Many of the commenters who wrote in support of AIPBA's application
believe the increased bond requirement has resulted in a significant
decrease in the number of freight forwarders and brokers with the
requisite authority from FMCSA. Some of these commenters argue that the
increased bond requirement has resulted in the loss of jobs and an
adverse impact on consumer prices. A number of the commenters who
identified themselves as brokers argued the new requirement is intended
to reduce competition by eliminating small businesses rather than to
reduce fraud. Several commenters also argue that implementation of the
$75,000 bond requirement is inconsistent with the transportation policy
in 49 U.S.C. 13101.
    Commenters writing in opposition to AIPBA's application argue that
the previous $10,000 bond requirement was originally set in 1979 and
that small trucking companies, especially owner operators, will be
better protected and have better business opportunities with the
$75,000 bond. A number of these commenters include brokers who state
that obtaining the higher bond amount was relatively easy. And some
state that the previous $10,000 bond was insufficient and resulted in
transportation service providers being left unpaid after the broker
went out of business.

Specific Issues Raised by AIPBA and Supporters of AIPBA's Application

Unintended Consequences
    A number of the commenters writing in support of AIPBA's
application believe the increased bond requirement has resulted in
unintended consequences such as brokers and freight forwarders being
forced out of the industry, a loss of jobs and decreased rates for
trucking companies. AIPBA indicated in its comments that the total
number of property brokers on October 1, 2013, was 21,565 and that
8,218 broker operating authority registrations have been revoked since
December 1, 2013. AIPBA indicated that the total number of freight
forwarders on October 1, 2013, was 2,212 with 1,583 freight forwarder
operating authority registrations revoked since December 1, 2013.\1\
AIPBA believes there will be a secondary wave of revocations when
bonding companies that rushed to acquire market share adjust their
rates after the financial security market settles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ AIPBA's comments were dated January 22, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AIPBA also argues the increase in the bond requirements has
resulted in the loss of jobs and an adverse impact on consumer prices.
AIPBA believes the increase in bonds has had an adverse impact on rates
for truckers as well.
Incremental Increase in Bond Requirement
    Matt Kloss supports the AIPBA exemption in part and believes FMCSA
should consider an incremental increase in the bond limit rather than
leaving the limit at $75,000. He states that he has been in the
brokerage business for 12 years and he has never had a successful
filing against his bond. He explains that he is not in the business to
steal money from trucking companies. He argues that ``[e]stablished
companies with good histories should have been required to increase the
bond to $20,000 this year, with future increases that are manageable.''
    An anonymous commenter believes that the bond requirement ``. . .
should be initially lowered to a more reasonable amount of $25,000.''
This commenter also argued that the rules should require a $25,000 fee
per agent for large brokers.
Costs of the $75,000 Bond Will Drive Brokers Out of the Industry
    Sue Cuthbertson discusses the premiums that she had to pay to
comply with the $75,000 bond requirement. She explains that she used to
pay $900 per year for her broker bond and she now has to pay $3,500 per
year for the $75,000 bond. She says that she could barely stay in
business paying the $900.
    An anonymous commenter writing in support of the AIPBA application
describes a similar experience with premiums for the $75,000 bond. The
commenter explains that initially the premium quoted was $3,500.
However, after the commenter shopped around for better rates, the same
company quoted the commenter a more favorable premium of $1,300.

Specific Comments by Opponents of AIPBA's Application

Protection of the General Public's, Shippers' and Carriers' Financial
Interests
    OOIDA believes that the $75,000 bond requirement helps to increase
carriers' comfort in dealing with brokers they do not know and as such
helps promote efficiency in the marketplace. According to OOIDA:

    ``Many of OOIDA's members are small business men and women who
operate under their own federal operating authority and rely upon
brokers to find freight to meet their business goals. Part of the
efficiency of the current transportation marketplace is that brokers
match motor carriers available to haul freight and shippers needing
to move freight--parties who do not have an ongoing relationship,
but who might make mutually beneficial connections on a load by load
basis. This efficiency in the marketplace is increased greatly when
motor carriers feel comfortable taking loads from brokers who they
do [not] know (apparent omission in original). By securing the debts
of brokers to the motor carrier, the federal broker bond or trust is
intended to give motor carriers confidence that they will be paid
when they are doing business with a broker they do not know.''

    OOIDA also argues that ``raising the bond or trust amount to
$75,000 is intended to reduce harm caused by undercapitalized brokers
who steal transportation service from motor carriers--the protected
parties under the broker bond or trust statute . . . The $10,000 bond
or trust was simply not sufficient to serve its intended purpose--to
protect the motor carriers from non-payment by brokers.'' OOIDA also
comments on the connection between the new $75,000 financial
responsibility requirement and the National Transportation Policy (NTP)
at 49 U.S.C. 13101. According to OOIDA, ``[b]y this statute, Congress
burnished the national transportation goals of encouraging `sound
economic conditions in transportation, including sound economic
conditions among carriers;' 49 U.S.C. 13101(a)(1)(C), and acted to
promote efficient transportation and to enable efficient and well-
managed carriers to . . . maintain fair wages and working conditions.
Sections 13101(a)(2)(B)&(F).''
    Stuart Looney states:

    ``The purpose for requiring the posting of a bond is well
established as furthering protection to the general public. The
public is well served with this requirement as freight brokering is
an easy entry undertaking and is fraught with many thinly
capitalized and reasonably unprofessional participants.''

    The Surety & Fidelity Association of America (SFAA) believes a bond
requirement of less than $75,000 would deprive shippers and carriers of
the additional protection that Congress thought was necessary.
According to SFAA ``the intent of the bond is to protect shippers and
motor carriers . . . There are a number of cases in which the $10,000
bond was not sufficient to pay all claims in the full amount . . . .''
SFAA cited multiple cases for its proposition.
    SFAA also argues that the surety bond:

``. . . protects the public interest by ensuring that FMCSA licenses
are provided to qualified, well-capitalized brokers and freight
forwarders . . . While claims handling is a critical function of the
surety, another equally critical function is the surety's
prequalification of a principal before the surety will write a bond.
A surety will review the capabilities and financial strength of
bonds applicants and provide bonds only to those entities that the
surety has determined are capable of performing the underlying
obligation . . . The bond provides financial protection to shippers
and carriers, which serves to reduce costs in the long run by
eliminating the need for a carrier or shipper to include the risk of
nonpayment in its pricing.''

