[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 174 (Friday, September 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45434-45435]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19391]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-14-000]

Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the UGI LNG, Inc.
Temple Truck Rack Expansion Project

    On November 14, 2016, UGI LNG, Inc. filed an application in Docket
No. CP17-14-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct
and operate certain

natural gas pipeline facilities at the existing Temple Liquefied
Natural Gas (LNG) Peak-shaving Facility in Berks County, Pennsylvania.
The proposed project is known as the Temple Truck Rack Expansion
Project (Project), and would allow UGI LNG, Inc. to more reliably serve
the growing demand for truck deliveries by UGI Energy Services.
    On November 29, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project.
Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal
authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and
to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice
identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the
EA for the Project.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of EA--September 18, 2018
90-Day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--December 17, 2018

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be
provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
Project's progress.

Project Description

    UGI LNG, Inc. proposes to expand its existing Temple LNG truck
loading facility by constructing two additional trailer loading/
unloading racks. The new facilities would consist of two racks with
scales, trailer loading skid, pump skid, transfer piping, and
associated equipment. The Project would also include constructing a new
driveway connecting the expansion to Willow Creek Road. The Project is
projected to increase truck volumes from an average of one to three
trucks per day to an average of three to six trucks per day.

Background

    On January 23, 2017, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Temple Truck Rack
Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues
(NOI). The NOI was sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and
local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public
interest groups; other interested parties; and local libraries and
newspapers. In response to the NOI, the Commission received one public
comment concerning increased traffic.
    The U.S. Department of Transportation is a cooperating agencies in
the preparation of the EA.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with notification of these filings,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the eLibrary link, select General
Search from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and Docket
Number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP17-14), and follow the
instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can
be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
[email protected]. The eLibrary link on the FERC website also
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: August 31, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-19391 Filed 9-6-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Jennifer Chan To: Shari Goodwin < shari. goodwin@ tetratech ffx. com> 03/ 24/ 2003 10: 50 cc: John Fox/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Carey AM Johnston/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Martha Segall/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Kelly Meadows < kelly. meadows@ tetratech ffx. com> Subject: AK Questionnaire  2 facilities  Marathon Oil Company Shari, Please add these platforms to our oil and gas database.

Jennifer Chan 202 566 1078  Forwarded by Jennifer Chan/ DC/ USEPA/ US on 03/ 24/ 2003 09: 40 AM

" Barron, William C." To: Jennifer Chan/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EPA < WCBarron@ Maratho cc: " Stevison, D M ( Donna)" nOil. com> < DMStevison@ MarathonOil. com>, " Barnes, J A ( John)" < JABarnes@ MarathonOil. com>

02/ 25/ 2003 11: 57 Subject: RE: information request  cooling water intake AM structures Dear Jennifer Chan Enjoyed the discussion last week concerning the cooling water facilities on the Marathon Alaska Spark and Spurr Platforms. The conversation helped clarify your needs for these unique facilities.

As you will recall, the Spark and Spurr platforms cooling water systems have not been operated for over 7 years. The cooling water systems, in total, have been decommissioned. These platforms are unmanned, remotely operated, gas production facilities without drilling, compression, or fire water suppression systems. Any details of size and capacity are design only and do not represent current operations.

I've completed the questionnaire with the current operational status of the platforms in mind. Hopefully this will satisfy your request. If you have any questions please advise.

