[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33008-33009]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14173]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0051]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of denials.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its denial of 60 applications from individuals
who requested an exemption from the Federal vision standard applicable
to interstate truck and bus drivers and the reasons for the denials.
FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision
requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The
Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions does not provide a
level of safety that will be equivalent to, or greater than, the level
of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) drivers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles A. Horan, III, Director,
Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards,<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., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal vision standard for a renewable 2-year period if it
finds ``such an exemption would likely achieve a

level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such an exemption.'' The procedures for
requesting an exemption are set forth in 49 CFR part 381.
    Accordingly, FMCSA evaluated 60 individual exemption requests on
their merit and made a determination that these applicants do not
satisfy the criteria eligibility or meet the terms and conditions of
the Federal exemption program. Each applicant has, prior to this
notice, received a letter of final disposition on the exemption
request. Those decision letters fully outlined the basis for the denial
and constitute final Agency action. The list published in this notice
summarizes the Agency's recent denials as required under 49 U.S.C.
31315(b)(4) by periodically publishing names and reasons for denial.
    The following nine applicants had no experience operating a CMV:

Erica K. Boggs
Leslie L. Dana
George S. Ginder
Destin R. Huerd
Edison Joe
Miles K. Manross
Paul R. Oja
Brandon C. Shepard
Dontrell D. Williams
    The following nine applicants did not have three years of
experience driving a CMV on public highways with their vision
deficiencies:

Osman M. Adanalic
William R. Bissell
David A. Crawford
Michael J. Floyd
Carlson Koyukuk
Abel D. Ordonez
Richard A. Paplow
Stephen J. Smith
Arlyn E. Witker
    The following four applicants did not have three years of recent
experience driving a CMV with the vision deficiency:

Carl Jones III
Jim Pace
Jeffrey G. Sherrill
Veronica N. Washington
    The following two applicants did not have sufficient driving
experience during the past three years under normal highway operating
conditions:

William L. Bowers
Bridget Johnson
    The following applicant, Richard Anthony, had his CDL suspended in
relation to a moving violation during the three-year period. Applicants
do not qualify for an exemption with a suspension during the three-year
period.
    The following five applicants were unable to obtain a statement
from an optometrist or ophthalmologist stating that he was able to
operate a commercial vehicle from a vision standpoint:

Cesar A. Guridy, Jr.
Arthur L. Mabb
Winston Merrick
Barnett K. Moss, Sr.
Donald J. Wilson
    The following applicant, Larry Defrain, did not have stable vision
for the entire three-year period.
    The following two applicants did not meet the vision standard in
their better eye:

Leonard Hixon
Ryan R. Kepford
    The following nine applicants met the current federal vision
standards. Exemptions are not required for applicants who meet the
current regulations for vision:

John A. Ashworth
Ronaldo A. M. Curva
Robert L. Downs
Harry J. Glynn
Julian Gonzales
Linda Jones-Hawkins
Frederik J. Koning
Pedro Torres
Robert M. Walls
    The following 15 applicants were denied because they will not be
driving interstate, interstate commerce, or are not required to carry a
DOT medical card:

Everardo G. Cantu
Gale D. Funke
Jeffrey W. Graham
Dillon L. Hendren
Noel C. Hill
Edgar I. IzquierdoGarcia
Robert Jasniewicz
Eric J. Johnson
Marion D. Kellstadt
Jeffrey E. Leisenring, Sr.
Leonard B. Mulkey
Michael K. Preslar
Vernon D. Roberts
Barbara H. Smith
Kyle O. Wrisley
    Finally, the following three applicants perform transportation for
the federal government, state, or any political sub-division of the
state.

Robert L. Bick
James L. Lockwood
Fredrick D. McCaskill

    Issued on: May 29, 2015.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-14173 Filed 6-9-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 246 (Thursday, December 23, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 80738-80742]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32208]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0847; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-056-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -
200LR, -300, and -300ER Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for certain Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series
airplanes. The original NPRM would have required doing an inspection to
identify the part number of the motor operated valve (MOV) actuators of
the main and center fuel tanks; replacing certain MOV actuators with
new MOV actuators; and measuring the electrical resistance of the bond
from the adapter plate to the airplane structure, and doing corrective
actions if necessary. The original NPRM also would have required
revising the Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness. The original NPRM resulted from fuel system
reviews conducted by the manufacturer. This action revises the original
NPRM by adding airplanes to the applicability. This action also revises
the original NPRM by removing the requirement for revising the
Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to prevent
electrical current from flowing through an MOV actuator into a fuel
tank, which could create a potential ignition source inside the fuel
tank. This condition, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could
result in a fuel tank explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by January
18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.
O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tak Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification
Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone
(425) 917-6499; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0847;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-056-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (the ``original
NPRM'') to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an airworthiness directive
(AD) that would apply to certain Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -
300ER series airplanes. That original NPRM was published in the Federal
Register on August 7, 2008 (73 FR 45893). That original NPRM proposed
to require doing an inspection to identify the part number of the motor
operated valve (MOV) actuators of the main and center fuel tanks;
replacing certain MOV actuators with new MOV actuators; and measuring
the electrical resistance of the bond from the adapter plate to the
airplane structure, and doing corrective actions if necessary. The
original NPRM also would have required revising the Airworthiness
Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness
(ICA).

