[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 77 (Thursday, April 21, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22311-22316]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9285]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0233; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-014-AD;
Amendment 39-16665; AD 2011-09-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed
Martin Aeronautics Company Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G airplanes. This AD requires
repetitive eddy current inspections to detect cracks in the center wing
upper and lower rainbow fittings, and corrective actions if necessary;
and repetitive replacements of rainbow fittings, which would extend the
repetitive interval for the next inspection. This AD results from a
report of fatigue cracking of the wing upper and lower rainbow fittings
during durability testing and on in-service airplanes. Analysis of in-
service cracking has shown that these rainbow fittings are susceptible
to multiple site fatigue damage. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct such fatigue cracks, which could grow large and lead to the
failure of the fitting and a catastrophic failure of the center wing.

DATES: This AD is effective May 26, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of May 26, 2011.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company,
Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P-58, 86 S. Cobb
Drive, Marietta, Georgia 30063; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 770-494-
5445; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/TechPubs.html.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the Document Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Gray, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337; phone: (404)
474-5554; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
all Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G airplanes. That NPRM was
published in the Federal Register on March 23, 2010 (75 FR 13695). That
NPRM proposed to require repetitive eddy current inspections to detect
cracks in the center wing upper and lower rainbow fittings, and
corrective actions if necessary; and repetitive replacements of rainbow
fittings, which would extend the repetitive interval for the next
inspection.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received from the three commenters.

Support for the NPRM

    Lynden Air Cargo (LAC) stated that it concurs with the intent of
the NPRM.

Request To Extend Comment Period

    LAC requested that we allow at least 60 days for the comment
period. LAC stated that Executive Order 12866 provides for comment
periods of ``not less than 60 days.'' LAC pointed out that the comment
period for the NPRM closes 45 days after it was published. LAC stated
that it does not see a justification for a reduced comment period
because Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82 was originally published on
December 7, 2004, and because it was not an alert bulletin, and was
approved by the FAA.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request to extend the comment
period. While Executive Order 12866 does not specifically require a 60-
day comment period for AD actions, the FAA has established a standard
45-day comment period for AD actions issued as NPRMs. In addition, the
Administrative Procedure Act does not prescribe a specific amount of
time for comment periods. No change to the final rule is necessary in
regard to this issue.

Request To Clarify Reporting Requirements

    LAC requested that we clarify the reporting requirements. LAC
stated that the NPRM would require sending the inspection results to
Lockheed, but LAC stated that it could not find the requirement in the
regulatory requirements of the NPRM.
    We find that clarification is necessary. While this AD does not
require reporting inspection results, operators are encouraged to
report their findings to the manufacturer. We have not changed the
final rule in regard to this issue.

Request To Clarify the Meaning of Interim Action

    LAC requested that we clarify the meaning of interim action. LAC
asked why the FAA considers the NPRM to be interim action and if any
other requirements are under consideration that may override or change
the proposed requirements.
    We agree to provide clarification. We consider this final rule to
be an interim action because no terminating action for the inspections
exists at this time. If the rainbow fitting is replaced, that action
zeros out the time for the requirements, but the initial and repetitive
inspections are required on the new fitting. At this time, no
terminating action exists. However, the manufacturer might redesign the
rainbow fitting, which could extend the life of the fitting and change
the inspection requirements, or provide a terminating action for the
inspections. We have not changed the final rule in regard to this
issue.

Request To Clarify Cracking in Paragraph (k) of the NPRM

    LAC requested that we change ``any crack'' in paragraph (k) of the
NPRM to ``any crack is detected in the rainbow fitting.'' The commenter
did not provide a reason for this request.
    We agree with the commenter's request. During inspections required
by this AD, cracks may be found in the surrounding structure (i.e., not
in the rainbow fitting itself). Many of these cracks can be repaired
and do not require replacing the rainbow fitting. However, as stated in
paragraph (k) of the NPRM, only those cracks found in the rainbow
fitting require replacing the rainbow fitting. We have changed
paragraph (k) of the final rule to clarify that replacement is required
only if

cracking is detected ``in the rainbow fitting.''

Request To Clarify Requirements for Repairing Cracking in Paragraphs
(g) and (h) of the NPRM

    LAC requested that we clarify the requirements for repairing
cracking. LAC stated that if cracks are found on the rainbow fitting
during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of the NPRM, then it
believed that the rainbow fitting should be replaced as required by
paragraph (k) of the NPRM, instead of paragraph (l) as stated in the
NPRM. LAC also questioned the wording in paragraph (h) of the NPRM that
states ``Any cracks found during the inspections required by paragraph
(h) of this AD must be repaired before further flight in accordance
with the actions required by paragraph (l) of this AD.'' LAC stated
that it believes that if cracks are found on the rainbow fitting then
it should be replaced according to the requirements of paragraph (k) of
the NPRM.
    We agree that clarification is necessary. The commenter states
correctly that if cracks are found in the rainbow fitting, the fitting
must be replaced in accordance with paragraph (k) of this AD. Cracking
in other areas must be repaired (i.e., ``corrective actions'' must be
done), as required by paragraph (k) of this AD.
    We corrected typographical errors in paragraphs (g) and (h) of the
NPRM to refer to paragraph (k) of this AD, rather than paragraph (l) of
this AD. We also changed the phrases referring to repairs in paragraphs
(g) and (h) of this AD to instead refer to doing the actions required
by paragraph (k) of the AD. In addition, we changed the header for
paragraph (k) of this AD to clarify that the paragraph identifies the
replacement, related investigative actions, and corrective actions.
    Further, paragraph (l) of this final rule specifies an exception to
paragraphs (i) and (k) of this AD. Paragraph (l) requires repairing
certain conditions using a method approved by the Manager of the
Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO). We added a reference to
this exception in paragraph (i) of this AD.

