                                  MEMORANDUM

Tetra Tech, Inc.
400 Red Brook Blvd., Suite 200
Owings Mills, MD 21117
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

DATE: 		November 6, 2013 (revised May 14, 2014)

TO:			Lisa Biddle and Paul Shriner

FROM:		Henry Latimer, Blaine Snyder, and Ann Roseberry Lincoln

SUBJECT:		Holding times to evaluate post-impingement mortality

Clean Water Act §316(b) requires an examination of impacts on the aquatic community from impingement and entrainment related to withdrawal of cooling water. As part of evaluating the impact that a cooling water intake structure (CWIS) has on the aquatic community, the number and types of organisms (fish and shellfish) impinged and entrained by that structure are often quantified. Depending on the types of screens, screen wash systems, fish return systems, and operations at the facility in question it may also be useful to quantify impingement survival rates. Because impingement survival rates are influenced by the physical design and operations of the CWIS as well as by the species and conditions within the source water (e.g., high vs. low debris load), impingement survival is typically facility-specific. Therefore, the measurement of impingement survival rates can be useful in developing a more refined understanding of mortality associated with impingement at a facility. This memorandum addresses suggested holding times to use in evaluating post-impingement latent mortality of fish and shellfish.

McLaren and Tuttle (2000) held fish for 96 hours post-impingement to evaluate latent mortality associated with impingement on 1 mm Ristroph-type traveling screens at the Somerset Station (a 281 million gallons per day (mgd) intake, 625 mega-watt (MW) coal-fired power plant on Lake Ontario). Survival of impinged fish did not include evaluation of effects of passage through the 300 meter (m) fish return pipe. Similarly, Thompson (2000) reported that fish and shellfish were held for 96 hours post-impingement to evaluate mortality associated with impingement and returned to the source water at the Carolina Power & Light Company's Brunswick Steam Electric Plant in North Carolina. Ronafalvy et al. (2000) held fish for 48 hours post-impingement to evaluate mortality at the Salem Generating Station in New Jersey. More recently, Bigbee et al (2010) evaluated fish for post-impingement survival for 48 hours at a newly installed modified rotary disk screen (screen opening of 6.1 mm[2]) at the North Omaha Station, a coal-fired generating station on the Missouri River in Omaha, Nebraska. Also, a recent study by Shaw (2010) demonstrated that post-impingement survival of laboratory-reared catfish could be successfully monitored for seven days at the Barry Steam Generation Plant on the lower Mobile River, Alabama.

A holding time of 24 hours post-impingement was used by Black (2007) to evaluate the mortality of various fish species in a laboratory setting. This study was also different from some of the facility studies in that the laboratory setting allowed for fish not subject to impingement to be used as controls to quantify mortality associated with holding conditions. Laboratory studies such as this one fail to completely replicate conditions in the field such as survival under varying temperatures and additional physical damage related to debris loading on the traveling screen. Further, this study did not consider a potentially large source of stress on impinged organisms i.e., passage through a fish-return system. Although laboratory studies are necessary and appropriate for use in evaluating the ability of various technologies to reduce stresses to fish and shellfish related to impingement, survival data from studies such as this should only be used to evaluate the relative magnitude of stress related to each technology for a given species. Because of the site-specific nature of impingement mortality and additional stresses to which fish and shellfish are exposed on site (e.g., temperature, debris, etc.), laboratory-derived survival data should not be used to estimate impingement survival at a given facility.

A review of post-impingement mortality studies is available in the literature. EPRI (2003) evaluated 65 different impingement survival studies conducted at 29 different power generation facilities in North America. This review determined that these studies used post-impingement holding times ranging from less than 24 to 108 hours (with one study that held organisms for over 200 hours). The plurality of these studies (approximately 30 of 65) held fish for 96 hours to evaluate post-impingement mortality (approximate values are used here as data were presented graphically). It also appears that 11 studies only evaluated instantaneous mortality and 10 studies evaluated mortality at 48 hours post-impingement. The remaining studies held fish for an intermediate period between 24 and 84 hours post-impingement.

Using data from two different studies that collected mortality data (corrected using control organisms), EPRI (2003) also evaluated the percentage of latent mortality observed at various time intervals. This evaluation indicated that most latent mortality effects can be observed within 96 hours post-impingement. Further, it appears that for some species only approximately 60% of latent mortality is accounted for at 48 hours post-impingement. For more fragile species, the majority of mortality associated with impingement is likely to occur within the first 24 to 48 hours.