Actions Since Original NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the original NPRM, the manufacturer has informed us
that certain airplanes were missing from the effectivity in Boeing
Alert Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, dated August 2, 2007, which was
referenced in the original NPRM as the appropriate source of service
information.
    In addition, since we issued the original NPRM, we have determined
that the proposed requirement for revising the Airworthiness
Limitations (AWL) section of the ICA is unnecessary. Incorporation of
AWL No. 28-AWL-19 and AWL No. 28-AWL-20 is already mandated by AD 2008-
11-13, Amendment 39-15536 (73 FR 30737, May 29, 2008), which is
applicable to Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, and -300ER series airplanes.
Therefore, we have removed Note 1 and paragraphs (h), (i), and (j) from
the original NPRM.

Relevant Service Information

    Since the issuance of the original NPRM, we reviewed Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision 1, dated May 20, 2010, which
adds airplanes to the effectivity, and corrects an MOV actuator part
number. We also reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision
2, dated September 20, 2010, which specifies to cap seal the bonding
jumper fasteners when installing the MOV actuator. Boeing Service
Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision 2, dated September 20, 2010, specifies
that no more work is necessary on airplanes modified in accordance with
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, dated August 2, 2007; and
Revision 1, dated May 20, 2010.
    We have revised paragraphs (c), (g), and (h) of this supplemental
NPRM to refer to Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision 2, dated
September 20, 2010. In addition, we have added new paragraph (j) to
this supplemental NPRM to provide credit for actions accomplished
before the effective date of this AD in accordance with Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, dated August 2, 2007; and Revision 1,
dated May 20, 2010.

Comments

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

Request To Use Later Revisions of the Maintenance Planning Data (MPD)
Document

    Boeing, and Air Transport Association (ATA) on behalf of its member
United Airlines (UAL), requested that the FAA reference later revisions
of the MPD document in paragraph (h) of the original NPRM.
    As stated previously, we have removed paragraph (h) (the
requirement to revise the AWL section of the ICA) of the original NPRM.
Therefore, no revision to this supplemental NPRM is necessary in this
regard.

Allow the Use of Later Revisions of Alternative Critical Design
Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

    ATA, on behalf of its member UAL, stated that paragraph (i) of the
original NPRM should include instructions similar to those in paragraph
(i) of AD 2008-11-13, which allows operators to use alternative
``CDCCLs that are part of a later revision of February 2008 of the
MPD'' that is approved by the FAA to avoid confusion and to promote
common compliance rules.
    As stated previously, we have removed paragraph (i) of the original
NPRM. Therefore, no revision to this supplemental NPRM is necessary in
this regard.

Request To Revise the Costs of Compliance

    Boeing, and ATA on behalf of its member UAL, requested that we
revise the Costs of Compliance section in the original NPRM to include
the cost of parts. ATA stated that the cost of parts presents a
significant expense to the operators since there are 11 MOV actuators
on each of the 197 airplanes affected by the original NPRM, costing
$5,477 per actuator. Boeing stated that the cost of parts is
substantial and, when accounted alongside with the cost of labor,
estimated work-hours, and the total number of affected airplanes, the
cost would be higher than what is stated in the original NPRM.
    We agree to include the cost of parts in this supplemental NPRM. We
have revised the Costs of Compliance section accordingly.

Request To Clarify the Accomplishment Instructions in the Service
Bulletin

    ATA, on behalf of its member UAL, requested clarification of the
Accomplishment Instructions in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-
28A0034, dated August 2, 2007. UAL asserted that the logical flow
(``if--then'' condition) of the installation instructions is incomplete
and can be further clarified. UAL also stated that certain Boeing 777
aircraft maintenance manuals referenced as sources of guidance in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, dated August 2, 2007, have
two sections, ``Pre'' and ``Post'' Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-
28A0034, and that the service bulletin should specify which section is
applicable.
    We agree with UAL that some of the instructions in Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, dated August 2, 2007, are unclear. Those
issues have been clarified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-
28A0034, Revision 1, dated May 20, 2010; and Boeing Service Bulletin
777-28A0034, Revision 2, dated September 20, 2010. As stated
previously, we have revised this supplemental NPRM to refer to Boeing
Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision 2, dated September 20, 2010, and
to provide credit for accomplishment of Boeing Alert Service Bulletins
777-28A0034, dated August 2, 2007, and to

Revision 1, dated May 20, 2010, before the effective date of the AD.