    The Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA) indicates that
eliminating the bond requirement is ``not acceptable'' to shippers or
carriers. According to TIA, 2 major trucking organizations, the
American Trucking Associations (ATA) and OOIDA have supported
increasing the bond well above the new $75,000 amount. According to
TIA, in a 2009 letter, ``ATA cited a study they conducted indicating
that only 13 percent of carriers' claims against brokers were satisfied
by the $10,000 bond.'' According to TIA, in recent years, its members
have seen shippers demand $100,000 bonds to exclusively protect one
shipper.
    Werner Enterprises, Inc. (Werner) argues that ``[t]he eroded value
of the bond since it was last adjusted to $10,000 in 1977'' means
``there is essentially no real security for broker misconduct.''
    Veles Logistics Inc. (Veles), which describes itself as a ``small
group of owner-operators,'' believes the $75,000 bond will help to get
rid of ``unstable unsafe financially weak and fraudulent brokers.''
Veles also believes the new bond requirement will increase the prices
of loads by eliminating ``third and fourth and fifth resellers out of
the freight moving chain.''
    Scott Housely argues:

    ``The brokerage limit as it stand[s] at $75,000.00 addresses a
larger problem of unethical brokers who have not invested in the
industry and don't intend to. Carriers in the past had little
recourse in collecting bad debt from brokers or the shippers that
they worked for due to the transient nature of many brokers. The
limit as it stands does not [impede] any good brokers and enhances
the relationship with the asset based carriers who are the backbone
of the entire system. Please keep the current rule in place.''

Granting the Exemption Would Eliminate the Bond Requirement
    OOIDA expresses concern that if FMCSA granted AIPBA's request, the
Agency would not have the discretion to return to the $10,000 bond
limit; the Agency would have to allow brokers to operate without having
a bond. OOIDA argues:

    ``The application would have the effect of permitting all
brokers to operate without a broker bond or trust of any amount.
When Congress enacted a $75,000 bond or trust statute, it repealed
the $10,000 bond or trust statute. AIPBA's requested exemption would
not reenact the $10,000 bond or trust requirement; it would exempt
all property brokers from the requirement to carry any bond or
trust. The statute found at 49 U.S.C. 13541 only permits FMCSA to
grant exemptions from certain statutory requirements. It does not
permit FMCSA to amend or revise applicable statutes. FMCSA has no
power to institute a bond or trust requirement of any amount other
than the statutorily set $75,000 amount. The goal of AIPBA's
application, the creation of a broker industry with no bond or trust
protecting the motor carrier industry, would completely subvert
congressional intent.''

Costs of the Bond are Reasonable
    Werner states:

    ``The bond cost is a problem for some brokers for good reason. A
bond such as this which is designed to guaranty the integrity and
ability of a party to respond for their failures to another party is
priced not only upon the total exposure of the company writing the
bond but also upon the financial strength of the party being bonded.
Our experience was that the cost of our $10,000 bond was $77 per
year which increased to $338 for a $75,000 bond. The cost increase
is not significant. Companies that are experiencing higher costs may
be the companies for whom the shippers and motor carriers need
protection.''

    TIA states:

    It is ironic that those making the argument to eliminate the
bond increase because some brokers and forwarders cannot afford it,
actually make the case for the higher bond. Congress determined that
companies should not handle other people's money if they cannot
afford to protect it. Broker and forwarder bonds are available in
the marketplace today for less than $6,000 per year.

    TIA argues that when the cost for the bond is spread over an
average of 5 loads per day, the bond premium works out to be less than
$5.00 per load.

FMCSA Decision

    FMCSA has considered AIPBA's exemption request and all of the
comments received, including AIPBA's subsequent comments, and FMCSA
denies the request. FMCSA does not have the authority to disregard
Congress's directive in the revised statutory provision by exempting
all property brokers and freight forwarders from the bond requirement.
Essentially, AIPBA's opposition to the increase in the bond amount is a
challenge to Congress's judgment that the increase is necessary and
appropriate, indeed in the public interest.
    Furthermore, even if the Agency had the authority to grant AIPBA's
exemption application, AIPBA's request does not meet the three part
statutory test in 49 U.S.C. 13541. Specifically, FMCSA finds that the
$75,000 bond requirement at 49 U.S.C. 13906(b)-(c) is necessary to
carry out the transportation policy of section 13101, and is needed to
protect shippers from the abuse of market power. . . .'' \2\ Moreover,
and most critically, an industry-wide exemption for brokers and freight
forwarders from the $75,000 bond requirement is not in the public
interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ AIPBA does not argue that ``the transaction or service is of
limited scope,'' 49 U.S.C. 13541(a)(2), nor do other commenters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Scope of FMCSA's Exemption Authority

    In Section 32918 of MAP-21, Congress expressly mandated that all
FMCSA regulated brokers and freight forwarders have a minimum of
$75,000 in financial security. 49 U.S.C. 13906(b),(c). AIPBA asks the
Agency to permanently exempt all property brokers and freight
forwarders subject to section 32918's $75,000 bond requirement. FMCSA
is denying AIPBA's exemption application because the Agency lacks the
authority to issue the kind of blanket exemption that AIPBA seeks.
    While section 13541 gives the Agency broad authority to exempt
certain persons or transactions, FMCSA does not have the authority to
effectively nullify a statute by exempting the entire class of persons
subject to the bond requirement, as AIPBA requests. 49 U.S.C. 13541(a);
Terran ex rel. Terran v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 195
F.3d 1302, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (``The Constitution does not authorize
members of the executive branch to enact, amend, or repeal
statutes.''). AIPBA's request would

amount to a usurpation of a congressional mandate. Therefore, because
the Agency lacks the authority to grant AIPBA's blanket exemption, the
Agency is denying AIPBA's exemption application.