Sincerely,

W. C. Barron Operations Manager Marathon Alaska Business Unit ( See attached file: Cooling Water. doc)


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 130 (Friday, July 6, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31488-31491]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13477]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0547; Product Identifier 2017-NM-091-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. This
proposed AD was prompted by reports of wear on fuel couplings, bonding
springs, and sleeves as well as fuel tube end ferrules and fuel
component end ferrules. This proposed AD would require repetitive
inspections of the existing clamshell coupling bonding wires, fuel
couplings, and associated sleeves for certain criteria and replacement
as necessary. This proposed AD would also require repetitive
inspections of the fuel tube end ferrules, fuel component end ferrules,
and ferrule o-ring flanges for damage and wear, and rework as
necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard,
Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 416-
375-4539; email: [email protected]; internet: http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0547; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations
office (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Flores, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion and Program Management Section, FAA, Chicago ACO Branch,
Room 107, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018; telephone 847-
294-7140; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0547;
Product Identifier 2017-NM-091-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on
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 we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2017-04R1, dated May
26, 2017 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Some operators have reported discoloration and corrosion of
Hydraflow part number 14J26 fuel couplings. Removal of the couplings
during scheduled maintenance inspection has also shown signs of wear
on the fuel tube end ferrules, fuel component end ferrules, coupling
bonding springs, and coupling sleeves. These issues affect the
integrity of the electrical bonding paths throughout the fuel lines
and components, which in turn may lead to lightning strike induced
fuel tank ignition.
    The initial issue of this [Canadian] AD mandated the [detailed]
inspection [for wear or damage] and repair or replacement, as
required, of affected fuel couplings and sleeves, fuel tubes, and
fuel components, as well as the collection of wear data, to mitigate
the risk of lightning strike induced fuel tank ignition.
    Since the initial issue of this [Canadian] AD, Transport Canada
has become aware that the compliance timeframe of Part I of the
initial issue of this [Canadian] AD is not suitable for new
aeroplanes entering into service from the production line. Revision
1 of this [Canadian] AD updates Part I of the initial issue of this
[Canadian] AD accordingly, and mandates the [repetitive] inspection
and repair or replacement, as required, of affected fuel couplings
and sleeves, fuel tubes, and fuel components, as well as the
collection of wear data, to mitigate the risk of lightning strike
induced fuel tank ignition.

    Required actions include replacement of clamshell coupling bonding
wires, fuel couplings and associated sleeves and rework (repair,
replace, or blend, as applicable) of fuel tube end ferrules, fuel
component end ferrules, and ferrule o-ring flanges. You may examine the
MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0547.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 84-28-20, Revision C, dated
April 28, 2017. This service information describes procedures for
inspections of the existing clamshell coupling bonding wires, fuel
couplings, and associated sleeves for certain criteria (wear and
damage, including discoloration, worn coating, scuffing and grooves)
and replacement. This service information also describes procedures for
inspections of the fuel tube end ferrules, fuel component end ferrules,
and ferrule o-ring flanges for damage and wear, and rework. This
service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 52 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                   Labor cost         Parts cost      Cost per product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections....................  212 work-hours x $85              $0  $18,020 per           $937,040 per
                                  per hour = $18,020                    inspection cycle.     inspection cycle.
                                  per inspection
                                  cycle.
Reporting......................  1 work hour x $85                  0  85 per inspection     4,420 per
                                  per hour = $85 per                    cycle.                inspection cycle.
                                  inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements or
rework that would be required based on the results of the proposed
inspection. We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that
might need these replacements or rework:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                 Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rework/Replacement.........................  174 work-hours x $85 per hour =              $2,000         $16,790
                                              $14,790.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this NPRM is 2120-
0056. The paperwork cost associated with this NPRM has been detailed in
the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for
reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the
collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with
this NPRM is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden
and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA
at 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information
Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

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.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We 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 this proposed
regulation:
    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);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
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]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2018-0547; Product Identifier 2017-
NM-091-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 20, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400, -401 and -
402 airplanes, certificated in any category, manufacturer serial
numbers 4001, 4003, and subsequent.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of wear on fuel couplings,
bonding springs, and sleeves as well as fuel tube end ferrules and
fuel component end ferrules. We are issuing this AD to address such
wear, which could reduce the integrity of the electrical bonding
paths through the fuel line and components, and ultimately lead to
fuel tank ignition in the event of a lightning strike.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Initial Inspection Compliance Times

    At the applicable times specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2)
of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2)
of this AD.
    (1) For all airplanes except those identified in paragraph
(g)(2) of this AD: Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months, whichever
occurs first after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) For new airplanes with an original airworthiness certificate
or original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or after
the effective date of this AD: Within 6,000 flight hours or 36
months, whichever occurs first after the date of issuance of the
original airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance of the
original export certificate of airworthiness.

(h) Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions

    At the applicable times specified in paragraph (g)(1) or (g)(2)
of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2)
of this AD. Repeat the actions thereafter at intervals not to exceed
6,000 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first.
    (1) Do a detailed inspection of the existing clamshell coupling
bonding wires, fuel couplings, and associated sleeves for criteria,
as identified in, and in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-20, Revision C,
dated April 28, 2017. If any conditions are found meeting the
criteria specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-20, Revision
C, dated April 28, 2017, before further flight, replace affected
parts with new couplings and sleeves of the same part number, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-28-20, Revision C, dated April 28, 2017.
    (2) Do a detailed inspection of the fuel tube end ferrules, fuel
component end ferrules, and ferrule o-ring flanges for damage and
wear, and rework (repair, replace, or blend, as applicable), in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-28-20, Revision C, dated April 28, 2017.