Table 1 below combines data from multiple studies and shows percent survival by life stage across several ranges of holding times. The first column of percent survival in the table shows the percentage of fish that initially survived impingement plus holding times ranging from 0 to 8 hours; the second column shows the percent of fish that initially survived impingement plus holding times between 8 and 12 hours; etc. The intervals result from natural groupings in the available study data. In general, the data show differences in survival over time for different life stages. Additionally, for some life stages and for fragile species, lower holding times appear sufficient to capture the majority of latent mortality.

Table 1. Percent survival of fish across multiple studies and holding times.

Life Stage

                            Sum of Number Collected
                           Average Percent Survival

                          Initial + 0-8 hours holding
                         Initial + 8-12 hours holding
                         Initial + 24-36 hours holding
                         Initial + 60-84 hours holding
                        Initial + >84 hours holding
Adult
                                     2,555
                                     85.11
                                     75.18
                                     60.79
                                     44.13

Juvenile
                                     1,584
                                     99.35
                                     85.73
                                     78.51

Post Yolk Sac
                                      966
                                     95.63
                                     47.01
                                     44.12

YOY[A]
                                    31,474
                                     70.16
                                     63.05
                                     53.23
                                     38.87
                                     16.85
Grand Total
                                    36,579
                                     79.42
                                     69.81
                                     59.47
                                     40.24
                                     16.85
[A] YOY  -  young of the year

It appears that a holding time between 18 and 96 hours is warranted. An 18 hour minimum would be required to evaluate latent mortality of impingement samples dominated by life stages most likely to experience latent mortality, while a maximum holding time of 96 hours would be required to ensure that the majority of initial and latent mortality associated with impingement is observed, especially for more robust life stages and species. Holding times longer than 96 hours are not recommended due to the increased mortality resulting from stresses associated with holding (and/or feeding) conditions.

As a comparison, use of a 96 hour exposure period has been recommended to account for latent mortality in acute toxicity tests with fish (e.g., Ruesink and Smith, 1975). This 96 hour exposure period/holding time is consistent with the implementation of EPA's acute whole effluent toxicity (WET) test methods for fish (EPA 2002). Acute toxicity testing methodologies for fish used in NPDES permit compliance WET testing typically require an exposure period of 96 hours, although the methodology allows for use of exposure periods between 24 and 96 hours and exposures of 48 hours are sometimes used. Further, some States (e.g., California) require the use of 96 hour WET testing in evaluation of potentially toxic discharges (CRWQCB  -  San Diego, 1995). The evaluation of post-impingement survival is slightly different than the evaluation of mortality related to exposure to toxic materials as the exposure period for WET testing is integral to the amount of stress to which the organisms are exposed (e.g., exposure to toxins continues for the entire test period) whereas the stress of impingement and transit through a fish return system is discrete and occurs prior to holding. However, the goals of WET testing and post-impingement survival studies are similar enough that the holding times used should be similar.

Conclusions

Some organisms are killed outright by impingement and passage through the fish-return system, while others are injured. Holding organisms for a set period following impingement and, ideally, passage through the fish-return system allows quantification of any latent mortality associated with these injuries. Various holding times have been reported in the scientific literature and in industry reports. Based on reviews of these studies, we conclude that a minimum post-impingement holding time of 18 to 96 hours is necessary to adequately evaluate latent mortality associated with impingement and passage through a fish return system, with shorter holding times likely being sufficient for fragile species, and longer holding times required for more robust species. Longer holding periods are possible, but are likely associated with substantially increased effort and scientific uncertainty. Further, a 96 hour holding time is in agreement with existing EPA toxicity testing guidance regarding short-term chronic impacts to fish. Caution should be taken to ensure that the conditions in the holding tank systems do not cause additional stress (e.g., predation, aggressive interactions, low dissolved oxygen, high ammonia, etc.) which could relate to additional mortality that could be erroneously interpreted as the result of impingement. If possible, control tanks should be included with similar organisms that have not been subject to impingement, and that control should be used to evaluate baseline mortality in the holding tanks. The control data should be used to normalize the observed mortality of fish/shellfish that have been subject to impingement and passage through the fish return.