Public Interest

    Even if FMCSA had the authority to grant AIPBA's exemption
application, a blanket exemption covering all brokers and freight
forwarders is not in the public interest. ``Congress is presumed to
legislate in the public interest.'' Time Warner Entertainment Co. L.P.
v. F.C.C., 810 F.Supp. 1302, 1304 n.6 (D.D.C. 1992). As discussed
above, granting an exemption to all brokers and freight forwarders
would flout a clear and recent congressional directive and statement of
the public interest. Further, numerous commenters have persuaded FMCSA
that such an exemption is not in the public interest.
    First, FMCSA finds that granting AIPBA's request would undermine
the purpose of the bond requirement--the protection of shippers and
motor carriers that utilize brokers and freight forwarders as third
party intermediaries. FMCSA's predecessor, the Interstate Commerce
Commission (ICC), very clearly stated that `` `[t]he legislative
history . . . clearly reveals that the primary purpose of Congress in
regulating motor transportation brokers is to protect carriers and the
traveling and shipping public against dishonest and financially
unstable middlemen in the transportation industry.' '' Clarification of
Insurance Regulation, 3 I.C.C.2d 689, 692 (1987)(quoting Carla Ticket
Service, Inc., Broker Application, 94 M.C.C. 579, 580 (1964)).
    According to OOIDA, ``[t]he $10,000 bond or trust was simply not
sufficient to serve its intended purpose--to protect the motor carriers
from non-payment by brokers.'' And, as SFAA notes, ``the intent of the
bond is to protect shippers and motor carriers. A bond in a lesser
amount would deprive shippers and carriers of the additional protection
that Congress thought was necessary. There are a number of cases in
which the $10,000 bond was not sufficient to pay all claims in the full
amount. . . .'' Moreover, according to TIA, in 2009, ``ATA cited a
study they conducted indicating that only 13 percent of carriers'
claims against brokers were satisfied by the $10,000 bond.'' This
unanimity of input from members of the three industries most affected
by the $75,000 requirement (transportation intermediaries, motor
carriers and the surety bond industry) is noteworthy. Given that the
purpose of the financial security requirement is to protect shippers
and motor carriers, and the widespread view that the previous $10,000
requirement \3\ was deficient in performing that function, it would not
serve the public interest to grant AIPBA's requested exemption. FMCSA
will not perpetuate, through the grant of an exemption, the pre-MAP-21
status quo of shippers and motor carriers not being able to collect
from financially insolvent brokers. Neither AIPBA nor any of the
commenters that supported its request have shown how the public
interest in protecting shippers and motor carriers would be served by
granting the requested exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ FMCSA, by regulation, raised the bond requirement to $25,000
for household goods (HHG) brokers in 2010. 49 CFR 387.307 (2012).
Pursuant to regulation, as of October 1, 2013, all FMCSA regulated
brokers and freight forwarders (HHG and non-HHG) are required to
have $75,000 in financial security. 49 CFR 387.307(a) (brokers); 49
CFR 387.403(c)(freight forwarders).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the other hand, in its exemption application, AIPBA argues that
the $75,000 broker surety bond amount is ``not in the public
interest.'' AIPBA argues that the $75,000 broker bond would:

. . . cause a significant increase in consumer prices once the
supply of property brokers is drastically reduced . . . In addition,
the high amount of the broker bond will not only cause existing
small and mid-size property brokers to leave the marketplace, but
will also serve as a barrier to entry by other property brokers . .
. The statutory loss of broker licenses on October 1, without
further warning, will cause chaos in the trucking and shipping
industry, and will cause thousands of brokers to lose their
livelihood on October 1, 2013, a date now less than 60 days away.
This will result in an immediate loss of jobs for these brokers and
the agents they employ. It will also cause significant supply chain
disruptions. Such a scenario is not in the public interest.

    In its January 22, 2014, comments in response to FMCSA's Federal
Register Notice in this proceeding, AIPBA states ``[w]ith regard to the
public interest . . . a lack of competition will require shippers to
pay more for transportation services.'' AIPBA also argues that ``it is
in the public interest to allow open competition, as the public
benefits from lower consumer prices and increased employment. A larger
pool of property brokers provides more competition and better access to
brokers for shippers, which reduces the overall prices of products to
consumers.''
    FMCSA acknowledges that the number of FMCSA-registered brokers and
freight forwarders declined after the $75,000 bond requirement went
into effect on October 1, 2013. Between September 2013 and December
2013, the number of freight forwarders with active authority dropped
from 2,351 to 925. The number of freight forwarders then increased to
1,208 by December 2014. During this same period, the number of active
brokers dropped from 21,375 to 13,839, and then increased to 15,471 in
December 2014. However, AIPBA has provided no proof of a causal
connection between the broker license revocations and an adverse impact
on consumer prices or an adverse impact on rates for truckers.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In late-filed comments, James P. Lamb, AIPBA's president,
alleged that the broker bond increase in MAP-21 ``caused 9,800
intermediaries to lose their licenses, first time jobless claims
then shot up, consumer prices are on the increase, and truckers'
rates are down for all equipment types. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, even if AIPBA had shown that the $75,000 requirement
caused all of the consequences it alleges, it has not focused on the
key public interest implicated in the broker bond--the protection of
motor carriers and shippers. It has not provided, nor have we
discerned, any evidence that shippers or motor carriers would be
adequately protected by the pre-MAP-21 bond requirement.