Request To Extend Compliance Time

    LAC and Safair Operations (Safair) requested that we extend the
grace period of 600 flight hours for the initial inspection for
airplanes that have accumulated more flight cycles than the 5,000-
flight-cycle threshold. Any replacement, if necessary, must be done
before further flight. LAC stated that 600 flight hours is not adequate
to replace the rainbow fittings. LAC recommended that we revise the
compliance time for the replacement to ``before the accumulation of
30,000 flight hours on the fitting or within 3,000 flight hours after
the effective date of the AD, whichever occurs later.'' LAC stated that
this proposed compliance time would allow the rainbow fitting to be
replaced at the next scheduled C-check, and would reduce unscheduled
down time, and maximize maintenance, repair, and overhaul (MRO)
efficiencies. LAC stated that its entire fleet of six Model 382G
airplanes is already over the 30,000-flight-hour limit and will require
rainbow fitting replacements.
    Safair also stated that the 365-day or 600-flight-hour compliance
time for the initial inspection is not sufficient to allow a phased-in
scheduling of this inspection and potential replacement. Safair
requested that the inspection and replacement be scheduled at the next
3- or 6-year structural check to allow for the most efficient use of
planned downtime and least interruption to operational schedules.
Safair stated that this revised compliance time would allow for the
successful provisioning of the required materials and tools as the
parts and specific fasteners have significant lead times. LAC also
stated that it believes that only a limited number of MROs are capable
of replacing the rainbow fittings with a limited number of slots
available.
    We do not agree with the request to extend the compliance time. We
are aware that some operators use the Model 382 airplanes for aid and
relief missions. We do not intend to interfere with these missions, and
that is why we have provided a grace period of 600 flight hours to
replace the rainbow fittings. We consider this safety issue resulting
from the fatigue cracking in the area to be serious enough to require
that replacement of the rainbow fittings be accomplished at the
required time. We find that exceeding the limits required by this AD
would not provide an adequate level of safety. We have not changed the
final rule in regard to this issue.

Request To Justify the Requirement for the Manager of the Atlanta ACO
to Approve Repairs

    Lockheed Martin Aircraft and Logistic Centers (Lockheed Martin)
requested that we provide justification for requiring repairs to be
approved by the Manager, Atlanta ACO, as required by paragraph (l) of
the NPRM. Lockheed Martin stated that this requirement creates an
excessive regulatory burden for operators and the FAA, and it could
result in excessive down time. Lockheed Martin stated that it
accomplishes maintenance and repairs around the clock, using designated
engineering representatives. Lockheed Martin also stated that this
requirement would require operators to essentially work the same
schedule as the ACO, which would result in loss of airplane
availability and subsequent loss of revenue, and that would be an
excessive regulatory burden.
    We agree to explain the rationale for this requirement. Lockheed
Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 4, including Appendixes A, B, and
C, dated May 20, 2009, specifies to contact the manufacturer for
disposition of certain damage that exceeds certain repair limits.
However, in such cases, requiring in an AD that operators contact the
manufacturer for disposition of damage would be delegating our
rulemaking authority to that manufacturer. Instead, we require that the
action be done in accordance with a method approved by the FAA, as
specified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
    If operators notify the FAA immediately when a crack is found
during an inspection, the FAA should have adequate time to respond.
Operators also should contact Lockheed Martin with any finding, and
work with it to develop a repair to support the request for approval of
an alternative method of compliance (AMOC). The sooner the operator can
provide us with the recommended repair, the sooner we can review it and
approve it. If we find an issue with the proposed repair, we will
notify the operator as soon as possible to resolve the issue and to
limit potential airplane downtime. We have not changed the final rule
in regard to this issue.

Request To Clarify Testing

    Safair requested that we clarify the details of the durability
testing that resulted in reports of fatigue cracking. Safair pointed
out that the Summary paragraph of the NPRM states ``the proposed AD
results from a report of fatigue cracking of the upper and lower
rainbow fittings during durability testing and on in-service
airplanes.'' Safair stated that it is not aware of any durability
testing carried out on civilian airplanes. Furthermore, Safair asked if
the details of the testing and the results can be shared with industry.
Safair noted some operational civilian airplanes have airframes that
have accumulated more than 90,000 flight hours, so they have actually
served as a real-time durability test.
    We agree to provide clarification. Safair is correct that no
durability testing was carried out on civilian airplanes. However,
there was a full-

scale fatigue test performed on military airplanes based on military
usage. The initial and recurring inspection intervals were based on a
typical military transport usage and were referred to as ``baseline
usage.'' Recent analysis performed by Lockheed Martin on the commercial
Model 382 airplane indicated that commercial operational usage has a
severity relative to the baseline usage of approximately 1.0. We cannot
share the details of the testing with industry because they are
proprietary data of Lockheed Martin. We are aware that there are
airplanes with over 90,000 flight hours still in service, but we also
believe that these airplanes have already had the rainbow fittings
replaced at least once. We have not changed the final rule in regard to
this issue.

Request To Provide Rationale for Addressing Only Inboard Fittings

    Safair requested that we provide rationale for addressing only the
inboard fittings. Safair stated that it has experienced in-service
cracking on upper and lower fittings, both inboard and outboard. Safair
stated that it does not understand why the NPRM addresses only the
inboard upper and lower fittings. Safair stated if the AD will address
an unsafe condition, then all rainbow fittings need to be addressed.
    We agree to provide clarification. The unsafe condition, which
results from a design flaw, applies only to the inboard fitting. The
same problem has not been observed on the outboard fittings, which is a
different design. However, the outboard fitting should still be
inspected in accordance with the maintenance program. If cracks exist
in the inboard fitting that exceed the rework limits, the fitting must
be replaced in accordance with this final rule. The outboard side does
not exhibit the same cracking because the outboard fitting has been
redesigned and refit. At this time, we have not received significant
findings to warrant AD action on outboard fittings. We have not changed
the final rule in regard to this issue.