(i) Reporting

    At the applicable time specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2)
of this AD: Submit a report of the findings (including no findings)
of the initial and repetitive inspections required by paragraph (h)
of this AD by completing Tables 1 through 5 of Bombardier Service
Bulletin 84-28-20, Revision C, dated April 28, 2017, and submitting
them to Bombardier, Inc. Q-Series Action Center; telephone: 1-844-
272-2720; email: [email protected].
    (1) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD, submit the report within 30 days after the completion of
the inspection.
    (2) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD, submit the report within 30 days after the effective date of
this AD.

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, if those actions were
performed before the effective date of this AD using the service
information specified in paragraph (j)(1)(i) or (j)(1)(ii) of this
AD.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-20, Revision A, dated
December 14, 2016.
    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-20, Revision B, dated
February 13, 2017.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the initial inspections
required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD and the initial
reporting required by paragraph (i) of this AD, for Bombardier,
Inc., Model DHC-8-402 airplane, manufacturer serial number 4164, if
those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD
using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-28-20, dated September 30,
2016.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 1
hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.
SW, Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2017-04R1, dated May 26, 2017, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2018-0547.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Anthony Flores,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion and Program Management Section, FAA,
Chicago ACO Branch, Room 107, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines,
IL 60018; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    (3) For information about AMOCs, contact Joe Catanzaro,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch,
1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-
228-7366; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].
    (4) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone: 416-375-
4000; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected];
internet: http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th
St, Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 12, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-13477 Filed 7-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 157)]
[Notices]
[Page 41424]
[DOCID:fr17au09-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 2

August 10, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP96-312-197.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company.
    Description: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company submits notice to the
Commission of the termination of a negotiated rate arrangement
comprised of a gas transportation agreement.
    Filed Date: 08/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090807-0110.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP96-312-198.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company.
    Description: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company submits Termination of
Negotiated Rate Arrangement.
    Filed Date: 08/07/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090807-0098.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-395-001.
    Applicants: NSTAR Gas Co vs. Algonquin Gas Transmission LLC.
    Description: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC submits Third Revised
Sheet No 37A et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No 1.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090803-0053.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, August 14, 2009.

    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 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. 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<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-19594 Filed 8-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 154 (Friday, August 11, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54489-54491]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17269]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0623]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Coast Guard Island, Alameda, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all waters of the Alameda Estuary, from surface to bottom, within 250
feet of the pier along the southwest side of Coast Guard Island in
support of a munitions transfer on August 13, 2023. The safety zone is
necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment
from the dangers associated with live munitions. Entry of vessels or
persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by
the Captain of the Port San Francisco.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8 a.m. through 1 p.m. on August 13,
2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0623 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Helen Oh, Sector San Francisco Waterways Safety
Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because munitions must be transferred for
operational readiness. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because
we must establish this safety zone by August 13, 2023.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to
respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the munitions
transfer near Alameda, CA beginning August 13, 2023.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco has determined that
potential hazards associated with the munitions transfer starting
August 13, 2023, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 250-foot
radius of the pier along the southwest side of Coast Guard Island. This
rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine
environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone during the
munitions transfer.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 8 a.m. until 1 p.m. on
August 13, 2023. The safety zone will cover all waters of the Alameda
Estuary, from surface to bottom, within 250 feet of the pier along the
southwest side of Coast Guard Island. The safety zone is necessary to
ensure the safety of people, vessels, and the marine environment for

the duration of the munitions transfer. No vessel or person will be
permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review).
Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would
impact a small, designated area of the Alameda Estuary for only five
hours. The Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via
VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow
vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone lasting only five hours that will prohibit entry within 250
feet of the pier along the southwest side of Coast Guard Island. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, marine safety, navigation (water), reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, security measures, waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR Part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-136 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-136  Safety Zone; Coast Guard Island, Alameda, CA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Alameda Estuary, from surface to bottom, within 250 feet of the
pier along the southwest side of Coast Guard Island.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, ``designated
representative'' means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a
Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast
Guard vessel, or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or
assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco in the
enforcement of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone must contact the COTP or the COTP's designated representative to
obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter
in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions
given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the safety zone on
VHF-23A or through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone (415) 399-
3547.
    (c) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8 a.m.
to 1 p.m. on August 13, 2023.