Request To Prohibit the Installation of Part Number (P/N) MA20A1001-1

    ATA, on behalf of its member UAL, expressed that the intent of the
original NPRM is to remove the MOV actuator having P/N MA20A1001-1 and
to prohibit installation of P/N MA20A1001-1 once the AD has been
complied with. UAL stated that it has reviewed the NPRM and cannot find
language that prohibits the installation of P/N MA20A1001-1; UAL stated
that such language should be in this proposed AD.
    We partially agree. We disagree that it is necessary to
specifically prohibit the installation of P/N MA20A1001-1 once the AD
has been complied with because after accomplishing the mandatory
actions, operators are required to maintain airplanes in compliance
with the AD. To ensure that the unsafe condition cannot be introduced
before compliance with the AD, we have added paragraph (i) to this
supplemental NPRM to prohibit installation of an MOV actuator, P/N
MA20A1001-1, after the effective date of this AD.

Request To Postpone the AD or Extend the Compliance Time

    ATA, on behalf of its member UAL, requested that the FAA postpone
the proposed AD or extend the compliance time until reliability issues
pertaining to the MOV actuator with P/N MA30A1001 are resolved. UAL
stated that Boeing Fleet Team Digest 737NG-FTD-28-07002 discusses the
potential of the P/N MA30A1001 actuator having cracked or damaged
capacitors. UAL stated that if the MOV actuators with the defective
design are installed due to regulatory mandate, the opportunity of
actuator failure is introduced, which creates unnecessary economic
burden for operators.
    We disagree with UAL's request to postpone the AD or extend the
compliance time. The problem of the capacitor does not constitute a new
unsafe condition. The investigation conducted by the supplier of the
affected MOV actuators concluded that damage to the capacitors was
introduced due to certain manufacturing processes. To address this
issue, the supplier changed manufacturing processes in March 2007. We
are aware that a number of MOV actuators that were produced under the
manufacturing processes before that change were returned to the
supplier between December 2006 and October 2007. Boeing also informed
us that no actuators have been returned to the supplier due to damaged
capacitors since October 2007. We have determined that the
manufacturing process changes have adequately addressed the reliability
issues; therefore, the current inventory of spare MOV actuators would
be unlikely to contain a discrepant part. We consider it inappropriate
to delay this AD since we have determined that an unsafe condition
exists and that replacement of certain parts must be accomplished to
ensure continued safety. We have not changed this supplemental NPRM in
this regard.

FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM

    We are proposing this supplemental NPRM because we evaluated all
pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is
likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
Certain changes described above expand the scope of the original NPRM.
As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the
comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to
comment on this supplemental NPRM.

Additional Changes to the Original NPRM

    In the Costs of Compliance section in the original NPRM, 197
airplanes were estimated to be affected. The correct number of affected
airplanes in this supplemental NPRM is 127 airplanes. We have revised
the Costs of Compliance section accordingly.
    We have determined that a review of airplane records will be
adequate to identify the MOV actuator part number. Therefore, we have
added a records review as an option to the inspection in paragraph (g)
of this supplemental NPRM (paragraph (f) in the original NPRM).
    We have revised paragraph (h) of this supplemental NPRM (paragraph
(g)(1) in the original NPRM) to specify the correct replacement
actuator part number. We have also revised paragraph (h) of this
supplemental NPRM to allow the installation of a serviceable MOV
actuator. In addition, we have revised paragraph (h) of this
supplemental NPRM to clarify that measuring the electrical resistance
of the bond from the adapter plate is only required at certain MOV
actuator locations.
    We have added a new paragraph (d) to this supplemental NPRM to
provide the Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 28, Fuel.
This code is added to make this supplemental NPRM parallel with other
new AD actions. We have reidentified subsequent paragraphs accordingly.
    We have revised this AD to identify the legal name of the
manufacturer as published in the most recent type certificate data
sheet for the affected airplane models.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 127 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
            Action                  Labor cost        Parts cost       Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection of MOV Actuators...  Up to 6                        $0   Up to $510...........  Up to $64,770.
                                 work[dash]hours
                                 x $85 per hour =
                                 $510.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Action                      Labor cost             Parts cost              Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of MOV Actuator         Up to 47               Up to $5,477, per      Up to $9,472.
 Without Fuel Tank Access.           work[dash]hours x      actuator.
                                     $85 per hour =
                                     $3,995.

Replacement of MOV Actuator With    Up to 423              Up to $5,477, per      Up to $41,432.
 Fuel Tank Access.                   work[dash]hours x      actuator.
                                     $85 per hour =
                                     $35,955.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866,
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), 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.
    You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of
compliance in the AD Docket.

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

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2008-0847; Directorate Identifier
2008-NM-056-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by January 18, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR,
-300, and -300ER series airplanes, certificated in any category; as
identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision 2, dated
September 20, 2010.

Subject

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

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from fuel system reviews conducted by the
manufacturer. The Federal Aviation Administration is issuing this AD
to prevent electrical current from flowing through a motor operated
valve (MOV) actuator into a fuel tank, which could create a
potential ignition source inside the fuel tank. This condition, in
combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result in a fuel tank
explosion and consequent loss of the airplane.

Compliance

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

Inspection

    (g) Within 60 months after the effective date of this AD, do an
inspection of the MOV actuators of the main and center fuel tanks
for part number (P/N) MA20A1001-1, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-28A0034,
Revision 2, dated September 20, 2010. A review of airplane
maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the
part number can be conclusively determined from that review.