Request To Explain Data Collection

    Safair requested that we explain the data collection that justifies
taking AD action. Safair stated that the cracks it observed in the past
were not reported to Lockheed Martin and were not signs of multi-site
fatigue damage, but rather isolated single instances of cracking,
apparently brought on by poor installation or milling of nodes at
previous assembly. Safair stated that, as Lockheed Martin did not have
an FAA-approved method of rainbow fitting replacement, it has
historically used Designated Engineering Representative (DER) approved
repair schemes based on military procedures.
    Safair stated that Lockheed Martin is not fully aware of all the
historical events relating to rainbow fitting changes on the civilian
fleet because no reporting requirement existed to provide this
information back to Lockheed Martin. Safair stated that, as a result,
the actual data related to civilian-operated Model 382 airplanes would
appear to be contaminated by military data, and the military Model C-
130 airplanes operate under a different flight regime and severity of
operations.
    Safair stated that the FAA's assertion that it has evaluated all
relevant information is inaccurate because the full data of historical
findings have not been available or collated by anyone in the industry.
Safair stated the NPRM would require sending inspection results back to
Lockheed Martin, and, as such, it is apparent that no historical
requirement existed to send these data back to Lockheed Martin.
    We find that clarification is necessary. Safair's assertion that
this AD requires sending inspection results to Lockheed Martin is
incorrect. As explained previously, this AD does not require reporting
inspection results.
    Most Model 382 operators contact Lockheed Martin for assistance
when cracks are found in the rainbow fittings to request instructions
for repair or replacement. Lockheed Martin maintains a database of this
information. In addition, operators are required by section 121.703 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 121.703) to report the
occurrence or detection of certain failures, malfunctions, or defects.
Additionally, although data exist from military airplanes, significant
data are collected on the civilian fleet.
    Results of fatigue testing on the wings have identified this area
as the location of multi-site fatigue damage. Such damage has not been
identified on in-service airplanes because the single lead crack has
been identified and addressed before widespread fatigue damage is
detected. Once widespread fatigue damage occurs, the wing can no longer
carry the limit load and can fail.
    Lockheed Martin has a repair drawing, which is approved by the FAA,
to replace the rainbow fitting. Safair is correct that the repair
drawing that has been used in the past is DER-approved, which makes it
FAA-approved. However, when it was determined that an AD was required,
we required that Lockheed Martin include procedures for replacing the
rainbow fitting in Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, which we
approved.
    No change to this AD is necessary in regard to this issue.

Request To Explain Benefit of Replacement Part

    Safair requested that we explain the benefit of the replacement
part. Safair also noted that it is also prudent to note that Lockheed
Martin has developed an ``improved'' rainbow fitting, which is
currently in process of military approval/release. Safair asked how use
of this improved part will affect the proposed AD, as the proposed AD
makes no reference to part numbers of rainbow fittings, and the
referenced service bulletin covers only the unimproved rainbow
fittings. Safair stated as the release of this part is imminent, and if
the rainbow fitting issue is of sufficient concern to FAA, it would
seem to make sense to work with Lockheed Martin to release the improved
fitting and mandate its use under AD to ensure the best material be
built into the civilian fleet. Safair asked if the FAA considered this
as a way forward.
    We agree to provide clarification. Lockheed Martin has informed us
that there are released drawings for a hybrid rainbow fitting that
incorporates as much of the Extended Service Life (ESL) rainbow fitting
as possible into a configuration that would fit on a standard center
wing. This fitting has not been completely analyzed or tested and the
life of the hybrid part on commercial aircraft has not been evaluated.
There are no parts available or in production. If Lockheed Martin
chooses to make the parts available for sale then they will be
evaluated and, if acceptable, we might consider additional rulemaking.
The operator can also seek approval of an AMOC to install the new
approved parts. We consider this a safety issue that must be addressed
as soon as possible and cannot wait for Lockheed Martin to complete
their evaluation and production of the new part. Lockheed Martin has
informed us that it would be at least three years before the parts were
available for sale if they started production today, and there is no
plan to start production. We have not changed the final rule in regard
to this issue.

Request To Clarify Requirements for Airplanes that Have Accumulated
More Than 75,000 Flight Hours

    Safair requested that we clarify the requirements for airplanes
that have accumulated more than 75,000 flight

hours on the center wings. Safair asked if it is assumed that all
airplanes that exceed the initial threshold for airframe flight hours
are automatically assumed to have rainbow fittings exceeding the
initial threshold. Safair stated that some airplanes which are in daily
service have accumulated more than 75,000 flight hours on the center
wings.
    Safair stated that several of these airplanes have a long title and
previous ownership line, and it is not known when and if the rainbow
fittings were previously changed because they are not serialized; and
no requirement has existed to track their lives to date. Safair pointed
out that this raises the question as to how the proposed AD will be
implemented on those airplanes that have accumulated a high number of
flight hours. Safair asked if an ``assumption'' is being made that all
airplanes exceeding the initial threshold for airframe flight hours
automatically are assumed to have rainbow fittings exceeding the
initial threshold.
    We agree to provide clarification. If there is no record of the
rainbow fitting being previously replaced and if the airplane has
accumulated more than 30,000 total flight hours, then the rainbow
fitting must be replaced within 600 flight hours after the effective
date of the AD. If there is a record of the rainbow fitting being
replaced but the time on the new rainbow fitting exceeds 30,000 flight
hours, then it must be replaced within 600 flight hours, as required by
paragraph (i) of this AD. If the rainbow fitting has accumulated less
than 30,000 total flight hours, it must be inspected until 30,000 total
flight hours are accumulated on the rainbow fitting, and then the
rainbow fitting must be replaced, as required by paragraph (i) of this
AD. We have not changed the final rule in regard to this issue.

Request To Update Service Information

    Safair noted that Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 4,
dated May 20, 2009, has been released and asked that the NPRM be
revised to refer to the most current service information.
    We agree. We have revised this final rule to refer to Lockheed
Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 4, including Appendixes A, B, and
C, dated May 20, 2009. That service bulletin contains a change to the
parts supply address, and does not require any additional work for any
airplanes. We have added a new paragraph (m) to this final rule to
provide credit for actions done before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 3, dated
April 25, 2008.

Request To Clarify Repetitive Inspection Requirements

    Safair requested that we clarify the repetitive inspection
requirements. Safair stated that the repetitive inspection requirements
in the NPRM are more lenient than Lockheed Martin's prescribed repeat
inspection periods. Safair asked if the repeat criteria automatically
apply.
    We agree to provide clarification. The difference in the specified
repetitive intervals is that Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82,
Revision 4, dated May 20, 2009, recommends a repetitive inspection at
2,000 flight hours after 30,000 flight hours has been accumulated on
the fittings. Paragraph (h) of this AD requires that repetitive
inspections be accomplished at intervals not to exceed 3,600 flight
hours on the center wing until the rainbow fitting has accumulated
30,000 total flight hours. Paragraph (i) of this AD requires that the
rainbow fitting be replaced before the accumulation of 30,000 flight
hours or within 600 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
whichever is later. Where there are differences in the repetitive
interval specified in the service bulletin and this AD, the interval
specified in this AD prevails. However, operators may accomplish the
actions specified in the AD earlier than required. We have not changed
the final rule in regard to this issue.