    Dated: August 3, 2023.
Taylor Q. Lam,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2023-17269 Filed 8-10-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 170 (Friday, August 31, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53159-53163]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21577]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 91, 121, 125, and 135

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0752]

Passenger Use of Portable Electronic Devices on Board Aircraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of policy; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA seeks comments on current policy, guidance, and
procedures that aircraft operators (ranging from pilots of general
aviation aircraft up to and including air carrier certificate holders
at the major airlines) use when determining if passenger use of
portable electronic devices (PEDs)

may be allowed during any phase of flight on their aircraft. Current
FAA regulations generally prohibit the use of all PEDs during flight,
with the exception of portable voice recorders, hearing aids, heart
pacemakers, and electric shavers. These regulations also provide an
exception for any other PED that the aircraft operator has determined
will not cause interference with the navigation or communication
systems on the aircraft. To better effectuate the safety purposes of
these regulations, this notice requests comments about key areas of
policy and guidance that are used by aircraft operators when making
these determinations. It also requests comments about other technical
challenges for addressing the problems associated with determining if
and when PEDs can be used. The desired outcome of this solicitation is
to have sufficient information to allow operators to better assess
whether more widespread use of PEDs during flight is appropriate, while
maintaining the highest levels of safety to passengers and aircraft.
The Agency stresses that the existing regulations allow the operator to
authorize the use of PEDs, and that no specific FAA approval is
required. The aircraft operator is responsible for assuring that the
interference from PEDs does not pose a flight risk. Once all the
comments have been collected, the FAA intends to establish an Aviation
Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to review the comments and provide
recommendations that might permit the more widespread use of PEDs
during flight while maintaining the highest levels of safety for the
passengers and aircraft. The FCC will be a key partner in this activity
working collaboratively with the FAA, airlines, and the manufacturers
to explore broader use of PEDS in flight.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2012-0752
using any of the following methods:
     Email: Submit your comments via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA dockets, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or contact Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions concerning this action,
contact Timothy W. Shaver, Avionics Maintenance Branch, Flight
Standards Service, AFS-360, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 385-
4292; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We are reviewing the policies, guidance, and
procedures that establish the methods and criteria aircraft operators
use to determine if they can allow PED usage during flight. The FAA has
long recognized that PEDs have the potential for causing interference
with aircraft navigation or communication systems. Title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Sec. Sec.  91.21, 121.306, 125.204, and
135.144 establish the requirements prohibiting the use of PEDs without
the authorization of the aircraft operator.
    The FAA's first published rulemaking \1\ to address this issue was
in 1966. That rulemaking was prompted after studies of PED interference
conducted between 1958 to 1961 concluded that portable frequency
modulation (FM) radio receivers caused interference to navigation
systems such as very high frequency (VHF) Omni Range (VOR) navigation
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 14 CFR 91.19, Docket No. 7247; Amdt 91-35 (later superseded
by Sec. Sec.  91.21, 121.306, 125.204, and 135.144).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    During that rulemaking process, the FAA received comments on the
subject of FAA involvement in the authorization of use of PEDs. The
public expressed concerns that authorization of devices not
specifically excepted in the rule (e.g., portable voice recorders,
hearing aids, heart pacemakers, and electric shavers) would subject
operators to a considerable amount of ``red tape.'' In response to
those comments, the FAA concluded that the aircraft operators were best
suited to make the determination of which PEDs would not cause
interference with the navigation or communication system on their
aircraft. The FAA also recognized that for it to place requirements
upon itself to conduct or verify tests of every conceivable PED, as an
alternative to a determination made by the operator, would thereby
place an excessive and unnecessary burden on the agency.
    The potential for aircraft interference depends on the aircraft and
its electrical and electronic systems, as well as the type of PED being
used. Prior to fly-by-wire flight controls, the primary concern was the
susceptibility of sensitive aircraft communication and navigation radio
receivers to spurious radio frequency emissions from PEDs. Many of
these aircraft using this older technology are still in service and are
as susceptible today to interference as they were when they first
entered service. When aircraft included fly-by-wire controls and
electronic displays, the susceptibility of these aircraft systems also
became a concern. The FAA defined requirements for high-intensity
radiated fields (HIRF) that provide assurance that newer aircraft with
such systems have sufficient protection to continue to operate safely
when exposed to spurious emissions \2\ of PEDs and intentional
transmissions \3\ from transmitting PEDs. While the highly critical
fly-by-wire controls and electronic displays were designed and
certified to withstand the fields from transmitting PEDs, all aircraft
electrical and electronic systems were not designed to withstand these
fields. These newer aircraft still have sensitive navigation,
communication, and surveillance radio receivers that may be susceptible
at certain frequencies to spurious radio frequency emissions from PEDs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A spurious emission is any radio frequency not deliberately
created or transmitted.
    \3\ Intentional transmission is the transmission of signals
through free space by electromagnetic waves on specific radio
frequencies that are used to communicate information between
devices.