Abuse of Market Power

    In its exemption application, AIPBA asserts that ``[t]he $75,000
broker surety bond amount is not necessary to protect shippers from the
abuse of market power.'' To the contrary, AIPBA asserts that
``[e]xemption from the increased broker amount will protect shippers
from an abuse of market power. The unnecessarily high $75,000 broker
bond requirement will cause the majority of property brokers to leave
the marketplace, which will expose shippers to abuses of market power
by the few large property brokers able to stay in business.'' In its
subsequent comments, AIPBA reiterates its assertion that the new
``minimum financial security is not necessary to protect shippers from
abuse of market power.'' AIPBA argues that ``the new minimum security
amount is the direct result of collusion to abuse market power. The
exemption would help stop the loss of property brokers and provide more
options for shippers, which would protect shippers.'' Other commenters
did not address the abuse of market power.
    Based on the record before it, FMCSA cannot find that application
of the $75,000 broker/freight forwarder bond requirement under 49
U.S.C. 13906(b),(c) ``is not needed to protect shippers from the abuse
of market power. . . .'' 49 U.S.C. 13541(a)(2). While AIPBA
hypothesizes that a smaller brokerage industry will abuse its market
power with regard to shippers, it

provides no evidence outlining such abuse. Moreover, it provides no
evidence that the new $75,000 bond requirement is not required to
protect against such abuse of market power. Without any evidence, FMCSA
will not exempt an entire industry from a clearly articulated
congressional directive to raise the broker and freight forwarder
financial responsibility requirements.

National Transportation Policy (NTP)

    Finally, in its application, AIPBA argues that the $75,000 bond
requirement is contrary to the transportation policy of 49 U.S.C.
13101, because it violates the federal government's policy to
``encourage fair competition, and reasonable rates for transportation
by motor carriers of property'' and to ``allow a variety of quality and
price options to meet changing market demands and the diverse
requirements of the shipping and traveling public. . . .'' 49 U.S.C.
13101(a)(2)(A), (D). AIPBA argues that the new broker bond amount
``will likely result in a loss of tens of thousands of jobs and higher
consumer prices as a matter of supply and demand.'' Further, according
to AIPBA, ``per Kevin Reid of the National Association for Minority
Truckers, the anti-competitive effects of the new broker bond
requirement will detrimentally affect the participation of minorities
in the motor carrier system, which is another violation of the
transportation policy.''
    In its docket comments in this proceeding, AIPBA argues that ``a
$75,000 bond to protect carriers is not necessary to implement the
national transportation policy because there is no shipper bond to
protect carriers when they receive loads without the involvement of an
intermediary.'' Further, AIPBA argues that ``enforcement of the new
financial security minimum is contrary to the national transportation
policy of 49 U.S.C. 13101 because it restricts opportunity, competition
and reasonable rates.''
    On the other hand, with regard to the National Transportation
Policy (NTP), OOIDA argues that Congress's new $75,000 requirement
``burnished the national transportation goals of encouraging `sound
economic conditions in transportation, including sound economic
conditions among carriers;' 49 U.S.C. 13101(a)(1)(C), and acted to
promote efficient transportation and to enable efficient and well-
managed carriers to . . . maintain fair wages and working conditions.
Sections 13101(a)(2)(B)&(F).'' OOIDA's point is well taken.
    While AIPBA is correct that the NTP provides that the policy of the
United States Government is to ``encourage fair competition, and
reasonable rates for transportation by motor carriers of property,''
``allow a variety of quality and price options to meet changing market
demands and the diverse requirements of the shipping and traveling
public'', 49 U.S.C. 13101(a)(2)(A), (D), and ``promote greater
participation by minorities in the motor carrier system,'' 49 U.S.C.
3101(a)(2)(J), these are not the only elements of the NTP. Among other
goals, the NTP provides that federal transportation policy includes
``promot[ing] efficiency in the motor carrier transportation system . .
. ,'' 49 U.S.C. 13101(a)(2)(B), meeting the needs of shippers, 49
U.S.C. 13101(a)(2)(C), and ``enabl[ing] efficient and well-managed
carriers to earn adequate profits, attract capital, and maintain fair
wages and working conditions. . . .'' 49 U.S.C. 13101(a)(2)(F).
    FMCSA finds that application of the $75,000 broker and freight
forwarder financial responsibility requirements under 49 U.S.C.
13906(b), (c) is ``necessary to carry out the transportation policy of
section 13101. . . .'' 49 U.S.C. 13541(a)(1). First, Congress set that
amount as the minimum requirement and in so doing, must be presumed to
have acted in a manner consistent with the NTP. Second, as OOIDA, TIA
and SFAA have shown, the previous $10,000 bond was inadequate in the
event of broker financial problems. In such instances, both shippers
and motor carriers faced losses. Accordingly, applying the new $75,000
bond amount is necessary to meet the ``needs of shippers,'' 49 U.S.C.
13101(a)(2)(C), and to allow motor carriers to ``earn adequate profits
[and] attract capital,'' 49 U.S.C. 13101(a)(2)(F), as directed by the
NTP.
    Moreover, AIPBA has not shown why applying the new $75,000
requirement is not necessary to carry out those provisions of the NTP.
FMCSA does not believe that AIPBA has provided evidence that there has
been a decrease in motor carrier competition or an increase in shipping
rates due to the implementation of the $75,000 bond requirement. Indeed
at p. 5 of their docket comments, AIPBA admits that rates have actually
decreased. Further, aside from an unsubstantiated projection, AIPBA
makes no showing that the new $75,000 requirement will undermine the
NTP's goal of ``promot[ing] greater participation by minorities in the
motor carrier system. . . .'' 49 U.S.C. 13101(a)(2)(J).
    FMCSA does not find that the $75,000 financial responsibility
requirement for brokers/freight forwarders is ``not necessary to carry
out the transportation policy of section 13101. . . .'' 49 U.S.C.
13541(a)(1). Nor does FMCSA find that continued regulation under
section 13906(b), (c) ``is not needed to protect shippers from the
abuse of market power'' or that the transaction or service at issue is
of ``limited scope. . . .'' 49 U.S.C. 13541(a)(2). Finally, granting
the exemption requested by AIPBA is not in the public interest. 49
U.S.C. 13541(a)(3). Accordingly, AIBPA's request is denied.