Replacement

    (h) If any P/N MA20A1001-1 is found during the inspection
required by paragraph (g) of this AD, within 60 months after the
effective date of this AD, replace the MOV actuator with a new or
serviceable MOV actuator, P/N MA30A1001; and as applicable, measure
the electrical resistance of the bond from the adapter plate to the
airplane structure and do all applicable corrective actions; in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision 2, dated September 20, 2010. Do all
applicable corrective actions before further flight.

Part Installation

    (i) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install
an MOV actuator, P/N MA20A1001-1, on any airplane.

Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    (j) Actions done in accordance with Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 777-28A0034, dated August 2, 2007; or Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 777-28A0034, Revision 1, dated May 20, 2010; are considered
acceptable for compliance with the corresponding actions required by
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD; except that replacement of an MOV
actuator in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-
28A0034, dated August 2, 2007, is acceptable for the replacement
required by paragraph (h) of this AD, provided that the replacement
P/N is MA30A1001.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (k)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
ATTN: Tak Kobayashi, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-
140S, FAA, Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Information may be e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 16, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-32208 Filed 12-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on December 30, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN – DOCKET OST 2001-11028

 _______________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________

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:  COMPANIA MEXICANA de AVIACION, S.A. de C.V.
    Date Filed: November 20, 2003

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct scheduled, combination services between
Mexico City, Mexico, and Miami, Florida, and beyond, for a period of one
year.

If renewal, date and citation of last action(s):  January 3, 2003, in
this Docket.

Applicant representative:  Charles F. Donley II,<PHONE_NUMBER>       DOT
analyst:  Allen F. Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.
                                          Action date:  December 30,
2003

Effective dates of authority granted:  December 30, 2003, through
January 3, 2005.

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

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

Special conditions/Remarks:

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

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

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

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

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


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 158 (Monday, August 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 49255]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17068]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2013-0015]
RIN 1660-AA79

Notice of Adjustment of Legitimate Amount in Dispute for the
Dispute Resolution Pilot Program for Public Assistance Appeals

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: FEMA gives notice of an increase of the legitimate amount in
dispute for the Dispute Resolution Pilot Program for Public Assistance
Appeals for disasters declared on or after October 30, 2012.

DATES: Effective Date: August 17, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Roche, Public Assistance
Division Director, Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472-3100, Phone: (202) 646-
3834 or Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013,
Public Law 113-2, 127 Stat. 43 (Jan. 29, 2013), 42 U.S.C. 5189a note,
prescribes that the Administrator shall annually adjust the legitimate
amount in dispute under the Dispute Resolution Pilot Program to reflect
changes in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers published
by the Department of Labor. See 44 CFR 206.210(c)(1).
    FEMA gives notice of an increase in the legitimate amount in
dispute under the Dispute Resolution Pilot Program for Public
Assistance Appeals to $1,031,000 for all disasters declared on or after
October 30, 2012.
    FEMA bases the adjustment on an increase in the Consumer Price
Index for All Urban Consumers provided by The Bureau of Labor
Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor. The sum of the annual
average percent change from the two previous years (2013 and 2014) used
in the adjustment is 3.1 percent.

    Dated: June 15, 2015.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2015-17068 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-123-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35112-35113]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14216]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition To Modify an Exemption of a Previously Approved
Antitheft Device; Ford Motor Company

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition to modify an exemption of a previously
approved antitheft device.

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

SUMMARY: On January 13, 2011, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) granted in full Ford Motor Company's (Ford)
petition for an exemption in accordance with Sec.  543.9(c)(2) of 49
CFR part 543, Exemption from the Theft Prevention Standard for the Ford
Fusion vehicle line beginning with its model year (MY) 2012 vehicles.
On February 16, 2012, Ford submitted a petition to modify its
previously approved exemption for the Ford Fusion vehicle line
beginning with model year (MY) 2013. Ford also requested confidential
treatment of specific information in its petition by letter dated April
25, 2012. The agency will address Ford's request for confidential
treatment by separate letter. NHTSA is granting Ford's petition to
modify the exemption in full because it has determined that the
modified device is also likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.