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

    PEDs have changed considerably in the past few decades and output a
wide variety of signals. Some devices do not transmit or receive any
signals but generate low-power, radio frequency emissions. Other PEDs,
such as e-readers, are only active in this manner during the short time
that a page is being changed. Of greater concern are intentional
transmissions from PEDs. Most portable electronic devices have internet
connectivity that includes transmitting and receiving signals
wirelessly using radio waves, such as Wi-Fi,\4\ Bluetooth,\5\ and
various other cellular technologies. These devices transmit high-
powered emissions and can generate spurious signals at undesired
frequencies, particularly if the device is damaged.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Wi-Fi is defined as ``wireless local area network (WLAN)
products that are based on the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers' (IEEE) 802.11 standards.'' Wi-Fi is a
trademark of the Wi-Fi Alliance.
    \5\ Bluetooth is managed by the Bluetooth Special Interest Group
(SIG). The SIG is the body that oversees the development of
Bluetooth standards and the licensing of the Bluetooth technologies
and trademarks to manufacturers. The SIG is a privately held, not-
for-profit trade association founded in September 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Avionics equipment has also undergone significant changes. When the
regulations were first established, communication and navigations
systems were basic systems. In today's avionics, there are various
systems--global positioning, traffic collision and avoidance,
transponder, automatic flight guidance and control, and many other
advanced avionics systems--that depend on signals transmitted from the
ground, other aircraft, and satellites for proper operation. In
addition, there are advanced flight management systems that use these
avionics as a critical component for performing precision operational
procedures. Many of these systems are also essential to realize the
capabilities and operational improvements envisioned in the Next
Generation airspace system. As such, harmful interference from PEDs
cannot be tolerated.
    Under FAA regulation, the aircraft operator is responsible for
determining which PEDs may be used by the passengers and during which
phase of flight this utilization may occur. The aircraft operator is
best suited to make the determination of which PEDs would not cause
interference with the navigation or communication system on its
aircraft. The operators' PED policy determines what types of devices
may be used on board their aircraft and during which phase(s) of
flight. The responsibility for enforcing an aircraft operator's PED
policy typically falls on the cabin crew. On occasion, enforcement of a
commercial airline's PED policy results in a conflict between a flight
attendant and a passenger. Noncompliance with crewmember safety
instructions on the use of PEDs has resulted in passengers being
removed from an aircraft and, in some cases, has caused in-flight
diversions. The FAA provides oversight of aircraft operators to ensure
that they have established and are currently following robust PED-
allowance procedures.