    Issued on: March 25, 2015.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2015-07353 Filed 3-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: October 3, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 190)]
[Notices]
[Page 57574-57575]
[DOCID:fr03oc05-54]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP91-161-034]

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Refund

September 23, 2005.
    Take notice that on September 20, 2005, Columbia Gas Transmission
Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing a report on the flow-back to
customers of funds received from insurance carriers for environmental
costs attributable to Columbia's Docket No. RP91-161 settlement period.
    Columbia states that it allocated such recoveries among customers
based on their fixed cost responsibility for services on the Columbia
system during the period December 1, 1991 through January 31, 1996, the
period of the Docket No. RP91-161 settlement.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call

(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on September 30, 2005.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5384 Filed 9-30-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 126 (Tuesday, July 1, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37197]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15456]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0514]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Pequonnock River, Bridgeport, CT

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the operation of the Stratford Avenue
Bridge across the Pequonnock River, mile 0.1, at Bridgeport,
Connecticut. The deviation is necessary to allow the bridge to remain
in the closed position for scheduled maintenance at the bridge.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 10 a.m. on July 15, 2014
through 4 p.m. on July 18, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2014-0514] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140, on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer,
First Coast Guard District<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or (212)668-
7165. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Stratford Avenue Bridge has a vertical
clearance of 8 feet at mean high water. The existing drawbridge
operating regulations are found at 33 CFR 117.219(a).
    The City of Bridgeport, requested a bridge closure to facilitate
replacement of the transformer at the bridge.
    Under this temporary deviation, the Stratford Avenue Bridge may
remain in the closed position between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. on July 15,
2014. In the event of inclement weather the rain dates are July 16,
2014, through July 18, 2014. Vessels that can pass under the bridge in
the closed position may do so at all times.
    The Pequonnock River supports seasonal recreational vessel traffic
and one commercial operator. There are no alternate routes. The bridge
can't be opened in the event of an emergency.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 20, 2014.
C.J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2014-15456 Filed 6-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: July 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 138)]
[Notices]
[Page 35904-35905]
[DOCID:fr21jy09-95]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Reports, Forms and Record Keeping Requirements Agency Information
Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted

below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information
collections and their expected burden. The Federal Register Notice with
a 60-day comment period was published on May 14, 2009 [FR Doc. 2009-
0096, Vol. 74, No. 92, Pages 22800-22801].

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before (insert 30 days from
date of publication).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charlene Doyle, Contracting Officer's
Technical Representative, Office of Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave,
SE., NVS-431, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Doyle's phone number is 202-
366-1276 and her e-mail address is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

    Title: Tire Pressure Monitoring System--Special Study (TPMS-SS).
    OMB Number: 2127-New.
    Type of Request: Request for public comment on proposed collection
of information.
    Abstract: Improperly inflated tires pose a safety risk, increasing
the chance of skidding, hydroplaning, longer stopping distances, and
crashes due to flat tires and blowouts. In an effort to decrease the
number of vehicles with improperly inflated tires, Tire Pressure
Monitoring Systems (TPMS) were mandated in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 138, so that drivers are warned when the pressure
in one or more of the vehicle's tires has fallen to 25 percent or more
below the placard pressure, or a minimum level of pressure specified in
the standard, whichever pressure is higher. Executive Order 12866
requires Federal agencies to evaluate their existing regulations and
programs and measure their effectiveness in achieving their objectives.
The purpose of this survey, Tire Pressure Monitoring System--Special
Study (TPMS-SS), is to evaluate whether the frequency of underinflated
tires has decreased in vehicles with TPMS in comparison to vehicles of
the same age without TPMS. In addition, the survey will collect data on
the drivers' familiarity with the type of warnings given by their TPMS
and the action(s) that they have taken after the warnings have been
given.
    Affected Public: Individuals.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 1,925 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments, within 30 days, to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725-17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, Attention NHTSA Desk Officer.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A).

James F. Simons,
Director, Office of Regulatory Analysis and Evaluation.
[FR Doc. E9-17230 Filed 7-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56361-56362]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24677]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4401-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001]

Virginia; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the Commonwealth of Virginia (FEMA-4401-DR), dated October
15, 2018, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued October 15, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated October 15, 2018, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the
Commonwealth of Virginia resulting from Hurricane Florence during
the period of September 8-21, 2018, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such
a major disaster exists in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the Commonwealth.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs. Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance also will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs, with the exception of projects that meet the
eligibility criteria for a higher Federal cost-sharing percentage
under the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for
Debris Removal implemented pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford
Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved

assistance to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Donald L. Keldsen, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the Commonwealth of Virginia have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Henry, King and Queen, Lancaster, Nelson, Patrick, Pittsylvania,
and Russell Counties and the Independent Cities of Newport News,
Richmond, and Williamsburg for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the Commonwealth of Virginia are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-24677 Filed 11-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-11-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 92939-92940]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30511]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Forty Sixth RTCA SC-224 Plenary

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Forty Sixth RTCA SC-224 Plenary.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of Forty Sixth RTCA SC-224 Plenary.

DATES: The meeting will be held February 02, 2017 10:00 a.m.-01:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: RTCA Headquarters, 1150 18th
Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Karan Hofmann at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
202-330-0680, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street, NW., Suite
910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax at
(202) 833-9434, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of the Forty Sixth RTCA SC-224 Plenary. The
agenda will include the following:

Thursday, February 2, 2017-10:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.