Request To Clarify Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82

    Safair stated that Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 3,
including Appendixes A and B, dated April 25, 2008, advises that
Lockheed Martin inspection cards--SP-176 (upper fitting) and SP-257
(lower fitting)--cover the intent of the inspection of the service
bulletin. Safair stated that on its Lockheed Martin-developed
maintenance plan, which is current with Lockheed Martin recommended
practices, these inspection cards have re-inspection periods at 2,500
and 2,700 flight hours respectively. Safair stated that the NPRM
requires re-inspections at 3,600 hours. Safair asked if this means the
less stringent conditions of the NPRM, if adopted as proposed, should
now apply. If this is the case, Safair asked if Lockheed Martin will be
required to amend the Standard Maintenance Program 515 callout periods.
    We agree to provide clarification. The inspections in the AD are
required, but they do not affect the inspections in the maintenance
program. If the inspections are identical, they can be performed
simultaneously as part of the maintenance program. However, the
compliance times for the specified inspections cannot be extended
beyond those specified in this AD. Where there is a conflict between
the compliance time in this AD and any other service information, the
compliance time in this AD prevails. This could allow doing the
inspections during a heavy check rather than during a special visit on
a line airplane. We have not changed the final rule in regard to this
issue.

Request To Clarify Repairs of Rainbow Fittings

    Safair requested that we clarify the repair requirements of the
rainbow fittings. Safair pointed out that the second paragraph in the
section titled ``Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service
Bulletin'' of the NPRM seems to allow repairs of rainbow fittings if
cracks are found during visual inspections. Safair noted that the third
paragraph in this section seems to require replacement for cracks found
during nondestructive (NDT) inspections. Safair stated that this seems
to be inconsistent.
    We agree that clarification is necessary. As explained in the
preamble of the NPRM, the general visual inspection is done on the wing
faying structure. No corrective actions for findings during the general
visual inspection are provided in Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82,
Revision 4, dated May 20, 2009; therefore, operators must repair any
damage or cracking in accordance with a method approved by the FAA, as
required by paragraph (l) of this AD.
    However, eddy current inspections are done on the rainbow fitting
and, if any cracking is found in the fitting, it must be replaced (as
required by paragraph (k) of this AD). During any required replacement,
an eddy current inspection must be done on all opened fitting
attachment fastener holes in the upper and lower surface skin panel,
stringers, splice, straps, and splice angles that are common to the
rainbow fittings. As specified in the preamble of the NPRM, the
corrective action for any findings in these other areas consists of
repairing damage within certain limits, but damage outside those
specified limits must be repaired in accordance with a method approved
by the FAA. No change has been made to the final rule in this regard.

Request To Extend the Compliance Time

    Safair stated that if the inspections currently mandated by
Lockheed Martin's maintenance plan continue as required, and if there
are positive

findings as a result of these inspections then the damaged rainbow
fitting must be replaced prior to further flight. However, on airplanes
where there are no crack findings as a result of the inspections, in
the maintenance plan, Safair requests that the airplane may continue in
service until the next 3- or 6-year structural check before the rainbow
fittings are replaced even if the time on the fittings has exceeded the
threshold.
    We disagree. We have provided a grace period of 600 flight hours to
replace the rainbow fittings. We consider this safety issue to result
from the fatigue cracking in the area that is serious enough to require
that the replacement of the rainbow fittings be accomplished at the
required time. We have determined that exceeding the limits required by
this final rule would not provide an adequate level of safety.
    Further, we are aware of the limited resources available for
replacing the rainbow fittings. Lockheed Martin has informed us that
there are adequate supplies of rainbow fittings to support this AD. We
are also aware that Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82 applies to many
Model C-130 airplanes operated by the military, but the rainbow
fittings on most of these airplanes have already been replaced. We have
not changed the final rule in regard to this issue.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We also determined that
these changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD interim action. If final action is later
identified, we might consider further rulemaking then.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 14 airplanes of U.S. registry. The
following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to
comply with this AD.

                                                                 Table--Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of
                                                      Average                                                          U.S.-
                Action                  Work hours   labor rate            Parts              Cost per airplane      registered         Fleet cost
                                                      per hour                                                       airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection...........................           20          $85  None....................  $1,700 per inspection             14  $23,800 per inspection
                                                                                cycle.                                cycle.
Fitting replacement..................        2,438           85  $40,000.................  $247,230...............           14  $3,461,220.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will 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 this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and
    (3) 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.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 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 AD:

2011-09-03 Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics
Company: Amendment 39-16665. Docket No. FAA-2010-0233; Directorate
Identifier 2009-NM-014-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective May 26, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed
Martin Aeronautics Company Model 382, 382B, 382E, 382F, and 382G
airplanes, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57: Wings.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from a report of fatigue cracking of the
wing upper and lower rainbow fittings during durability testing and
on in-service airplanes. Analysis of in-service cracking has shown
that these rainbow fittings are susceptible to multiple site fatigue
damage. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD to
detect and correct such fatigue cracks, which could grow large and
lead to the failure of the fitting and a catastrophic failure of the
center wing.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within

the compliance times specified, unless the actions have already been
done.

Initial Inspections

    (g) At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2) of this AD: Do eddy current inspections to detect cracking of
the center wing upper and lower rainbow fittings on the left and
right side of the airplane. Do the actions in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82,
Revision 4, including Appendixes A and B, dated May 20, 2009. If any
crack is found during the inspections required by paragraph (g) of
this AD, before further flight, do the actions required by paragraph
(k) of this AD.
    (1) Before the accumulation of 15,000 total flight hours on the
rainbow fitting.
    (2) Within 365 days or 600 flight hours on the rainbow fitting
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

Repetitive Inspection Schedule

    (h) Repeat the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD
at intervals not to exceed 3,600 flight hours on the center wing,
until the rainbow fitting has accumulated 30,000 total flight hours.
If any crack is found during the inspections required by paragraph
(h) of this AD, before further flight, do the actions required by
paragraph (k) of this AD.

Rainbow Fitting Replacements

    (i) Before the accumulation of 30,000 flight hours on the
rainbow fitting, or within 600 flight hours after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs later: Replace the rainbow fitting, do
all related investigative actions, and do all applicable corrective
actions, in accordance with paragraph 2.C. of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 4,
including Appendix C, dated May 20, 2009, except as required by
paragraph (l) of this AD. Replace the rainbow fitting thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 30,000 flight hours.