Literature Cited

Bigbee, DL, RG King, KM Dixon, DA Dixon, and ES Perry. 2010. Survival of fish impinged on a rotary disk screen. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 30: 1420-1433.

Black, J.L. 2007. Laboratory evaluation of modified traveling screens for protecting fish at cooling water intakes. Graduate Thesis, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB), San Diego Region. 1995. Water quality control plan for the San Diego Basin (9). CRWQCB, San Diego Region, San Diego, CA.

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2003. Evaluating the effects of power plan operations on aquatic communities: Summary of impingement survival studies. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA. Report 1007821.

McLaren, J.B. and L.R. Tuttle, Jr. 2000. Fish survival on fine mesh traveling screens. Environmental Science & Policy 3 (Supplement 1): 369-376.

Ronafalvy, J.P., R.R. Cheesman, and W.M. Matejek. 2000. Circulating water traveling screen modifications to improve impinged fish survival and debris handling at Salem Generating Station. Environmental Science & Policy 3(Supplement 1): 377-382.

Ruesink, R.G. and L.L. Smith. 1975. The relationship of the 96-hour LC50 to the lethal threshold concentration of hexavalent chromium, phenol, and sodium pentachlorophenate for fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas Rafinesque). Transactions of the American Fisheries Society: 567-570.

Shaw, WW. 2010. Effects of traveling screen operation on impingement and survivability and latent health of impinged catfish and Barry Steam Generation Plant. Graduate Thesis, Auburn University.

Thompson, T. 2000. Intake modifications to reduce entrainment and impingement at Carolina Power & Light Company's Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Southport, North Carolina. Environmental Science & Policy 3(Supplement 1): 417-424.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Methods for measuring the acute toxicity of effluents and receiving waters to freshwater and marine organisms, fifth edition, October 2002. EPA-821-R-02-012. Office of Water, Washington, DC.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 158 (Thursday, August 15, 2019)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 41611-41614]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17505]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0249; Product Identifier 2019-NM-010-AD; Amendment
39-19693; AD 2019-14-15]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2017-25-
12, which applied to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C,
-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. AD 2017-25-12 required
repetitive inspections for cracking of the webs of the stub beams at
certain fuselage stations (STAs), and applicable on-condition actions.
This AD also requires repetitive inspections to include certain other
fuselage stations for cracking of the stub beams, repetitive
inspections for existing repairs at certain locations, and applicable
on-condition actions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 19, 2019.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September
19, 2019.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0249.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.govby searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0249; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations is 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: Peter Jarzomb, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 562-627-
5210; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2017-25-12, Amendment 39-19126 (82 FR
59967, December 18, 2017) (``AD 2017-25-12''). AD 2017-25-12 applied to
all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500
series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April
22, 2019 (84 FR 16628). The NPRM was prompted by reports of cracking in
the webs of the stub beams at certain fuselage STAs, and cracking of
the stub beam at fuselage STA 685 at the inboard end of the upper chord
and the outboard end of the lower chord. The NPRM proposed to continue
to require the existing repetitive inspections at certain fuselage
stations for cracking of the stub beams, and applicable on-condition
actions, and to also require repetitive inspections at fuselage STA
685. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking of the stub beams,
which, if not corrected, could result in the loss of structural
integrity of the airframe during flight, collapse of the main landing
gear, and failure of the pressure deck.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this AD. The following presents the comments received on the
NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    Boeing concurred with the content of the NPRM. Nathan Levin and
Christopher D. George expressed support for the NPRM.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing Supplemental
Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect compliance with the
proposed actions.
    The FAA concurs with the commenter. Paragraph (c) of the proposed
AD has been redesignated as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, and paragraph
(c)(2) has been added to this AD to state that installation of STC
ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions
required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is
installed, a ``change in product'' alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirement
of 14 CFR 39.17.