1. Welcome/Introductions/Administrative Remarks
2. Review/Approve Previous Meeting Summary
3. Report on TSA participation
4. Report on the New Guidelines and other Safe Skies Reports
5. Review of DO-230H Sections
6. Terms of Reference Revisions
7. Action Items for Next Meeting
8. Time and Place of Next Meeting
9. Any Other Business
10. Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 14, 2016.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management & Program Analyst, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG-A17,
NextGen, Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-30511 Filed 12-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30223-30224]
[FR Doc No: 2015-12656]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2265-004; ER14-1818-004; ER13-1965-007; ER13-
1791-005; ER12-261-012; ER11-4308-013; ER11-4307-013; ER11-2805-012;
ER11-2508-012; ER11-2108-004; ER11-2107-004; ER11-2062-013; ER10-2888-
013; ER10-2340-006; ER10-2339-006; ER10-2338-006; ER10-1291-014
    Applicants: NRG Power Marketing LLC, Boston Energy Trading and
Marketing LLC, CP Power Sales Seventeen, L.L.C., CP Power Sales
Nineteen, L.L.C., CP Power Sales Twenty, L.L.C., Energy Plus Holdings
LLC, GenConn Energy LLC, GenOn Energy Management, LLC, Green Mountain
Energy Company, Independence Energy Group LLC, Norwalk Power LLC, NRG
Florida LP, NRG Wholesale Generation LP, Reliant Energy Northeast LLC,
RRI Energy Services, LLC..
    Description: Supplement and Amendment to December 31, 2014 Updated
Market Power Analysis in Southeast Region of NRG MBR Entities.
    Filed Date: 5/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150518-5322.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-102-007.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Winston &
Strawn LLP.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: NYISO/TOs joint compliance
filing Order No. 1000 to be effective 1/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150518-5250.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-193-005.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., Northeast Utilities Service
Company.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Third Order No. 1000
Regional Compliance Filing to be effective 5/18/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150518-5253.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1939-001.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Order 1000 Interregional
Compliance Filing--Docket ER13-1939 to be effective 1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150518-5277.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1940-003.
    Applicants: Ohio Valley Electric Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Interregional Compliance
Filing to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 5/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150518-5268.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-196-004.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., Northeast Utilities Service
Company.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Third Order No. 1000
Regional Compliance Filing--TOA to be effective 5/18/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150518-5258.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2869-001.
    Applicants: Black Hills Power, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Compliance Filing Revising
Attachment H Formula Rate Protocols to be effective 1/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150518-5262.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1308-001.
    Applicants: Kingfisher Wind, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment per 35.17(b): Kingfisher Wind FERC
Electric Tariff Volume No. 1 MBR Tariff to be effective 6/30/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/19/15.
    Accession Number: 20150519-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1734-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Original Service Agreement Nos. 4145, 4146, 4147; Queue No. Z2-040 to
be effective 4/17/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150518-5243.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1735-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C., Northern Virginia Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): PJM
and NOVEC submit Service Agreement No. 3724 (NITSA) to be effective 1/
1/2014.
    Filed Date: 5/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150518-5249.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1736-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
05-18_SA 2242 Minnesota Power-Minnesota Power GIA (H092) to be
effective 7/18/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150518-5260.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1737-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Compliance Filing Revising
Westar Energy, Inc.'s Formula Rate Protocols to be effective 3/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150518-5261.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1738-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Compliance Filing Revising
KCP&L-GMO's Formula Rate Protocols to be effective 3/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150518-5263.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1739-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing per 35: Compliance Filing Revising
KCP&L's Formula Rate Protocols to be effective 3/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150518-5270.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1740-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
05-18_SA 1972 GRE-OTP Amended 3rd Rev GIA (G645/G788) to be effective
7/18/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/18/15.
    Accession Number: 20150518-5271.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/8/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1741-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): GIA
and Distrib Serv Agmt Boomer Solar 2, LLC 800 N Barrington Ave Ontario
Proj to be effective 5/20/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/19/15.
    Accession Number: 20150519-5006.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1742-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, New York Independent
System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii):
Amended/restated interconnection agreement (SA 337) NiMo & General
Mills to be effective 4/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/19/15.
    Accession Number: 20150519-5060.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1743-000.
    Applicants: Summer Energy of Ohio LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Summer Energy of Ohio
LLC Market Based Rates Application and Tariff to be effective 7/18/
2015.
    Filed Date: 5/19/15.
    Accession Number: 20150519-5076.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1744-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Notice of cancellation of Wind Farm Bear Creek LGIA of
Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Filed Date: 5/19/15.
    Accession Number: 20150519-5096.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1745-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
05-19_Non-Conforming NITS Filing to be effective 7/19/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/19/15.
    Accession Number: 20150519-5108.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1746-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Section 205(d) rate filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii): 2015-
05-19_SA 2301 MidAmerican-MidAmerican GIA (R34/R65/J191) to be
effective 5/20/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/19/15.
    Accession Number: 20150519-5110.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1747-000.
    Applicants: Beaver Dam Energy LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Beaver Dam Energy LLC
MBR Tariff Application to be effective 7/17/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/19/15.
    Accession Number: 20150519-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1748-000.
    Applicants: Milan Energy LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Milan Energy LLC MBR
Tariff Application to be effective 7/17/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/19/15.
    Accession Number: 20150519-5115.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1749-000.
    Applicants: Oxbow Creek Energy LLC.
    Description: Initial rate filing per 35.12 Oxbow Creek Energy MBR
Tariff Application to be effective 7/17/2015.
    Filed Date: 5/19/15.
    Accession Number: 20150519-5117.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/9/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 19, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-12656 Filed 5-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 231 (Monday, December 2, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72134-72135]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28722]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70936; File No. SR-CBOE-2013-112]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Increase the Class Quoting Limit for Options on
Twitter