Post-Replacement Repetitive Inspections

    (j) For upper and lower rainbow fittings replaced in accordance
with paragraph (i) or (k) of this AD: Do the eddy current
inspections specified in paragraph (g) of this AD within 15,000
flight hours after doing the replacement and repeat the eddy current
inspections specified in paragraph (h) of this AD thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 3,600 flight hours until the rainbow
fittings are replaced in accordance with paragraph (i) or (k) of
this AD.

Replacement, Related Investigative Actions, and Corrective Actions

    (k) If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (h)
of this AD, any crack is detected in the rainbow fitting, before
further flight, replace the rainbow fitting, do all related
investigative actions, and do all applicable corrective actions, in
accordance with Paragraph 2.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 4, including Appendix
C, dated May 20, 2009, except as provided by paragraph (l) of this
AD.

Exceptions to Service Bulletin

    (l) Where Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 4,
including Appendixes A, B, and C, dated May 20, 2009, specifies to
contact the manufacturer for disposition of certain repair
conditions or does not specify corrective actions if certain
conditions are found, this AD requires repairing those conditions
using a method approved by the Manager, Atlanta Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA. For a repair method to be approved
by the Manager, Atlanta ACO, as required by this paragraph, the
Manager's approval letter must specifically refer to this AD.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    (m) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision 3,
including Appendixes A, B, and C, dated April 25, 2008, are
acceptable for compliance with the corresponding requirements of
this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (n)(1) The Manager, Atlanta ACO, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to Attn: Carl Gray, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Branch, ACE-117A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft
Certification Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards
district office/certificate holding district office.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (o) You must use Lockheed Service Bulletin 382-57-82, Revision
4, including Appendixes A, B, and C, dated May 20, 2009, to do the
actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Lockheed Martin Corporation/Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company,
Airworthiness Office, Dept. 6A0M, Zone 0252, Column P-58, 86 S. Cobb
Drive, Marietta, Georgia 30063; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 770-494-
5445; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.lockheedmartin.com/ams/tools/TechPubs.html.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 12, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-9285 Filed 4-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 230 (Tuesday, December 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75083-75085]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30395]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF15-31-000]

Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for the Planned Mountaineer XPress
Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues and Notice of
Public Scoping Meeting

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) that
will discuss the environmental impacts of the Mountaineer XPress
Project (MXP) involving construction and operation of facilities by
Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia) in 14 counties in the western
portion of West Virginia. The Commission will use this EIS in its
decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the
public convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. You can make a difference by providing us with
your specific comments or concerns about the project. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they
need to evaluate in the EIS. To ensure that your comments are timely
and properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission
receives them in Washington, DC on or before December 17, 2015.
    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on September 16, 2015, you will need to file
those comments in Docket No. PF15-31-000 to ensure they are considered
as part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this planned
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses
a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent
domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

Public Participation

    For your convenience, there are four methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission will provide equal
consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form
or provided verbally. The Commission encourages electronic filing of
comments and has expert staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these instructions so that
your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments in a
variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your submission.
New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' If you are filing a comment on a particular project,
please select ``Comment on a Filing'' as the filing type; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(PF15-31-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.
    (4) In lieu of sending written or electronic comments, the
Commission invites you to attend one of the public scoping meetings its
staff will conduct in the project area, scheduled as follows.

Schedule and Locations for the Mountaineer XPress Project Public Scoping
                                Meetings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Date and time                           Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, December 7, 2015, 6:00 p.m.....  The Lewis Wetzel Family Center,
                                          442 E. Benjamin Drive, New
                                          Martinsville, WV 26149.
Tuesday, December 8, 2015, 6:00 p.m....  Doddridge County Park--Main
                                          Lodge, 1252 Snowbird Road,
                                          West Union, WV 26456.
Wednesday, December 9, 2015, 6:00 p.m..  Cedar Lake Conference Center--
                                          Assembly Hall, 82 FFA Drive,
                                          Ripley, WV 25271.
Thursday, December 10, 2015, 6:00 p.m..  LaBelle Theater, 311 D Street,
                                          South Charleston, WV 25303.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The doors will open at 5 p.m. at which time we will begin our sign
up of speakers for the meetings. For the hour prior to the start of the
meetings, Columbia representatives will be present with maps depicting
the project and to answer questions.
    The scoping meetings will begin at 6 p.m. with a description of our
environmental review process by Commission staff, after which speakers
will be called. The meetings will end once all speakers have provided
their comments or at 10 p.m., whichever comes first. Please note that
depending on the number of people signed up to speak, there may be a
time limit of 3 minutes to present comments, and speakers should
structure their comments accordingly. If time limits are implemented,
they will be strictly enforced to ensure that as many individuals as
possible are given an opportunity to comment. The meetings will be
recorded by a court reporter to ensure comments are accurately
recorded. Transcripts will be entered

into the formal record of the Commission proceeding.
    Please note this is not your only public input opportunity; refer
to the review process flow chart in appendix 1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the ``Additional Information''
section of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of the Planned Project

    Columbia plans to construct and operate approximately 167 miles of
36-inch and 24-inch-diameter pipeline; construct three new compressor
stations and three regulator stations; and modify three existing
compressor stations and other existing appurtenant facilities in West
Virginia. The MXP would provide about 2.7 billion standard cubic feet
per day of natural gas transportation capacity from production areas to
markets on the Columbia system. According to Columbia, its project
would enable infrastructure-constrained natural gas supplies to reach
waiting markets served by Columbia's system. Columbia has entered into
firm contracts for over 88 percent of the MXP capacity.
    The MXP would consist of the following facilities:
     Construction of 161.1 miles of new 36-inch-diameter
pipeline and associated equipment (main-line valves, pigging
facilities,\2\ etc.), located in Marshall, Wetzel, Tyler, Doddridge,
Ritchie, Calhoun, Wirt, Roane, Jackson, Mason, Putnam, and Cabell
Counties, West Virginia;
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A ``pig'' is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into
and pushes through the pipeline for cleaning, conducting internal
inspections, or other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     construction of 6.3 miles of 24-inch-diamter pipeline in
Doddridge County (the Sherwood Lateral);
     construction of three new compressor stations and related
equipment in Doddridge County (Sherwood Compressor Station), Ritchie
County (White Oak Compressor Station), and Jackson County (Mt. Olive
Compressor Station);
     construction of three new regulator stations and
associated equipment in Marshall County (the Leach Interconnect),
Doddridge County (Sherwood Lateral Regulator), and Cabell County (the
Saunders Creek Tie-in);
     replacement of two sections of existing 30-inch-diameter
pipeline, 1,295 feet and 814 feet in length, in Cabell County;
     installation of additional compression at the anticipated
Lone Oak Compressor Station (Marshall County), Elk River Compressor
Station (Wayne County), and Ceredo Compressor Station (Kanawha
County)--all of which are under review in other Commission dockets; and
     construction and/or installation of other related
equipment.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
2.