DATES: The modification granted by this notice is effective beginning
with the 2013 model year (MY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 13, 2011, NHTSA published in the
Federal Register a notice granting in full a petition from Ford for an
exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention
Standard (49 CFR 541) for the Fusion vehicle line beginning with its MY
2012 vehicles. The 2012 Ford Fusion is currently equipped with the
SecuriLock immobilizer device as standard equipment. The SecuriLock
device is a passive antitheft device and is offered with an optional
perimeter alarm system (See 76 FR 2444).
    On February 16, 2012, Ford submitted a petition to modify its
previously approved exemption for the Fusion vehicle line. This notice
grants in full Ford's petition to modify the exemption for the Fusion
vehicle line beginning with its MY 2013 vehicles. Ford's submission is
a complete petition, as required by 49 CFR part 543.9(d), in that it
meets the general requirements contained in 49 CFR Part 543.5 and the
specific content requirements of 49 CFR Part 543.6. Ford's petition
provides a detailed description and diagram of the identity, design,
and location of the components of the antitheft device proposed for
installation beginning with the 2013 model year.
    The MY 2012 passive antitheft device installed as standard
equipment on the Ford Fusion is a passive transponder-based electronic
powertrain immobilizer system (SecuriLock). Features of the antitheft
device include an electronic key, ignition lock, and a transponder-
based electronic passive immobilizer. The MY 2012 device also
incorporates a separate perimeter alarm system that monitors all the
doors, decklid and hood of the vehicle. If unauthorized access is
attempted to any of those protected areas, a visible and audible alarm
is activated.
    Ford stated that integration of the transponder into the normal
operation of the ignition key assures activation of the device. When
the ignition key is turned to the start position, the transceiver
module reads the ignition key code and transmits an encrypted message
to the cluster. Once validation of the key is determined, the engine
can be started once a separate encrypted message is sent to the
powertrain's electronic control module (PCM). The powertrain will
function only if the key code matches the unique identification key
code previously programmed into the PCM. If the codes do not match, the
powertrain engine starter will be disabled.
    In its 2012 modification, Ford stated that the Fusion vehicles will
be available with the Intelligent Access with Push Button Start (IAwPB)
system as optional equipment on its Fusion S and SE trim vehicles but
would continue to be equipped with the SecuriLock antitheft system as
standard equipment. Ford also stated that the Fusion Titanium trim and
Fusion Hybrid vehicles will be equipped with the IAwPB system as
standard equipment.
    Ford further stated that the IAwPB system being offered on the 2013
Fusion vehicles is of the same design and performance as that being
installed on the MY 2011 Ford Explorer vehicles. Ford was granted an
exemption for the Explorer vehicle line on May 28, 2010 by NHTSA (See
75 FR 30103). The agency's most current theft rate information for the
Ford Explorer using two MYs data (2004-2005) is 1.6477.
    Key components of the IAwPB system is an electronic keyfob, remote
function actuator, body control module, power train control module and
a passive immobilizer. Ford stated that both devices are always active
and require no other operator action. Ford stated that in addition to a
programmed electronic key, there are two modules, the Body Control
Module (BCM), and the PCM, that must be matched together to start the
vehicle. These matched modules will not function in other vehicles if
separated from each other, adding even an additional level of security
to the IAwPB device. Specifically, in the SecuriLock device, when the
ignition key is turned to the ``start'' position, the transceiver
module reads the ignition key code and transmits an encrypted message
from the keycode to the control

module, which then determines key validity and authorizes engine
starting by sending a separate encrypted message to the PCM. In the
IAwPB device, when the ``start'' button is pressed, and the brake pedal
is depressed, the BCM triggers the Remote Function Actuator (RFA) to
search for a key inside the vehicle. If a key is detected, the RFA
compares the keycode to the stored valid codes in the RFA and reports
back to the BCM whether a valid key was found. In both devices, if the
codes do not match, the vehicle will be inoperable. Additionally, Ford
stated that in both systems, an electronic key has to be programmed to
the vehicle via a secure diagnostic method. If this programmed key is
not present in the vehicle, the engine will be inoperable.
    Ford previously stated in its MY 2011 petition that reliability and
durability of the devices are supported by the incorporation of several
features in both the SecuriLock and IAwPB device. Specifically, some of
those features include: encrypted communication between the
transponder, control function and the power train control module; no
moving parts; inability to mechanically override the device to start
the vehicle; and the BCM/RFA remote function actuator and the power
train control module share security data that during vehicle assembly
form matched modules that if separated from each other will not
function in other vehicles.
    Ford believes that the planned addition of the optional IAwPB
electronic engine immobilizer system will render ineffective,
conventional theft methods, such as hot-wiring, attacking the ignition
lock cylinder and drive-away thefts.
    Ford also believes that installation of the SecuriLock system and
IAwPB system are an effective deterrent against vehicle theft. Since
the same aspects of performance (i.e., arming and the immobilization
feature) are still provided, the agency believes that the same level of
protection is being met. Since the agency granted Ford's exemption for
its MY 2012 Fusion vehicle line, there is no available theft rate
information for this vehicle.
    The agency has evaluated Ford's MY 2012 petition to modify the
exemption for the Fusion vehicle line from the parts-marking
requirements of 49 CFR part 541, and has decided to grant it. The
agency believes that the proposed device will continue to provide four
of the five types of performance listed in Sec.  543.6(a)(3): promoting
activation; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by
unauthorized persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by
unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the reliability and durability of
the device.
    If Ford decides not to use the exemption for this line, it should
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR parts 541.5
and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA suggests that if the manufacturer contemplates making any
changes, the effects of which might be characterized as de minimis, it
should consult the agency before preparing and submitting a petition to
modify.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.

    Issued on: June 6, 2012.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-14216 Filed 6-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: November 2, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 212)]
[Notices]
[Page 64518-64519]
[DOCID:fr02no06-35]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0417; FRL-8238-7]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Surface Coating of
Plastic Parts for Business Machines (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1093.08,
OMB Control Number 2060-0162

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR that is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 4,
2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2006-0417, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA

Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency, Enforcement
and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code 2201T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB at: Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.