November 25, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on November 15, 2013, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to increase the Class Quoting Limit (``CQL'')
for options on Twitter. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    A CQL is the maximum number of Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs'')
that may quote electronically in a given product.\3\ CBOE Rule 8.3A,
Interpretation .01 states that the CQL for products trading on the
Exchange's Hybrid Trading System (``Hybrid'') is 50.\4\ However, the
President of the Exchange may increase the CQL for an existing or new
product if he determines that it would be appropriate.\5\ Such an
increase can be accomplished by submitting to the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') a rule filing pursuant to
Section 19b(3)(A) of the Act and announcing the increase to TPHs via
Information Circular.\6\ The Exchange has previously increased the CQLs
for other products via rule filing.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See CBOE Rule 8.3A.
    \4\ See CBOE Rule 8.3A, Interpretation .01(a).
    \5\ See CBOE Rule 8.3A, Interpretation .01(b).
    \6\ See CBOE Rule 8.3A, Interpretation .01(c).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55664 (April 24,
2007), 72 FR 23867 (May 1, 2007) (SR-CBOE-2007-36), which increased
the CQLs for Apple Inc. and Research In Motion to 60. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67231 (June 21, 2012), 77 FR
38362 (June 27, 2012) (SR-CBOE-2012-057), which increased the CQL
for Facebook to 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange intends to begin to allow the trading of options on
Twitter on November 15, 2013. The Exchange has already noticed
substantial interest in the product, specifically from Market-Makers
desiring to quote in that class. As such, CBOE's President has
determined that it would be appropriate to increase the CQL for Twitter
to 75. The Exchange has prepared an Information Circular to inform TPHs
of this change, and hereby submits this proposed rule filing to effect
such change. The Exchange has the system capacity to manage the
proposed increase.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the
Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the
Act.\8\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is
consistent with the Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirements that the rules of
an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts, to remove
impediments to and to perfect the mechanism for a free and open market
and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest. Increasing the CQL for Twitter allows more Market-
Makers to quote in that product, which provides greater volume and more
trading activity for all market participants, thereby perfecting the
mechanism for a free and open market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act because it will be applied to all Market-Makers in
accordance with CBOE Rule 8.3A. The Exchange does not believe that the
proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act because it only affects Market-Maker quoting on CBOE. Further,
increasing the CQL for Twitter on CBOE will allow more Market-Makers to
quote in that product, which provide [sic] for greater trading
opportunities greater volume and more trading activity for CBOE market
participants, thereby enhancing competition. To the extent that the
proposed change makes CBOE a more attractive trading venue for market
participants at other exchanges, such market participants may elect to
become CBOE market participants.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
\11\ thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \12\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\13\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange notes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay would allow more TPHs to start
quoting on Twitter immediately, thereby providing greater volume and
more trading activity in that product. The Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, as it will allow CBOE to respond
without delay to what it has identified to be current market demand for
increased quoting capacity in options overlying Twitter stock and
thereby will help accommodate current market interest. Further, the
Exchange has represented that it has the systems capacity to
accommodate the additional quotation activity. Accordingly, the
Commission designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon
filing with the Commission.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2013-112 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2013-112. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2013-112 and should be
submitted on or before December 23, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-28722 Filed 11-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 119)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 35354-35356]
[DOCID:fr22jn10-16]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0555; Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-18-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Honeywell International Inc. TPE331-10
and TPE331-11 Series Turboprop Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede an existing airworthiness
directive (AD) for Honeywell International Inc. TPE331-10 and TPE331-11
series turboprop engines. That AD currently requires removing certain
first stage turbine disks from service. This proposed AD would require
the same actions, and would also require performing fluorescent
penetrant inspections (FPI) and eddy current inspections (ECI) on
certain first stage turbine disks that have a serial number (S/N)
listed in this proposed AD. This proposed AD results from our
determination that we need to expand the affected population to include
other disks from the same heat lot as the failed first stage turbine
disk, and that certain inspections are also required. We are proposing
this AD to prevent uncontained failure of the first stage turbine disk
and damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by August 23,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this
proposed AD.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los
Angeles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address
listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0555; Directorate
Identifier 2009-NE-18-AD'' in the subject line of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will consider
all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposed AD
in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search
function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who
sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477-78).

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
the same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

Discussion

    The FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 by superseding AD 2009-17-
05, Amendment 39-15996 (74 FR 41327, August 17, 2009). That AD requires
removal from service of first stage turbine disks, P/Ns 3101520-1 and
3107079-1, serial numbers 2-03501-2299, 2-03501-2300, 2-03501-2301, 2-
03501-2302, and 2-03501-2304, within 25 flight hours or 25 cycles-in-
service (CIS) after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
first. That AD was the result of a report of an uncontained failure of
a first stage turbine disk that had a metallurgical defect. That
condition, if not corrected, could result in uncontained failure of the
first stage turbine disk and damage to the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2009-17-05 was Issued

    Since that AD was issued, we determined that up to 360 other
turbine disks have been produced from the same heat lot as the failed
turbine disk and might have similar inclusions. These inclusions can
result in cracks that could result in an uncontained separation of a
turbine disks.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of Honeywell
International Inc. Alert Service Bulletin TPE331-72-A2156, dated
December 2, 2008, that describes S/Ns of the affected turbine disks and
procedures for initial and repetitive FPI and ECI of the first stage
turbine disk.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe

condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products of this
same type design. For that reason, we are proposing this AD, which
would require:
     For turbine disks that have a S/N listed in Table 1 of
this proposed AD with 4,100 or fewer cycles-since-new (CSN) on the
effective date of this proposed AD, performing an initial FPI and ECI
within 4,500 CSN or at the next access, whichever occurs first.
     For turbine disks that have a S/N listed in Table 1 of
this proposed AD with more than 4,100 CSN on the effective date of this
proposed AD, performing an initial FPI and ECI within 400 CIS after the
effective date of this proposed AD or at the next access, whichever
occurs first.
     Thereafter, for turbine disks that have a S/N listed in
Table 1 of this proposed AD, perform a repetitive FPI and ECI at each
scheduled hot section inspection, but not to exceed 3,600 hours-since-
last inspection.
    The proposed AD would require that you do these actions using the
service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 90 engines installed
on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take
about 20 work-hours per engine to perform the proposed actions, and
that the average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would
cost about $19,000 per engine. We estimate that one disk would fail the
initial inspection and that repetitive inspections would be performed
on 89 engines. We estimate that one engine would fail the repetitive
inspections and that further repetitive inspections would be performed
on 88 engines. We estimate that an additional one disk would fail those
repetitive inspections before retirement. Based on these figures, we
estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be
$511,155.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD. See the ADDRESSES section for a location
to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the
Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as
follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-15996 (74 FR
41327, August 17, 2009) and by adding a new airworthiness directive to
read as follows:

Honeywell International Inc. (formerly AlliedSignal Inc., Garrett
Engine Division; Garrett Turbine Engine Company; and AiResearch
Manufacturing Company of Arizona): Docket No. FAA-2009-0555;
Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-18-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive
comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by August 23,
2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2009-17-05, Amendment 39-15996.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Honeywell International Inc. TPE331-10
and TPE331-11 series turboprop engines with a first stage turbine
disk, part number (P/N) 3101520-1 or 3107079-1, with a serial number
(S/N) listed in Table 1 of this AD, installed. These engines are
installed on, but not limited to, British Aerospace Jetstream 3201
series, Cessna Aircraft Company Model 441 Conquest, Construcciones
Aeronauticas, S.A. (CASA) C-212 series, Dornier Luftfahrt Dornier
228 series, Hawker Beechcraft (formerly Raytheon, formerly Beech)
B100, C90 and E90, M7 Aerospace (formerly Fairchild) SA226 and SA227
series (Swearingen Merlin and Metro series), Mitsubishi MU-2B series
(MU-2 series), PZL M18 series, and Twin Commander 680 and 690 series
(Jetprop Commander) airplanes.

                                     Table 1--First Stage Turbine Disk S/Ns
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Disk P/N                                                 Disk S/N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3101520-1 or 3107079-1...................  1-03501-4275 thru 1-03501-4306 inclusive.
                                           1-03501-4308 thru 1-03501-4339 inclusive.
                                           1-03501-4341 thru 1-03501-4438 inclusive.
                                           1-03501-4440 thru 1-03501-4471 inclusive.
                                           1-03501-4473 thru 1-03501-4504 inclusive.
                                           1-03501-4506 thru 1-03501-4537 inclusive.
                                           1-03501-4539 thru 1-03501-4570 inclusive.
                                           1-03501-4572 thru 1-03501-4599 inclusive.

                                           2-03501-2260 thru 2-03501-2272 inclusive.
                                           2-03501-2274 thru 2-03501-2298 inclusive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from our determination that we need to
expand the affected population to include other disks from the same
heat lot as the failed first stage turbine disk. We are issuing this
AD to prevent uncontained failure of the first stage turbine disk
and damage to the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified unless the
actions have already been done.

Removal of First Stage Turbine Disks From Service

    (f) Within 25 flight hours or 25 cycles-in-service (CIS) after
September 1, 2009, remove from service first stage turbine disks, P/
N 3101520-1 and P/N 3107079-1, serial numbers 2-03501-2299, 2-03501-
2300, 2-03501-2301, 2-03501-2302, and 2-03501-2304.

Initial Inspection

    (g) For first stage turbine disks, P/N 3101520-1 or 3107079-1,
that have a S/N listed in Table 1 of this AD, perform a fluorescent
penetrant inspection (FPI) on the disk as follows:
    (1) For turbine disks with 4,100 or fewer cycles-since-new (CSN)
on the effective date of this proposed AD, perform an initial FPI by
using paragraph 3.B.(2) through 3.B.(5) of Honeywell International
Inc. Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) TPE331-72-A2156, dated December 2,
2008, within 4,500 CSN or at the next access, whichever occurs
first.
    (2) For turbine disks with more than 4,100 CSN on the effective
date of this proposed AD, perform an initial FPI by using paragraph
3.B.(2) through 3.B.(5) of Honeywell International Inc. ASB TPE331-
72-A2156, dated December 2, 2008, within 400 CIS after the effective
date of this proposed AD or at the next access, whichever occurs
first.
    (3) If you find a crack in the disk, remove the disk from
service.
    (4) If the disk passes the FPI inspection, perform a special
eddy current inspection (ECI) by using paragraph 3.B.(6) of
Honeywell International Inc. ASB TPE331-72-A2156, dated December 2,
2008.

Repetitive Inspection

    (h) Thereafter, perform repetitive FPI and ECI at each scheduled
hot section inspection, but not to exceed 3,600 hours-since-last
inspection. Use paragraph 3.B.(2) through 3.B.(6) of Honeywell
International Inc. ASB TPE331-72-A2156, dated December 2, 2008.
    (i) If you find a crack in the disk, remove the disk from
service.

Installation Prohibition

    (j) After September 1, 2009, do not approve for return to
service, any engine that has a first stage turbine disk, P/N
3101520-1 and P/N 3107079-1, with S/N 2-03501-2299, 2-03501-2300, 2-
03501-2301, 2-03501-2302, and 2-03501-2304.
    (k) After the effective date of this AD, do not approve for
return to service, any engine that has a first stage turbine disk,
P/N 3101520-1 and P/N 3107079-1, and a S/N listed in Table 1 of this
AD, unless that disk has passed an FPI as specified in paragraph
3.B.(3) through 3.B.(6) of Honeywell International Inc. ASB TPE331-
72-A2156, dated December 2, 2008.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (l) The Manager, Los Angles Aircraft Certification Office, FAA,
has the authority to approve alternative methods of compliance for
this AD if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Definition

    (m) For the purpose of this AD, ``next access to the first stage
turbine disk'' is defined as the removal of the second stage turbine
nozzle from the turbine stator housing.

Related Information

    (n) Contact Joseph Costa, Aerospace Engineer, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
3960 Paramount Blvd., Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for more information about this AD.
    (o) Honeywell International Inc. ASB TPE331-72-A2156, dated
December 2, 2008, pertains to the subject of this AD. Contact
Honeywell International Inc., 111 S. 34th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85034-
2802; Web site: http://portal.honeywell.com, for a copy of this
service information.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on June 16, 2010.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 2010-15068 Filed 6-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P