Land Requirements for Construction

    Columbia has proposed to use a 125-foot-wide right-of-way for
construction of the new pipeline in upland areas, consisting of a 50-
foot-wide permanent and a 75-foot-wide temporary right-of-way, except
where site conditions require specific workspace configurations.
Temporary right-of-way used during construction would be restored and
revert to former uses once construction is completed. However, the
permanent right-of-way would be maintained for permanent operation of
the MXP.
    Additional temporary workspace would be required at road, utility
lines, and waterbody crossings; steep slopes; side slopes; horizontal
directional drill locations; and at the beginning and end of
construction spreads for mobilizing construction equipment. Disturbance
would also result from the use of staging areas and construction of new
and/or upgrading of existing access roads associated with construction
and operation of the planned facilities.
    The pipeline would be sited to follow existing pipeline, utility,
and road rights-of-way to the maximum extent practicable.

The EIS Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\3\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EIS on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EIS. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EIS, we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the planned project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     land use;
     water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     cultural resources;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     socioeconomics;
     air quality and noise;
     endangered and threatened species;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts.
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned project
or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Although no formal application has been filed, we have already
initiated our NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process.
The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement
of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before
the FERC receives an application. As part of our pre-filing review, we
have begun to contact some federal and state agencies to discuss their
involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the EIS.
    The EIS will present our independent analysis of the issues. We
will publish and distribute the draft EIS for public comment. After the
comment period, we will consider all timely comments and revise the
document, as necessary, before issuing a final EIS. To ensure we have
the opportunity to consider and address your comments, please carefully
follow the instructions in the Public Participation section, beginning
on page 2.
    With this notice, we are asking agencies with jurisdiction by law
and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues
related to this project to formally cooperate with us in the
preparation of the EIS.\4\ Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice. Currently, the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection has expressed its intention to participate as a cooperating
agency in the preparation of

the EIS to provide special expertise on environmental issues related to
this project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office(s), and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on
historic properties.\5\ We will define the project-specific Area of
Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO(s) as the project
develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum
encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include
construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor
stations, and access roads). Our EIS for this project will document our
findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status
of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

    We have already identified several issues that we think deserve
attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and
the environmental information provided by Columbia. This preliminary
list of issues may change based on your comments and our analysis.
     Removal of forested areas;
     impacts on endangered and threatened species that not
covered under Columbia's Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan;
     changes to existing land uses; and
     safety of landowners during the operation of the proposed
pipeline.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
planned project.
    Copies of the completed draft EIS will be sent to the environmental
mailing list for public review and comment. If you would prefer to
receive a paper copy of the document instead of the CD version or would
like to remove your name from the mailing list, please return the
attached Information Request (appendix 3).

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Columbia files its application with the Commission, you may
want to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Motions to intervene are more fully described at
http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp. Instructions
for becoming an intervenor are in the ``Document-less Intervention
Guide'' under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web site.
Please note that the Commission will not accept requests for intervenor
status at this time. You must wait until the Commission receives a
formal application for the project.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF15-
31-000). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. 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.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

    Dated: November 18, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-30395 Filed 11-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10515-10516]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3928]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-1012; FRL-9338-5]

Pesticide Product Registrations; Conditional Approval

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces Agency approval of an application
submitted by HeiQ Materials AG, to conditionally register the pesticide
product HeiQ AGS-20 containing a new

active ingredient not included in any previously registered products
pursuant to the provisions of section 3(c)(7)(C) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jed Costanza, Antimicrobials Division
(7510P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-1012. Publicly available
docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at
http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington,
VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    In accordance with section 3(c)(2) of FIFRA, a copy of the approved
label, the list of data references, the data and other scientific
information used to support registration, except for material
specifically protected by section 10 of FIFRA, are also available for
public inspection. Requests for data must be made in accordance with
the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and must be addressed
to the Freedom of Information Office (A-101), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.
NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. Such requests should: Identify the
product name and registration number and specify the data or
information desired.

II. Did EPA conditionally approve the application?

    A conditional registration may be granted under section 3(c)(7)(C)
of FIFRA for a new active ingredient where certain data are lacking, on
condition that such data are received by the end of the conditional
registration period and do not meet or exceed the risk criteria set
forth in 40 CFR 154.7; that use of the pesticide during the conditional
registration period will not cause unreasonable adverse effects; and
that use of the pesticide is in the public interest. The Agency has
considered the available data on the risks associated with the proposed
use of silver, which includes particles in the size range between 10
and 100 nm, and information on social, economic, and environmental
benefits to be derived from such use. Specifically, the Agency has
considered the nature and its pattern of use, application methods and
rates, and level and extent of potential exposure. Based on these
reviews, the Agency was able to make basic health and safety
determinations which show that use of HeiQ AGS-20 during the period of
conditional registration will not cause any unreasonable adverse effect
on the environment, and that use of the pesticide is, in the public
interest.
    Consistent with section 3(c)(7)(C) of FIFRA, the Agency has
determined that these conditional registrations are in the public
interest. Use of the pesticides are of significance to the user
community, and appropriate labeling, use directions, and other measures
have been taken to ensure that use of the pesticides will not result in
unreasonable adverse effects to man and the environment. The conditions
of this registration can be reviewed in the docket (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-
1012) at http://www.reg.gov.

