[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13897-13899]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05087]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-80186; File No. SR-Bats EDGX-2017-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Fees
for Use on Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc.

March 9, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 28, 2017, Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange''
or ``EDGX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has

designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or changing a
member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange under Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\
which renders the proposed rule change effective upon filing with the
Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend the fee schedule applicable
to Members \5\ and non-members of the Exchange pursuant to EDGX Rules
15.1(a) and (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See
Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.bats.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to remove the
Single MPID Cross-Asset Tier under footnote 1, Add Volume Tiers. The
Exchange determines the liquidity adding rebate that it will provide to
Members using the Exchange's tiered pricing structure. Currently, the
Exchange offers enhanced rebates under ten Add Volume Tiers set forth
in footnote 1 of the fee schedule for orders that yield fee codes B,\6\
V,\7\ Y,\8\ 3,\9\ and 4.\10\ Under such pricing structure, a Member
will receive a rebate between $0.0025 and $0.0033 per share executed,
depending on the tier for which such Member qualifies. The Exchange now
proposes to amend the Add Volume Tiers under footnote 1 to remove the
Single MPID Cross-Asset Tier. Under the Single MPID Cross-Asset Tier, a
Member receives an enhanced rebate of $0.0030 per share where their
MPID has: (i) On the Exchange's equity options platform (``EDGX
Options'') an ADAV \11\ in Market Maker \12\ orders greater than or
equal to 0.12% of average OCV; \13\ and (ii) an ADAV greater than or
equal to 0.12% of average TCV \14\. The Exchange is proposing to
eliminate the tier because it has not achieved the desired effect,
despite being designed to incentivize Members to add liquidity on both
the Exchange's equites platform and EDGX Options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Fee code B is appended to orders which add liquidity to EDGX
(Tape B) and receives a rebate of 0.00200 per share. See the
Exchange's fee schedule available at http://www.bats.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/.
    \7\ Fee code V is appended to orders which add to EDGX (Tape A)
and receives a rebate of 0.00200 per share. Id.
    \8\ Fee code Y is appended to orders which add liquidity to EDGX
(Tape C) and receives a rebate of 0.00200 per share. Id.
    \9\ Fee code 3 is appended to orders which add liquidity to
EDGX, pre and post market (Tapes A or C) and receives a rebate of
0.00200 per share. Id.
    \10\ Fee code 4 is appended to orders which add liquidity to
EDGX, pre and post market (Tape B) and receives a rebate of 0.00200
per share. Id.
    \11\ ``ADAV'' means average daily added volume calculated as the
number of shares added per day and ADV is calculated on a monthly
basis. See the Exchange's fee schedule available at http://www.bats.com/us/equities/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/.
    \12\ ``Market Maker'' means any transaction identified by a
Member for clearing in the Market Maker range at the OCC, where such
Member is registered with the Exchange as a Market Maker as defined
in Rule 16.1(a)(37). Id.
    \13\ ``OCC Customer Volume'' or ``OCV'' means, for purposes of
equities pricing, the total equity and ETF options volume that
clears in the Customer range at the Options Clearing Corporation
(``OCC'') for the month for which the fees apply, excluding volume
on any day that the Exchange experiences an Exchange System
Disruption and on any day with a scheduled early market close, using
the definition of Customer as provided under the Exchange's fee
schedule for EDGX Options. Id.
    \14\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
volume reported by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a
consolidated transaction reporting plan for the month for which the
fees apply. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Date
    The Exchange proposes to implement this amendment to its fee
schedule on March 1, 2017.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed removal of the Single MPID
Cross-Asset Tier is consistent with the objectives of Section 6 of the
Act,\15\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(4),\16\ in particular, as it is designed to provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
its Members and other persons using its facilities. As described above,
the enhanced rebate offered under this tier has not affected Members'
behavior in the manner originally conceived by the Exchange--to
incentivize Members to add liquidity on both the Exchange's equites
platform and EDGX Options. While the Exchange acknowledges the benefit
of Members entering orders that add liquidity in two asset classes, the
Exchange has generally determined that it is providing an additional
rebate for liquidity that would be added on the Exchange regardless of
whether the tier existed. As such, the Exchange also believes that the
proposed elimination of the Single MPID Cross-Asset Tier would be non-
discriminatory in that it currently applies equally to all Members and,
upon elimination, would no longer be available to any Members. Further,
it's [sic] elimination will allow the Exchange to explore other pricing
mechanisms in which it may enhance market quality for all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe its proposal to remove the Single
MPID Cross-Asset Tier under footnote 1 would impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. But rather, this proposal would enhance the
Exchange's ability to compete with other market centers. As described
above, the Exchange believes that it is offering enhanced rebates for
orders that would be submitted to the Exchange without the enhanced
rebate, which prevents the Exchange from being able to offer other
rebates or reduced fees that might be able to enhance market quality to
the benefit of all Members. As such, removing the Single MPID Cross-
Asset Tier will allow the Exchange other opportunities to enhance
market quality on the Exchange and ultimately, better compete with
other market centers.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested
parties.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \17\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\18\ At any time within 60 days of the filing of the
proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend
such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is
necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of
investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \18\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2017-12 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2017-12. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-BatsEDGX-2017-12, and should be
submitted on or before April 5, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-05087 Filed 3-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 71156-71157]
[DOCID:fr08de06-76]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF06-13-000]

Downeast LNG, Inc.; Supplemental Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for the Downeast LNG Project and Request
for Comments on Environmental Issues Related to the Potential Expansion
of the Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline System