Request To Improve the Effectiveness of Required Inspections

    Christopher D. George stated that the inspections for fuselage
cracking specified in the proposed AD might avert a potential inflight
catastrophe, but they fall short of identifying the root issue behind
potentially flawed designs and/or inadequate building materials. The
commenter shared additional concerns regarding the extent and
requirements of the new fuselage inspection criteria.
    The FAA infers that the commenter is requesting that the inspection
requirements specified in the proposed AD be revised so the inspection
reports provide extensive information regarding the root cause of the
unsafe condition. The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. The
change requested by the commenter to include inspections that identify
the root issue behind potentially flawed designs and/or inadequate
building materials is outside the scope of this AD. The purpose of this
AD is to address the identified unsafe condition. The FAA has
determined that the inspections required by this AD adequately address
the unsafe condition: Cracking in the webs of the stub beams at certain
fuselage stations, and cracking of the stub beam at fuselage STA 685 at
the inboard end of the upper chord and the outboard end of the lower
chord.
    As a component of our safety management system, we verify that the
safety systems of the design approval holder meet applicable
requirements. Working with approval holders during the design
development process, we strive to avoid unsafe conditions in the first
place. We are continuously evaluating our certification system and
procedures and improving them when problems are found. In addition, if
the FAA is made aware of issues occurring on a certificated product, we
conduct an investigation, evaluate the manufacturer's root-cause
analysis, and make a determination whether or not an unsafe condition
exists. We then take appropriate action to mitigate the unsafe
condition. The AD has not been revised in regard to this issue.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this AD with the changes described previously, and
minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    The FAA has also determined that these changes will not increase
the economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA has reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1364,
Revision 1, dated October 25, 2018. The service information describes
procedures for inspections at certain fuselage stations for cracking of
the stub beams (which includes the web, upper chord, and lower chord),
repetitive general visual inspections for any existing repair in the
STA 685 and STA 706 stub beam webs, and applicable on-condition
actions. The inspections for cracking include high frequency eddy
current (HFEC) and detailed inspections for cracking of the fuselage
stub beam below the passenger floor at STA 685, STA 695, and STA 706,
and HFEC inspections for cracking in repaired areas. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 171 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
            Action                   Labor cost         Parts cost      Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections...................  Up to 13 work-hours               $0  Up to $1,105 per      Up to $188,955 per
                                 x $85 per hour = Up                   inspection cycle.     inspection cycle.
                                 to $1,105 per
                                 inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the
agency to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified
in this AD.

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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes and
associated appliances to the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA has determined that 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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) 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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2017-25-12, Amendment 39-19126 (82 FR 59967, December 18, 2017), and
adding the following new AD:

2019-14-15 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19693; Docket No. FAA-
2019-0249; Product Identifier 2019-NM-010-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 19, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces 2017-25-12, Amendment 39-19126 (82 FR 59967,
December 18, 2017) (``AD 2017-25-12'').

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -
200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in
any category.
    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
ST01219SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions
required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE
is installed, a ``change in product'' alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with
the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking in the webs of the
stub beams at certain fuselage stations (STAs), and cracking of the
stub beam at fuselage STA 685 at the inboard end of the upper chord
and the outboard end of the lower chord. The FAA is issuing this AD
to address such cracking, which, if not corrected, could result in
the loss of structural integrity of the airframe during flight,
collapse of the main landing gear, and failure of the pressure deck.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions for Group 1 Airplanes

    For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1364, Revision 1, dated October 25, 2018: Within 120
days after the effective date of this AD, inspect the stub beams and
stub beam webs for any cracking or existing repairs, and do all
applicable on-condition actions, using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this
AD.

(h) Required Actions for Groups 2 Through 6 Airplanes

    Except as specified by paragraph (i) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1364, Revision 1, dated October
25, 2018, do all applicable actions identified as ``RC'' (required
for compliance) in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1364, Revision
1, dated October 25, 2018.

(i) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1364,
Revision 1, dated October 25, 2018, uses the phrase ``the revision 1
issue date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires using ``the
effective date of this AD,'' except where Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1364, Revision 1, dated October 25, 2018, uses the
phrase ``the original issue date of this service bulletin'' in a
note or flag note.
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1364, Revision 1,
dated October 25, 2018, specifies contacting Boeing for repair
instructions: This AD requires doing the repair before further
flight using a method approved in accordance with the procedures
specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority
to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your
request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards
District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may
be emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Los
Angeles ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the
repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Except as specified by paragraph (i) of this AD: For service
information that contains steps that are labeled as Required for
Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and
(j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