III. Conditional Approval Form

    EPA issued a notice, published in the Federal Register of March 31,
2010, (75 FR 16109) (FRL-8806-9), which announced that the company,
HeiQ Materials AG (on behalf of its agent/Gaughn Consulting) located at
1369 Gwyndale Way, Lansdale, PA 19446, had submitted an application to
register the pesticide product, HeiQ AGS-20, a product that would be
used as an antimicrobial and preservative additive used to treat
fibers, plastics, polymers, latex products and ceramics (EPA File
Symbol 85249-R), containing the active ingredient silver, which
includes particles in the size range between 1 and 100 nm) at 19.3%.
HeiQ subsequently submitted a revised label limiting use to the
treatment of fibers only. This active ingredient has not been included
in any previously registered product.
    Listed below is the application conditionally approved on December
1, 2012 for silver:
    HeiQ AGS-20, the end use product, (EPA Registration Number 85249-
1), an antimicrobial and preservative additive used to treat fibers.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Pests and pesticides.

    Dated: February 9, 2012.
Joan Harrigan Farrelly,
Director, Antimicrobials Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-3928 Filed 2-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 19, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 96)]
[Notices]
[Page 28090-28091]
[DOCID:fr19my10-117]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62087; File No. SR-CHX-2010-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change to
Decrease the Provide Credit for Transactions Involving Issues Priced
Less Than One Dollar

May 12, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 3, 2010, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. CHX has
filed the proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective
upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The CHX proposes to amend its Schedule of Participant Fees and
Assessments (the ``Fee Schedule''), effective May 3, 2010, to change
its transaction fees and rebates to Exchange Participants for
transactions involving issues priced less than one dollar that occur
within the Exchange's Matching System. The text of this proposed rule
change is available on the Exchange's Web site at http://www.chx.com/
rules/proposed_rules.htm and in the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549.

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 CHX included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule changes and
discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. The text of
these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV
below. The CHX 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
    Through this filing, the Exchange would amend its Fee Schedule to
decrease the provide credit to Exchange Participants for transactions
involving issues priced less than one dollar that occur within the
Exchange's Matching System.
    The Exchange proposes to decrease the provide credit in the
transactions described above from 0.25% to 0.20% of the trade value.\5\
The Exchange notes that the provide credit was increased earlier this
year in response to similar increases by some of our competitors for
transactions in securities priced under $1.\6\ Since that time, some of
our competitors have again changed their pricing for transactions in
securities

priced under $1.\7\ The proposed decrease in the provide credit will
help us remain competitive while maximizing the income derived from
transactions in securities priced under $1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Trade value'' is defined in our Fee Schedule as ``a dollar
amount equal to the price per share multiplied by the number of
shares executed.''
    \6\ For example, National Stock Exchange raised its provide
credit to 0.25% for transactions under $1 in Tape A, B and C
securities beginning in the month of February 2010.
    \7\ For example, National Stock Exchange changed its rebate to
the lesser of 0.25% of trade value and 25% of the quote spread.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \8\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \9\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among its members. Among other things, the change to the
fee schedule would provide incentives to Participants to increase the
amount of liquidity provided on our trading facilities for securities
priced less than $1, which may contribute to an increase in trading
volume on the Exchange and in the income derived there from.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange 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.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(B)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \10\ and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder \11\ because it establishes or changes a due, fee, or other
charge applicable only to a member imposed by the self-regulatory
organization. Accordingly, the proposal is effective upon Commission
receipt of the filing. At any time within 60 days of the filing of such
rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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 purpose of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CHX-2010-09 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-CHX-2010-09. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such 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 publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2010-09 and should be
submitted on or before June 9, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11939 Filed 5-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on June 17, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2004-16972

________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________This serves as notice to the public of the
action described below, taken by the Department official indicated (no
additional confirming order will be issued in this matter).

Joint Application of CONTINENTAL AIRLINES, INC., and AEROVIAS DE MEXICO,
S.A., DE C.V. (AEROMEXICO),  filed 1/26/04, and supplemented on 4/8/04,
for:

Exemption authority for Aeromexico and its affiliate to engage in
scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between Villahermosa, Mexico, and Houston, Texas.  The joint applicants
request that this exemption authority be granted for a period of one
year.

Statements of authorization for Continental and its affiliate to display
Aeromexico’s “AM*” designator code on flights operated by
Continental in the Houston-Villahermosa market.  The joint applicants
request that the statements of authorization be granted for an
indefinite period.

Responsive Pleadings:

The City of Houston and the Greater Houston Partnership filed an answer
in support of the application.  No other responses were received.

Applicant reps: R. Bruce Keiner, Jr. (CO)<PHONE_NUMBER> and William C.
Evans (AM)<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT Analyst:   Linda L. Lundell<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

1.  We grant exemption authority to Aeromexico, to the extent necessary,
to provide scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property,
and mail between Villahermosa, Mexico, and Houston, Texas;

2.  We grant to Continental and ExpressJet statements of authorization
under Part 212 of the Department’s regulations to display the airline
designator code of Aeromexico, on all flights operated by
Continental/ExpressJet (for the carriage of Aeromexico’s authorized
traffic) between Houston, Texas, and Villahermosa, Mexico;

3.  We defer on the request for exemption authority, along with Part 212
and Part 216 authority, for Aerolitoral in the captioned docket (see
remarks, below);												2

4.  The statements of authorization granted above are effective
immediately and shall remain in effect indefinitely, subject to the
conditions outlined below;

5. The exemption authority granted above to Aeromexico is effective
immediately for a period of one year from the date of this notice,
subject to the conditions outlined below;

6.  The exemption authority granted by this Notice is limited to
operations conducted on a code-share basis only.

Action taken by:	Paul L. Gretch, Director

			Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Mexico.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

	XX   Continental and ExpressJet’s certificates of public convenience
and necessity

	XX   Aeromexico’s foreign air carrier permits

	XX   Standard Exemption Conditions (attached)

Additional Conditions:

The code-share operations authorized are subject to the following
conditions:

 The respective statements of authorizations will remain in effect only
as long as (i) the subject U.S. carriers and the subject Mexican-flag
carrier continue to hold the necessary underlying authority to operate
the code-share services at issue, and (ii) the code-share and/or
alliance agreement providing for the code-share operations remains in
effect;

 The subject U.S. carriers and/or the subject Mexican-flag carrier must
promptly notify the Department (Office of International Aviation) if the
code-share agreement is no longer effective or if the carriers decide to
cease operating all or a portion of the approved code-share services.
(Such notice should be filed in Docket OST-2004-16972);