    Note: The EPA Docket Center suffered damage due to flooding
during the last week of June 2006. The Docket Center is continuing
to operate. However, during the cleanup, there will be temporary
changes to Docket Center telephone numbers, addresses, and hours of
operation for people who wish to visit the Public Reading Room to
view documents. Consult EPA's Federal Register notice at 71 FR 38147
(July 5, 2006) or the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
 for current information on docket status, locations and

telephone numbers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schaefer, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division (D243-
05), Measurement Policy Group, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number: (919)
541-0296; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On June 21, 2006 (71 FR 35652), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2006-0417, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, in person viewing at the

Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>
and the telephone number for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is
(202) 566-1927.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov
 to submit or view public comments, access the index

listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in
the docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified
above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether
submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public
viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA receives them and without

change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov
.

    Title: NSPS for Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business
Machines (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1093.08, OMB Control Number 2060-0162.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2006.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Surface
Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines were promulgated on
January 29, 1988. These standards apply to each spray booth that
applies prime coats, color coats, texture coats or touch-up coats in
industrial surface coating operations that apply coatings to plastic
parts for use in the manufacture of business machines.
    Affected sources are required to complete initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports. Owners or operators are also
required to maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any
startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected
facility, or any period during which the monitoring system is
inoperative. These notifications, reports, and records are essential in
determining compliance; and are required, in general, of all sources
subject to NSPS.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 35
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

    Respondents/Affected Entities: Business machine manufacturers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 10.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, quarterly, semi-annually, and
monthly.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 978.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: No annualized capital or O&M costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the total estimated
burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of Approved ICR
Burdens.

    Dated: October 25, 2006.
Oscar Morales,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
 [FR Doc. E6-18493 Filed 11-1-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 130 (Monday, July 8, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40640-40642]
[FR Doc No: 2013-16312]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 130 / Monday, July 8, 2013 / Proposed
Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0256; Directorate Identifier 2007-SW-01-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. (Type Certificate
Currently Held by AgustaWestland S.p.A.) (Agusta) Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to revise an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for the Agusta Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters. The existing AD
currently requires inspecting the fuselage frame to detect fatigue
cracks which could lead to structural failure and subsequent loss of
control of the helicopter. Since we issued that AD, Agusta has
developed a frame reinforcement modification which supports extending
the interval for inspecting the fuselage frame for a fatigue crack.
This proposed AD would require inspecting the fuselage frame for a
crack, but would reduce the applicability from the existing AD to
exclude helicopters modified by the optional frame reinforcement
modification. The proposed actions are intended to detect a fatigue
crack that could result in failure of the fuselage frame and subsequent
loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 6,
2013.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the economic
evaluation, any comments received and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Agusta Westland, Customer Support & Services, Via Per Tornavento 15,
21019 Somma Lombardo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Giovanni Cecchelli; telephone
39-0331-711133; fax 39 0331 711180; or at http://www.agustawestland.com/technical-bullettins. You may review the service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
written comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to
the economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that might
result from adopting the proposals in this document. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To
ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters
should send only one copy of written comments, or if comments are filed
electronically, commenters should submit only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments that we receive, as well as
a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.

Discussion

    On June 19, 2008, we issued AD 2008-14-02, Amendment 39-15597 (73
FR 39572, July 10, 2008), for Agusta model AB 139 and AW 139
helicopters, certificated in any category. AD 2008-14-02 requires,
within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS), or upon accumulating 100 hours
TIS since new, whichever occurs later, inspecting the fuselage frame
5700 middle section for a crack. AD 2008-14-02 also requires repeating
this inspection at intervals not exceeding 100 hours TIS, and, if a
crack is found, before further flight, repairing the crack in
accordance with FAA-approved procedures. AD 2008-14-02 was prompted by
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2006-0357, dated November
26, 2006 (EASA AD 2006-0357), which states that tests have shown that
the Agusta AB/AW 139's fuselage frame 5700 middle section is prone to
fatigue damage. AD 2008-14-02 is intended to detect a crack in the
fuselage frame structure, to prevent structural failure of the frame,
and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2008-14-02 (73 FR 39572, July 10, 2008), Agusta
has issued Optional Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-089, dated February 19,
2010 (BT 139-089), which describes procedures for modifying with a
structural reinforcement two different part-numbered 5700 fuselage
frames and one part-numbered 3900 fuselage frame, thereby extending the
repetitive inspection interval for the three frames. Subsequently, EASA
issued AD No. 2006-0357R1, dated April 22, 2010 (EASA AD 2006-0357R1),
which revised EASA AD 2006-0357 by

removing Agusta model AB139 and AW139 helicopters modified by BT 139-
089 with the structural reinforced frames from the applicability
requirements of the fatigue crack inspection.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative,
has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA AD. We
are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by
EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist
or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.