 (k) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Peter Jarzomb,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5234; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1364, Revision 1, dated
October 25, 2018.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110 SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on July 26, 2019.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-17505 Filed 8-14-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 193 (Friday, October 4, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53073-53076]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21353]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0709; Product Identifier 2019-NM-127-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes.
This proposed AD was prompted by reports of fuselage bottom skin
exfoliation corrosion, fuselage skin bulging and cracking, and missing
fastener heads. This proposed AD would require a detailed inspection of
the fuselage bottom skin for corrosion, skin cracks or bulges, and
missing, loose or broken fasteners, and, depending on the findings,
accomplishment of applicable repair instructions, as specified in a
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which will be
incorporated by reference. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by November
18, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For the material identified in this proposed AD that will be
incorporated by reference (IBR), contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer
3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR
material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view
this IBR material at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD
docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-0709.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0709; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2019-0709;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-127-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM based on those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any

personal information you provide. The FAA will also post a report
summarizing each substantive verbal contact the agency receives about
this NPRM.

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0162, dated July 10, 2019
(``EASA AD 2019-0162'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100
airplanes.
    This proposed AD was prompted by reports of fuselage bottom skin
exfoliation corrosion, fuselage skin bulging and cracking, and missing
fastener heads. The FAA is proposing this AD to address this condition
which, if not corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the
fuselage, possibly resulting in a decompression event. See the MCAI for
additional background information.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2019-0162 describes procedures for a one-time detailed
inspection of the fuselage bottom skin for corrosion, skin cracks or
bulges, and missing, loose or broken fasteners, and, depending on the
findings, accomplishment of applicable repair instructions. EASA AD
2019-0162 also describes procedures for reporting all of the inspection
results (both positive and negative). This material is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA
evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other
products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2019-0162 described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD. This proposed AD also would require sending
the inspection results to Fokker Services.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a process to
use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information for
compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. As a result,
EASA AD 2019-0162 will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final
rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA
AD 2019-0162 in its entirety, through that incorporation, except for
any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this
proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a
particular section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need
comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement
refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,'' compliance
with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled
``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in the EASA AD. Service
information specified in EASA AD 2019-0162 that is required for
compliance with EASA AD 2019-0162 will be available on the internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2019-0709 after the FAA final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this
proposed AD:

                                     Estimated Costs for Required Actions *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85.............................              $0              $85             $340
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Table does not include estimated costs for reporting.

    The FAA estimates that it would take about 1 work-hour per product
to comply with the proposed reporting requirement in this proposed AD.
The average labor rate is $85 per hour. Based on these figures, the FAA
estimates the cost of reporting the inspection results on U.S.
operators to be $340, or $85 per product.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition action that would be required based on the results of any
required action. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

                 Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Cost per
              Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 work-hours x $85 per hour = $170....             (*)             $170
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable us to
  provide parts cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in
  this proposed AD.

Paperwork Reduction Act

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

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the
Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Fokker Services B.V.: Docket No. FAA-2019-0709; Product Identifier
2019-NM-127-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by November 18, 2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070
and 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of fuselage bottom skin
exfoliation corrosion, fuselage skin bulging and cracking, and
missing fastener heads. The FAA is issuing this AD to address this
condition which, if not corrected, could affect the structural
integrity of the fuselage, possibly resulting in a decompression
event.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2019-0162, dated July 10, 2019 (``EASA AD 2019-0162'').

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0162

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where EASA AD 2019-0162 refers to its effective date,
this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2019-0162 does not apply
to this AD.
    (3) Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2019-0162 specifies to report
inspection results to Fokker within a certain compliance time. For
this AD, report inspection results at the applicable time specified
in paragraph (h)(3)(i) or (ii) of this AD.
    (i) If the inspection was done on or after the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the inspection.
    (ii) If the inspection was done before the effective date of
this AD: Submit the report within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Fokker
Services B.V.'s EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved
by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Paperwork Reduction Act Burden Statement: A federal agency
may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond
to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control

Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is
2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is
estimated to be approximately 1 hour per response, including the
time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the
collection of information. All responses to this collection of
information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this
burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to
the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591, Attn:
Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2019-0162, contact the EASA,
at Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
89990 6017; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this EASA AD at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. EASA AD 2019-0162 may be found in the AD docket on the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2019-0709.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriguez,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on September 24, 2019.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-21353 Filed 10-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 65)]
[Notices]
[Page 16776]
[DOCID:fr05ap07-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-365-000]

Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice of Proposed Changes in
FERC Gas Tariff and Filing of Non-Conforming Service Agreements

March 30, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 28, 2007, Northwest Pipeline Corporation
(Northwest) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third
Revised Volume No. 1 the following tariff sheets, to be effective April
28, 2007.