  The code-sharing operations conducted under this authority must comply
with 14 CFR 257 and with any amendment to the Department’s regulations
concerning code-share arrangements that may be adopted.  Notwithstanding
any provisions in the contract between the carriers, our approval here
is expressly conditioned upon the requirements that the subject foreign
air transportation be sold in the name of the carrier holding out such
service in computer reservation systems and elsewhere; that the carrier
selling such transportation (i.e., the carrier shown on the ticket)
accept responsibility for the entirety of the code-share journey for all
obligations established in its contract of carriage with the passenger;
and that the passenger liability of the operating carrier be unaffected;

 The authority granted here is specifically conditioned so that neither
the subject U.S. carriers nor the subject Mexican-flag carrier shall
give any force or effect to any contractual provisions between
themselves that are contrary to these conditions.												3

Remarks:

	Authority for Aerolitoral

The joint application states that Continental will perform an oversight
review of Aerolitoral’s operations and submit a copy of that
certification to the Department.  The joint applicants have orally
advised the Department that, while this review is being completed, they
wish to proceed with that portion of the application involving services
that have been reviewed (Continental/ExpressJet/Aeromexico).  Under
these circumstances, and consistent with our action in the Notice of
Action Taken dated May 18, 2004, in this matter, we will continue to
defer action on that portion of the application that involves proposed
code-share services with Aerolitoral until further notice.

________________________________________________________________________
_______

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicants qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the application was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted or deferred, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

   See Notice of Action Taken dated May 18, 2004, in the captioned
docket, for a detailed description of the application filed, along with
our earlier action in this matter.

   Specifically, the joint applicants in this application are as
follows:  Continental and its affiliate ExpressJet Airlines, Inc., d/b/a
Continental Express (ExpressJet), and Aeromexico and its affiliate and
code-share partner, Aerolitoral, S.A. de C.V. (Aerolitoral).  The joint
applicants state that flights designated as Continental flights in the
instant application will be operated by Continental or by ExpressJet.
The joint applicants also state that Aeromexico seeks authority in the
instant application on behalf of itself and on behalf of Aerolitoral.
However, for reasons set forth in the Remarks below, we are deferring on
that portion of the application that involves proposed code-share
services with Aerolitoral.

   The supplement contained information that had been redacted from the
copy of the code-share agreement that the joint applicants had
previously submitted with their application.  We would also note that on
May 14, 2004, the joint applicants filed a letter in Docket
OST-2004-16972 to clarify that they were not requesting exemption
authority for Continental to operate code-share flights beyond its
Mexican gateways, or for Aeromexico to operate code-share flights beyond
its U.S. gateways.

   By Notice of Action Taken dated May 18, 2004, in the captioned
docket, we had deferred, until further notice, on the applicants’
request for authority to provide code-share services in the
Houston-Villahermosa market pending receipt of the necessary security
clearances.  Those security clearances have now been received.  Thus, we
are able to proceed here.

   Authority granted by this notice is subject to the conditions
outlined below; see also remarks, below.

   We expect this notification to be received within 10 days of such
non-effectiveness or of such decision.

   By letter dated February 10, 2004, Continental advised the Department
that Aeromexico was audited by Continental in accordance with the
Foreign Code Share Safety Program approved for use by Continental and
that Aeromexico met all applicable ICAO standards.  And, by memorandum
dated April 6, 2004, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) advised
the Department that it had completed its review of the proposed
code-share arrangement between Continental and Aeromexico and interposed
no objection to the request.

05/2004


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on May 5, 2006

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2006-24061

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant: QATAR AIRWAYS Q.C.S.C. (Qatar Airways)			Date Filed:
February 24, 2006

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC § 41301 to permit the
applicant to engage in scheduled and charter foreign air transportation
of persons, property, and mail between points in Qatar and points in the
United States.

Applicant representative:  Anita M. Mosner,<PHONE_NUMBER>   	DOT analyst:
 Robert J. Finamore,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.
                                     Action date:  May 5, 2006

Effective dates of authority granted:  May 5, 2006, through May 5, 2008.

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity): United
States-Qatar Air Transport Agreement.

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations of our standard exemption conditions
(attached).

Special conditions/Remarks:  Based on the record in this case, we found
that Qatar Airways is financially and operationally qualified to perform
the services authorized above. In addition, we found that Qatar Airways
is substantially owned and effectively controlled by citizens of Qatar.
The carrier is properly licensed and has been authorized by the
Government of Qatar to perform the proposed services.

The exemption authority granted to Qatar Airways is limited to
operations conducted only through a wet lease or code-share arrangement
with a duly authorized and properly supervised U.S. or foreign air
carrier.  Qatar Airways may not itself operate scheduled or charter
flights to or from the United States without further authority from the
Department.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director, Office of International
Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

FOREIGN CARRIER EXEMPTION CONDITIONS
                              ATTACHMENT

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

1) Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

2) Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

3) Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage contained
in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any operations
under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the form of a
completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation Administration’s
Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards Service (any
changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be filed with that
office);

4) Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

5) Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

6) Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

7) Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: a) based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or b) based on
a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term “international air transportation” means “international
transportation” as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

8) Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

9) Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department’s
rules governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations
required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the Department,
with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S. agencies and
courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

 05/2004

 The applicant stated that its scheduled services would initially be
conducted under a code-share arrangement with Lufthansa German Airlines,
on flights operated by Lufthansa German Airlines.  The applicant further
stated that under this arrangement, it will hold out service to the U.S.
by placing its designator code on certain U.S.-Germany scheduled
services operated by Lufthansa German Airlines.  Lufthansa German
Airlines has applied for a corresponding statement of authorization in
Docket OST-2006-24077.  The applicant states in its application that
“Until such time as Qatar is rated and place in Category 1 under the
FAA’s International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) program, Qatar
Airways would be willing to accept a condition on its authority which
would require that flight operations be performed by either a U.S.
carrier or a foreign carrier from a nation which has been placed in
Category 1 under IASA.”

 The applicant has requested confidential treatment of its financial
submissions, under the provisions of 14 CFR§302.12.  Good cause having
been shown, we will grant this request.

 The FAA advised us that it knows of no reason why the Department should
act unfavorably on this application, provided the authority is limited
in this manner. Based on the advice of the FAA and the evidence in this
docket, we found that there was no basis to find that Qatar Airways was
unqualified to conduct the proposed operations.