Policy and Guidance

    As aircraft and consumer electronics evolved, the FAA recognized
that the industry needed assistance to keep up with the challenges of
determining if devices would interfere with the aircraft navigation or
communication systems. In 1958, at the FAA's request, the first RTCA,
Inc., (previously Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics) documents
\6\ were written to help airlines make the PED allowance determination.
Since that time, the FAA has requested three other activities; the most
recent concluded in 2008. The current guidelines to assist aircraft
operators in developing their PED policy are in Advisory Circular (AC)
91-21-1B, Use of Portable Electronic Devices Aboard Aircraft, dated
August 25, 2006, which references industry-developed guidelines
identified in RTCA/DO-233 and RTCA/DO-294.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ RTCA is a private, not-for-profit corporation that functions
as a Federal Advisory Committee for the FAA. It develops consensus-
based recommendations regarding communications, navigation,
surveillance, and air traffic management (CNS/ATM) system issues.
See FAA Order 1110.77T, RTCA Inc. (utilized as an Advisory
Committee) (Apr. 1, 2011). The following are RTCA recommendations
and guidance documents regarding PEDS:
    DO-307, Aircraft Design and Certification for Portable
Electronic Device (PED) Tolerance, issued 10-11-07, and Change 1,
issued 12-16-08. Prepared by SC-202.
    DO-294C, Guidance on Allowing Transmitting Portable Electronic
Devices (T-PEDs) on Aircraft, issued 12-16-08. Prepared by SC-202.
    DO-233, Portable Electronic Devices Carried on Board Aircraft,
issued 8-20-96. Prepared by SC-177. Errata issued 8-18-99.
    DO-199, Potential Interference to Aircraft Electronic Equipment
from Devices Carried Aboard, issued 9-16-88. Prepared by SC-156.
Supersedes DO-119.
    DO-119, Interference To Aircraft Electronic Equipment From
Devices Carried Aboard, issued 9-16-88. Prepared by SC-88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These joint industry-government committees studied the risks
associated with PED usage and are the basis for the FAA's guidance
today. For instance, based on these studies, FAA has recommended that
operators allowing passenger use of PEDs do so only during non-critical
phases of flight and prohibit PED use during takeoff and landing. See
AC 91-21-1B. While these recommendations are non-binding, most
commercial airlines allow the use of non-transmitting PEDs in flight
after the aircraft has reached a safe altitude, and those airlines
continue to allow PED usage until near the end of the flight.
    The FAA has also published AC 20-164, Designing and Demonstrating
Aircraft Tolerance to Portable Electronic Devices. This AC is based on
RTCA/DO-307, Aircraft Design and Certification for Portable Electronic
Device (PED) Tolerance, dated October 11, 2007. Further, AC 20-164
provides guidance to demonstrate aircraft electrical and electronic
system tolerance to the use of PEDs. This approach allows the aircraft
designers to build in protections to help prevent interference to
navigation or communication systems.

PEDs Today

    Smart phones, personal computers, and wireless technology have
become ingrained in peoples' day-to-day lives. Passengers not only use
these devices to remain connected to their work, family, and friends,
but also to read books, play games, and accomplish many of their day-
to-day tasks. This has naturally led to the passengers' desire to use
PEDs from the time they board an aircraft until they exit the aircraft
at their destination. In some cases, a transmitting radio is embedded
in a PED so that the operation of the transmitter is not apparent to
the user. Many of these devices incorporate transmitters such as
Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, and cellular phone modems, which may operate without
specific actions from the passenger.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ This notice does not address flightcrew member use of PEDs
during flight. Section 44732 of Title 49 of the United States Code
generally prohibits flightcrew member use of PEDs on the flightdeck
while the aircraft is being operated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While FAA regulations allow aircraft operators to demonstrate when
and which PEDs can be safely used, few aircraft operators have allowed
use of devices during critical phases of flight (e.g., takeoff and
landing). Recognizing that some passengers may wish to use their
devices throughout a flight, the FAA is requesting comments regarding
the FAA's policies, guidance, and procedures that aircraft operators
use to determine whether to allow a particular PED for usage during
flight.

Request for Information

Considerations for Comment

    The FAA is interested in obtaining comments related to the use of
PEDs on aircraft from the viewpoints of aircraft

operators, passengers, and other stakeholders. We are soliciting
comments on the following:
     Aircraft operators' concerns, both technical and
operational;
     Flight attendants' and pilots' concerns;
     Security concerns;
     Manufacturers and designers of PEDs;
     Passenger perspectives; and
     How the FAA can support the aviation industry in
considering how to allow greater use of PEDs.
    The FAA has identified the following specific areas for comments.
    (1) Procedures and methods for operators to allow the use of PEDs.
Guidance on the procedures and methods that an operator can use to
determine allowance of PEDs is published in AC 91-21-1B. This AC
references the industry-developed guidelines of RTCA/DO-233 and RTCA/
DO-294C. Those guidelines address testing and analysis procedures for
advanced avionics system interference from both transmitting and non-
transmitting PEDs.
     What processes and methods are aircraft operators
currently using to evaluate PED technology interference?
     How can those procedures and methods be improved?
     Is additional FAA guidance and policy needed?

One concept is for operators to improve the sharing of test and
compatibility data, so that the same compatibility testing could be
leveraged to support many aircraft operators. Data concerning PED and
aircraft compatibility could be used by the operators to analyze
incidents involving PED interference.
     Should the industry develop data sharing for this purpose?
    (2) Reliability of aircraft systems. Future aircraft could be
manufactured to be immune to the PED environment. To support commercial
aircraft operators' authorization of PED use, the FAA has issued AC 20-
164 describing criteria for aircraft manufacturers and modifiers to
establish PED-tolerance for new and existing aircraft.
     Is it necessary to establish aircraft certification
regulations to require new aircraft to be PED-tolerant?