1st Revised Second Revised Sheet No. 370
First Revised Sheet No. 395
First Revised Sheet No. 396
First Revised Sheet No. 397
First Revised Sheet No. 398
Second Revised Sheet No. 399.

    Northwest also tendered for filing eight Rate Schedule TF-1 non-
conforming service agreements.
    Northwest states that the purpose of this filing is to (1) Submit
eight restated Rate Schedule TF-1 service agreements containing non-
conforming provisions for Commission acceptance, and (2) revise the
list of nonconforming service agreements in Northwest's tariff.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-6331 Filed 4-4-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 143)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 43885-43886]
[DOCID:fr27jy10-26]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0604; Airspace Docket No. 10-ACE-5]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Kaiser/Lake Ozark, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace for the Kaiser/
Lake Ozark, MO, area. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to
accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at
Camdenton Memorial Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance
the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations
at the airport.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before September 10,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2010-0604/Airspace Docket No. 10-
ACE-5, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2010-0604/
Airspace Docket No. 10-ACE-5.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://
www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_
amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), part 71 by adding additional Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface for the Kaiser/Lake Ozark, MO
area, to accommodate SIAPs at Camdenton Memorial Airport, Camdenton,
MO. Additional controlled airspace is needed for the safety and
management of IFR operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9T, dated August 27, 2009, and effective September 15, 2009, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation

listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would add additional controlled airspace in the Kaiser/Lake
Ozark, MO airspace area.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9T, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 27,
2009, and effective September 15, 2009, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet
or more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *

ACE MO E5 Kaiser/Lake Ozark, MO [Amended]

Kaiser/Lake Ozark, Lee C. Fine Memorial Airport, MO
    (Lat. 38[deg]05'46'' N., long. 92[deg]32'58'' W.)
Camdenton, Camdenton Memorial Airport, MO
    (Lat. 37[deg]58'26'' N., long. 92[deg]41'28'' W.)
Osage Beach, Grand Glaize-Osage Beach Airport, MO
    (Lat. 38[deg]06'38'' N., long. 92[deg]40'50'' W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of Lee C. Fine Memorial Airport, and within a
6.3-mile radius of Camdenton Memorial Airport, and within 4 miles
each side of the 155[deg] bearing from the airport extending from
the 6.3 mile radius to 10.5 miles southeast of the airport, and
within a 6.3-mile radius of Grand Glaize-Osage Beach Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on July 1, 2010.
Anthony D. Roetzel,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2010-18259 Filed 7-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4901-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 126 (Tuesday, June 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39270-39271]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14049]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0123; FMCSA-2013-0124; FMCSA-2013-0125; FMCSA-
2016-0003; FMCSA-2017-0059]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA),
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for seven
individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf
individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on May 19, 2020. The exemptions
expire on May 19, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as

being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Insert
the docket number, FMCSA-2012-0123, FMCSA-2013-0124, FMCSA-2013-0125,
FMCSA-2016-0003, or FMCSA-2017-0059, in the keyword box, and click
``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Operations in Room
W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting
Docket Operations.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On May 5, 2020, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to
renew exemptions for seven individuals from the hearing standard in 49
CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested
comments from the public (85 FR 26780). The public comment period ended
on June 4, 2020, and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of
safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved
by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(11).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced
whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or
without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric
device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a
hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American
National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5--1951.
    This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow
drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing
aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the seven renewal exemption
applications, FMCSA announces its decision to exempt the following
drivers from the hearing requirement in Sec.  391.41(b)(11).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of May and
are discussed below:
    As of May 19, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b), the following seven individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (85 FR 26780):

Forrest Carroll (OH)
Bryan MacFarlane (OH)
Michael Murrah (GA)
Michael Paasch (NE)
Kelly Pulvermacher (WI)
Brian Walthall (KS)
Joshua Chad Weaver (GA)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2012-0123, FMCSA-
2013-0124, FMCSA-2013-0125, FMCSA-2016-0003, and FMCSA-2017-0059. Their
exemptions are applicable as of May 19, 2020, and will expire on May
19, 2022.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid
for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b).