Related Service Information

    Agusta issued Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-018, Revision B, dated
October 18, 2006, which specifies inspection procedures for the middle
section frame 5700 for all Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters except
with serial number 31002, 31003, 31004, and 31007. Subsequently, Agusta
issued BT 139-089, which describes procedures for installing carbon
fiber structural reinforcement skins at frame station 5700 for two
part-numbered fuselage frames and for one frame station 3900 fuselage
frame. Once the fuselage frames have been modified in accordance with
BT 139-089, the inspection interval of Mandatory Inspection task MI53-
12 may be extended. EASA classified this service information as
mandatory and revised its existing AD and issued AD 2006-0357R1 to
ensure the continued airworthiness of these helicopters.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2008-14-02 (73
FR 39572, July 10, 2008), but would remove from the applicability
section any helicopter modified by installing the structural
reinforcement skins in accordance with BT 139-089. This proposed AD
would continue to require initially inspecting the fuselage frame 5700
middle section within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS), or upon
accumulating 100 hours TIS since new, whichever occurs later, for a
crack. This proposed action would also continue to require repeating
this inspection at intervals not exceeding 100 hours TIS, and, if there
is a crack, before further flight, repairing the crack in accordance
with FAA-approved procedures.

Differences Between the Proposed AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD requires contacting the type certificate (TC) holder
for further instructions if damage or a crack is found; this proposed
AD would require repairing the crack, before further flight, with FAA-
approved procedures with no requirement to contact the TC holder. The
EASA AD also excludes helicopters with serial number 31002, 31003,
31004, and 31007; whereas, this proposed AD does not.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 33 helicopters of
U.S. Registry. We estimate that operators may incur the following costs
in order to comply with this AD. It would take about one work-hour to
comply with the initial and each subsequent inspection required by this
AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour so the approximate cost
for each inspection would be $85 per helicopter or $2,805 for the U.S.-
registered fleet. We estimate the cost to repair the fuselage middle
frame section would be about $10,000.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We 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, I certify this proposed regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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 removing airworthiness directive (AD)
AD 2008-14-02 (73 FR 39572, July 10, 2008), and adding the following
new AD:

Agusta S.p.A. (Type Certificate Currently Held by AgustaWestland
S.p.A.) (Agusta): Docket No. FAA-2008-0256; Directorate Identifier
2007-SW-01-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Agusta Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters,
except helicopters with reinforcement skin part number (P/N)
3G5306P08512 installed on left hand (LH) frame station 5700 P/N
3P5338A13352 and right hand (RH) frame station 5700 P/N
3P5338A13452; or with reinforcement skin P/N 3G5306P08513 installed
on LH frame station 5700 P/N 3P5338A13353 and RH frame station 5700
P/N 3P5338A13453; or with LH frame station 5700 P/N 3P5338A13354 and
RH frame station 5700 P/N 3P5338A13454 installed, certificated in
any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as a fatigue crack in the
fuselage frame 5700 middle section. This condition could result in
structural failure of the frame and subsequent loss of control of
the helicopter.

(c) Affected ADs

    This AD revises AD 2008-14-02, Amendment 39-15597 (73 FR 39572,
July 10, 2008).

(d) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by September 6, 2013.

(e) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(f) Required Actions

    (1) Within 10 hours time-in-service (TIS), or upon accumulating
100 hours TIS since new, whichever occurs later, inspect the
fuselage frame 5700 middle section for a crack in accordance with
the Compliance Instructions, paragraphs 1. through 4., of Agusta
Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-018, Revision B, dated October 18, 2006.
    (2) Thereafter, at intervals not exceeding 100 hours TIS, repeat
the inspection as required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
    (3) If there is a crack, before further flight, repair the crack
in accordance with an FAA-approved procedure.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Sharon Miles, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-
5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(h) Additional Information

    (1) Agusta Bollettino Tecnico No. 139-089, dated February 19,
2010, which is not incorporated by reference, specifies procedures
to modify Model AB139 and AW139 helicopters by installing structural
reinforcement skins at frame station 5700 to allow for extended
inspection intervals for fatigue.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2006-0357R1, dated April 22, 2010. You
may view the EASA AD at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2008-0256.

(i) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 5311, Fuselage,
Main Frame.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 28, 2013.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-16312 Filed 7-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 57 (Friday, March 24, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17833-17834]
[FR Doc No: 2023-06145]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-1416-000]

PGR 2022 Lessee 1, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
PGR 2022 Lessee 1, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 10, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 20, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-06145 Filed 3-23-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 199 (Monday, October 15, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62473-62476]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25237]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-0212-0903]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Seafair Blue Angels Air Show Performance, Seattle,
WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard is proposing to amend the Seafair Blue
Angels Air Show Performance safety zone on the waters of Lake
Washington, Seattle, WA. This action is necessary to safeguard
participants and spectators from the safety hazards associated with the
Seafair Blue Angels Air Show Performance, which include low flying high
speed aircraft, and will do so by prohibiting entry into the safety
zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Puget Sound
or a Designated Representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before December 14, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number using
any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions on
submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of these
three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email ENS Nathaniel P. Clinger; Waterways Management Division,
Coast Guard Sector Puget Sound; Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it
will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment,
it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when
it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a
telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number USCG-0212-0903 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number USCG-0212-0903 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES.
Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If
we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

B. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is amending this rule because the current
regulation associated with the Seafair Blue Angels Air Show performance
(33 CFR 165.1319) is not large enough to safeguard participants and
spectators from the safety hazards associated with the Seafair Blue
Angels Air Show Performance, which include low flying high speed
aircraft.