In addition, many aircraft systems have already qualified for operation
in high intensity radiated field environments.
     How can these demonstrations best be leveraged to help an
operator allow the use of PEDs?
    (3) Aircraft Immunity to PED Interference. Some aircraft
manufacturers and avionics equipment manufacturers have already
demonstrated PED and aircraft system compatibility.
     Should aircraft manufacturers and avionics equipment
manufacturers provide documentation of aircraft PED tolerance, aircraft
systems that meet RF susceptibility requirements, interference path
loss, etc., to the operators to support the operator's PED allowance
determination?
     Should it be mandatory that aircraft manufacturers and
modifiers provide this information to the operators for new and
modified aircraft?
    (4) Promote aircraft-compatible PED transmissions. The
transmissions from PEDs vary widely, making it very difficult for an
aircraft operator to discriminate between PEDs that may be acceptable
and those that may not.
     Could the consumer electronics industry develop standards
for aircraft-friendly PEDs, or aircraft-compatible modes of operation,
that would reduce the risk of interference to aircraft systems by
defining maximum emissions in designated bands?
    (5) Passenger perspectives on use of PEDs. Increased access and
usage of PEDs may distract passengers during crewmember safety
briefings and instructions. In addition, PED usage may have an adverse
impact on flight and cabin crew responsibilities and duties. In 2005,
the FCC \8\ solicited comments on the potential to expand the use of
cellular phones in flight and received responses from passengers
concerned about the use of cell phones by other passengers. One of the
main concerns expressed by the public comment was the fear of passenger
disruptions caused by cell phone use in a crowded public conveyance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Federal Communications Commission's Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 04-288, in WT Docket No. 04-435, adopted
December 15, 2004, and released February 15, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     If some PEDs are found to be compatible with aircraft
systems, should there be restrictions on the use of PEDs for other
reasons?
     Should voice communications using other technologies such
as voice over IP be limited or restricted?
     Should aircraft operators be required to publish their PED
policies?
    (6) PED article retention risk considerations. Personal belongings
must be stowed for take-off, approach and landing, to reduce the risk
of injury from projectiles and to ensure rapid egress in the event of
an emergency. Some PEDs are large enough to be of concern for egress,
while smaller handheld devices may have risks comparable to a small
book.
     If some PEDs are found to be compatible with aircraft
systems, should requirements to stow PEDs for takeoff, approach,
landing and abnormal conditions exist nonetheless to prevent personal
injury?
    (7) Active monitoring for harmful interference. A handheld device
or installed system could be used by the crewmembers to detect harmful
interference from PEDs. This could allow the crewmembers to identify
problems and instruct passengers to disable devices when they generate
harmful signals.
     Should the FAA consider working with industry to develop
standards for an active PED monitoring system?
    (8) Technical Challenges.
     What are the technical, operation, and regulatory
challenges commercial aircraft operators face in expanding their PED
usage policy?
     What are the technical challenges the aircraft
manufacturers, modifiers, and avionics equipment manufacturers see with
further PED usage allowance?
     What data and support can they provide to commercial
aircraft operators to address these technical challenges?
    (9) Operational Challenges.
     What are the operational, safety and security challenges
and concerns associated with expanding PED usage policy?
     What is needed to alleviate those concerns?

Again, this information must be submitted by October 30, 2012.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to submit written comments,
data, or views. The agency also invites comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from changes in our current policy. The most helpful comments
reference a specific area of concern, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket
does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one
copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically,
commenters should submit only one time.
    The FAA will file in the docket a summary of all comments it
receives. The FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before
the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed
after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay.
    Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Commenters should
not file proprietary or confidential business information in the
docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the
person identified in the

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document, and marked as
proprietary or confidential. If submitting information on a disk or CD
ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as proprietary or
confidential, and identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary
information filed with a comment, the Agency does not place it in the
docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have
access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received
it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information,
it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act
(5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of
Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

    Issued in Washington, DC on August 28, 2012.
Susan J.M. Cabler,
Asst. Manager, Aircraft Engineering Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-21577 Filed 8-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P