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-14049 Filed 6-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: December 14, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 239)]
[Notices]
[Page 74085-74087]
[DOCID:fr14de05-120]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52919; File No. SR-Phlx-2005-66]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
and Amendment No. 1 Thereto Relating to Revisions to the Series 4
Examination Program

December 7, 2005.
    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 November 9, 2005, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by Phlx. On
November 28, 2005, Phlx filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule
change. Phlx has designated the proposed rule change as constituting a
stated policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of an existing rule of the self-
regulatory organization pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) 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, as
amended, 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)(i).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Phlx is filing revisions to the study outline and selection
specifications for the Limited Principal--Registered Options (Series 4)
examination program (``Series 4 Examination''), which is administered
by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (``NASD''). The
proposed revisions update the material to reflect changes to the laws,
rules, and regulations covered by the Series 4 Examination, as well as
to modify the content of the examination program to track more closely
the functional workflow of a Series 4 limited principal. Phlx is not
proposing any textual changes to its rules.
    The revised Series 4 Examination study outline is available on
Phlx's Web site (http://www.phlx.com), at the Phlx, and at the

Commission. However, the Exchange has omitted the Series 4 Examination
selection specifications from this filing and has submitted the
specifications under separate cover to the Commission with a request
for confidential treatment pursuant to Rule 24b-2 under the Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 240.24b-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its filing with the Commission, Phlx included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. Phlx 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
    Phlx Rule 1024 states that a member organization shall not transact
any business with the public in option contracts unless those persons
engaged in the management of the member organization's business
pertaining to option contracts are registered with and approved by the
Exchange as Options Principals. Additionally, the rule states that no
individual member shall transact any business directly with the public
in option contracts unless he is registered with and approved by the
Exchange as an Options Principal. The Series 4 examination, an
industry-wide examination, qualifies an individual to function as a
Registered Options and Security Futures Principal, but only for
purposes of supervising a member firm's options activities.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A Registered Options and Security Futures Principal must
complete an additional continuing education program before such
person can supervise security futures activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Series 4 Examination tests a candidate's knowledge of options

trading generally, the Phlx rules applicable to the trading of option
contracts, and the rules of registered clearing agencies for options.
The Series 4 Examination covers, among other things, equity options,
foreign currency options, index options, and options on government and
mortgage-backed securities.
    The Series 4 Examination is shared by Phlx and the following SROs:
the NASD, the American Stock Exchange LLC, the Chicago Board Options
Exchange, Inc., the New York Stock Exchange, Inc., and the Pacific
Exchange, Inc. NASD has filed with the Commission similar revisions to
the study outline and selection specifications for the Series 4
Examination.\7\ Phlx believes that the other SROs are filing similar
proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 51216 (February 16,
2005), 70 FR 8866 (February 23, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-25) and 52546
(September 30, 2005), 70 FR 59109 (October 11, 2005) (SR-NASD-2005-
109) (extending the implementation date of the revisions to no later
than November 30, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A committee of industry representatives, together with the staff of
Phlx and the other SROs, recently undertook a periodic review of the
Series 4 Examination and study outline and selection specifications. As
a result of this review and as part of an ongoing effort to align the
Series 4 Examination more closely to the supervisory duties of a Series
4 principal, Phlx is proposing to modify the content of the Series 4
Examination to track the functional workflow of a Series 4 principal.
More specifically, Phlx is proposing to revise the main section
headings and the number of questions on each section of the Series 4
study outline as follows: Options Investment Strategies, decreased from
35 to 34 questions; Supervision of Sales Activities and Trading
Practices, increased from 71 to 75 questions; and Supervision of
Employees, Business Conduct, and Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements, decreased from 19 to 16 questions. Phlx is further
proposing revisions to the study outline to reflect the SEC short sale
requirements. The revised examination continues to cover the areas of
knowledge required to supervise options activities.
    Phlx is proposing similar changes to the corresponding sections of
the Series 4 Examination selection specifications and question bank.
The number of questions on the Series 4 Examination will remain at 125,
and candidates will have three hours to complete the exam. Also, each
question will continue to count as one point and candidates must
correctly answer 70 percent of the questions to receive a passing
grade.
    As further discussed below, the Exchange is filing the proposed
rule change for immediate effectiveness. The Exchange will announce the
proposed revisions in a Notice to Members to be published prior to the
implementation date.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \8\ in general and furthers the objectives of Section
6(c)(3),\9\ which authorize Phlx to prescribe standards of training,
experience and competence for members of the Exchange or persons
associated with them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Phlx does not believe that the proposed rule change, as
amended, will impose any burden on competition 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 proposed rule change, as amended, has become effective pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(i) \10\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(1)
thereunder,\11\ in that the proposed rule change constitutes a stated
policy, practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of an existing rule of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(i).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed 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 purposes of the Act.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The effective date of the original proposed rule is
November 9, 2005. The effective date of Amendment No. 1 is November
28, 2005. For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which
the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change under
Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act, the Commission considers the period
to commence on November 28, 2005, the date on which Phlx submitted
Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change, as amended, 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-Phlx-2005-66 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-9303.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Phlx-2005-66. 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Phlx. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-Phlx-2005-66 and should be submitted on or before
January 4, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-7326 Filed 12-13-05; 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 September 30, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2003-16118