C. Basis and Purpose

    The Coast Guard proposes to amend this safety zone to ensure the
safety of the maritime public during the Seattle Blue Angels Air Show.
The size of the safety zone in 33 CFR 165.1319 has been determined to
be inadequate to accommodate the anticipated flight pattern of the Blue
Angels, and the current regulation is not large enough to safeguard
participants and spectators from the safety hazards associated with the
Seafair Blue Angels Air Show Performance, which include low flying high
speed aircraft. This proposed rule would extend the northern boundary
line of the existing regulation northward by 500 yards, and updates
coordinates to provide a zone of adequate size.

D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    As described in the June 24, 2004 final rule (69 FR 35249), the
Coast Guard established a safety zone for the annual Blue Angels Air
Show Performance. The purpose of this rule was to protect the public
from dangers including excessive noise and falling objects from any
potential accidents caused by these low-flying military aircraft. The
regulation contained in 33 CFR 165.1319 encompasses ``all waters of
Lake Washington, Washington State, enclosed by the following points:
Near the termination of Roanoke Way 47[deg]35'44'' N, 122[deg]14'47''
W; thence to 47[deg]35'48'' N, 122[deg]15'45'' W; thence to
47[deg]36'02.1'' N, 122[deg]15'50.2'' W; thence to 47[deg]35'56.6'' N,
122[deg]16'29.2'' W; thence to 47[deg]35'42'' N, 122[deg]16'24'' W;
thence to the east side of the entrance to the west highrise of the
Interstate 90 bridge; thence westerly along the south side of the
bridge to the shoreline on the western terminus of the bridge; thence
southerly along the shoreline to Andrews Bay at 47[deg]33'06'' N,
122[deg]15'32'' W; thence northeast along the shoreline of Bailey
Peninsula to its northeast point at 47[deg]33'44'' N, 122[deg]15'04''
W; thence easterly along the east-west line drawn tangent to Bailey
Peninsula; thence northerly along the shore of Mercer Island to the
point of origin. [Datum: NAD 1983]''
    However, the participating aircraft have a flight pattern that will
extend past the northern boundary of the regulation in 33 CFR 156.1319.
As such, an extension is necessary in order to protect the spectating
public.
    This rule amends the Seafair Blue Angels Air Show Performance
Safety Zone, extending the northern boundary starting at point
47[deg]36'17.28'' N, 122[deg]16'49.44'' W; thence west to point
47[deg]36'17.28'' N, 122[deg]16'58.56'' W; thence south along the
shoreline to point 47[deg]35'25.44'' N, 122[deg]17'9.48'' W; thence
east along the I-90 bridge to point 47[deg]35'23.16'' N,
122[deg]15'17.1'' W; thence north east along the shoreline to point

47[deg]35'45.3'' N, 122[deg]14'49.44'' W; thence north back to the
point of origin.

E. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The Coast Guard bases
this finding on the fact that the safety zone will be in place for a
limited period of time and vessel traffic will be able to transit
around the safety zone. Maritime traffic may also request permission to
transit through the zone from the (COTP), Puget Sound or a Designated
Representative.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of
which may be small entities; the owners and operators of vessels
intending to operate in the waters covered by the safety zone while it
is in effect. The rule would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities because the safety zone would be
in place for limited periods of time and maritime traffic would still
be able to transit around the safety zone. Maritime traffic may also
request permission to transit through the zone from the COTP, Puget
Sound or a Designated Representative.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule
involves the amendment of a safety zone. This rule is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph

34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may
lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this
proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165, as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1

    2. Amend Sec.  165.1319 by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  165.1319  Safety Zone Regulations; Seafair Blue Angels Air Show
Performance, Seattle, WA.

* * * * *
    (b) Location. The following is a safety zone: All waters of Lake
Washington encompassed by the following points: 47[deg]36'17.28'' N,
122[deg]14'49.44'' W; thence west to point 47[deg]36'17.28'' N,
122[deg]16'58.56'' W; thence south along the shoreline to Andrews Bay
at point 47[deg]33'04.62'' N, 122[deg]15'32.46'' W; thence northeast
along the shoreline of Bailey Peninsula to its northeast point at
47[deg]33'44.98'' N, 122[deg]15'03.48'' W; thence easterly to point
47[deg]33'43.98'' N, 122[deg]13'51.36'' W on Mercer Island; thence
northerly along the shore of Mercer Island to point 47[deg]35'45.12''
N, 122[deg]14'49.44'' W; thence north back to the point of origin.
* * * * *

    Dated: September 25, 2012.
S.J. Ferguson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2012-25237 Filed 10-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P