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

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:  Polskie Linie Lotnicze  LOT, S.A. (LOT)				Date Filed:
September 8, 2003

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 U.S.C. 41301 to conduct scheduled
foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail (1) between any
points in Poland and any points in the United States (either nonstop or
via third country points);

(2) between any points in the United States in conjunction with services
held out by LOT between Poland and the

United States (either nonstop or via third country points); and (3)
between any points in the United States or Poland

and any points in any third country, all such services to be operated by
United Air Lines, Inc. (United) pursuant to a

code-share arrangement between LOT and United.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  New authority

Applicant representative: John Gillick<PHONE_NUMBER>			DOT analyst:
Shelita Smith<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings: None

	DISPOSITION

Action:  September 30, 2003								Action date:  September 30, 2003

Effective dates of authority granted:  September 30, 2003 – September
30, 2005

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  Air Transport
Agreement between Poland and the United States

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

_X_ Standard exemption conditions (attached)       X_ Foreign air
carrier permit conditions (Order 95-2-33)

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  Statement of
Authorization granted United Air Lines dated September 30, 2003, in
Docket OST-2003-16116.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________

We found that the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations.

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 authority 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/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

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.  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 Principal Security Inspector (PSI) to advise the PSI 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.

 These code-share operations would be conducted exclusively on flights
operated by United.

08/2003


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 162 (Tuesday, August 21, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50372-50373]
[FR Doc No: 2012-20383]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 16 and 118

[Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0398]

Guidance for Industry: Questions and Answers Regarding the Final
Rule, Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in Shell Eggs During
Production, Storage, and Transportation; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the
availability of a guidance entitled ``Guidance for Industry: Questions
and Answers Regarding the Final Rule, Prevention of Salmonella
Enteritidis in Shell Eggs During Production, Storage, and
Transportation.'' The guidance contains questions we have received on
the final rule since its publication and responses to those questions,
and is intended to assist egg producers and other persons who are
covered by the final rule.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances
at any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to
the Division of Plant and Dairy Food Safety/Office of Food Safety,
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-315), Food and Drug
Administration, 5100 Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the guidance.
    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the guidance to the
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Bufano, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-316), Food and Drug Administration, 5100
Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of July 9, 2009 (74 FR 33030), we issued a
final rule requiring shell egg producers to implement measures to
prevent Salmonella Enteritidis (SE) from contaminating eggs on the farm
and from further growth during storage and transportation, and
requiring these producers to maintain records concerning their
compliance with the final rule and to register with FDA. This final
rule became effective September 8, 2009. In the Federal Register of
July 13, 2011 (76 FR 41157), we made available a draft guidance
entitled ``Questions and Answers Regarding the Final Rule, Prevention
of Salmonella Enteritidis in Shell Eggs During Production, Storage, and
Transportation'' and gave interested parties an opportunity to submit
comments by September 12, 2011. We have reviewed and evaluated these
comments and have modified the guidance where appropriate.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents our
current thinking on how to interpret the requirements in the final
rule, including questions and answers on compliance dates; coverage;
definitions; SE prevention measures; sampling and testing for SE;
registration; and compliance and enforcement. It does not create or
confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA
or the public. An alternate approach may be used if such approach
satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR 118.5, 118.6, 118.10, and 118.11
have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0660.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit written comments regarding this
document to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) or
electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. It is only necessary
to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at
http://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances or http://www.regulations.gov. Always
access an FDA document using the FDA Web site listed previously to find
the most current version of the guidance.

    Dated: August 13, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-20383 Filed 8-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P