December 1, 2006.
    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) is in
the process of evaluating the Downeast Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)
Project planned by Downeast LNG, Inc. (Downeast). The project would
consist of an onshore LNG import and storage terminal, located on the
south side of Mill Cove in the Town of Robbinston, near the confluence
of Passamaquoddy Bay and the St. Croix River, in Washington County,
Maine; and an approximately 31-mile-long natural gas sendout pipeline.
The Downeast LNG Project would be designed to have a maximum sendout
capacity of 625 million cubic feet of natural gas per day.
    The proposed sendout pipeline operated by Downeast LNG would
transport natural gas from the LNG terminal to an interconnect point
with Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline L.L.C.'s (M&NE) existing pipeline
system near the town of Baileyville, Maine. The M&NE system currently
does not have sufficient capacity to transport the natural gas that
would be supplied by the Downeast pipeline. Therefore, if the Downeast
LNG Project is authorized and placed into service, M&NE's system would
need to be modified or expanded in Maine, New Hampshire, and
Massachusetts.
    This Supplemental Notice of Intent (NOI) discloses the potential
facilities that would likely be required to expand M&NE's system, based
on information provided to Downeast by M&NE, and requests comments
regarding the possible environmental impact of those facilities.
Although M&NE is not proposing to construct these facilities and does
not have an application before the FERC, it has been determined that
these expanded M&NE facilities are likely a necessary part of the
project and that an analysis of the impacts of these facilities will be
included in the EIS being prepared for the Downeast LNG facility.
    A map depicting the expansion of the M&NE facilities downstream of
the interconnection with Downeast is included in Appendix 1. The
following facilities have been identified by M&NE as necessary to
accommodate the gas volumes to be delivered by Downeast LNG.

Pipeline Looping

    Approximately 130.9 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline looping
would likely be required within or adjacent to the existing M&NE right-
of-way or other nearby utility or road rights-of-way, as follows:
     Eliot Loop--approximately 3.4 miles from Newington in
Rockingham County, New Hampshire to Eliot in York County, Maine;
     Westbrook Loop--approximately 16.5 miles from Saco in York
County, Maine to Westbrook in Cumberland County, Maine;
     Richmond Loop--approximately 27.6 miles from Pownal in
Cumberland County, Maine to Richmond in Sagadahoc County, Maine;
     Searsmont Loop--approximately 19.7 miles from Windsor in
Kennebec County, Maine and Searsmont in Waldo County, Maine;
     Brewer Loop--approximately 21.9 miles from Monroe in Waldo
County, Maine to Brewer in Penobscot County, Maine;
     Woodchopping Ridge Loop--approximately 22.2 miles from
Greenfield in Penobscot County, Maine to Township T35 MD in Hancock
County, Maine; and
     Baileyville Loop--approximately 19.6 miles from Township
T37 MD BPP in Washington County, Maine to the Baileyville Compressor
Station in Washington County, Maine.
    The potential pipeline loops would generally be adjacent to the
existing mainline; however, the exact side that the loop would be
located on varies due to numerous crossovers throughout the looping.

Compressor Station Facilities \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Eliot, Westbrook, Searsmont, Brewer, and Woodchopping
Compressor Stations are to be constructed as part of the M&NE Phase
IV Project that is currently being evaluated by FERC and other
cooperating agencies under Docket Number CP06-335-000. This NOI
assumes that the facilities in the Phase IV Project are approved and
constructed prior to the construction of the M&NE expansion
facilities discussed in this NOI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Compression requirements for the pipeline expansion would likely
include adding compression to six existing compressor stations and the
construction of one new compressor station as follows:
     Eliot Compressor Station--install a Solar Titan 130
natural gas-driven turbine compressor;
     Westbrook Compressor Station--install a Solar Taurus 70
natural gas-driven turbine compressor;
     Richmond Compressor Station--install a Solar Mars 100
natural gas driven turbine compressor;
     Searsmont Compressor Station--install a Solar Taurus 70
natural gas-driven turbine compressor;
     Brewer Compressor Station--install a Solar Taurus 70
natural gas-driven turbine compressor;
     Woodchopping Ridge Compressor Station--install a Solar
Taurus 70 natural gas-driven turbine compressor; and
     A new compressor station located in the City of Methuen,
Middlesex County, Massachusetts. This facility would involve the
installation of a Solar Taurus 70 natural gas-driven turbine
compressor.
    By this notice, the Commission specifically requests comments only
on these additional M&NE facilities. Your input will help identify the
issues that need to be evaluated in the EIS. Comments on the project
should be submitted in written form. Further details on how to submit
written comments are provided in the Public Participation section
below. Please note that comments are due by January 5, 2007.
    This NOI is being sent to Federal, State, and local government
agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups;
Indian tribes; and local libraries and newspapers. We encourage them to
comment on their areas of concern.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the M&NE expansion. By becoming a commentor,
your concerns will be addressed in the EIS and considered by the
Commission. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental
effects, reasonable alternatives (including alternative facility sites
and pipeline routes), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental
impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be.
To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please
follow these instructions:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to: Magalie
R. Salas, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of your comments for the attention of OEP/
DG2E/Gas Branch 3.

     Reference Docket No. PF06-13-000 on the original and both
copies.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before January 5, 2006.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing of any
comments in response to this NOI. For information on electronically
filing comments, please see the instructions on the Commission's Web
site at http://www.ferc.gov under the ``e-Filing'' link and the link to

the User's Guide as well as information in 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii).
Before you can file comments, you will need to create a free account,
which can be accomplished online.
    Once Downeast formally files its application with the Commission,
you may want to become an ``intervenor,'' which is an official party to
the proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the process and
are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard by the courts
if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor
formally participates in a Commission proceeding by filing a request to
intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are included in the
User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web site.
Please note that you may not request intervenor status at this time.
You must wait until a formal application is filed with the Commission.

Environmental Mailing List

    If you wish to be added to the Downeast LNG environmental mailing
list, please return the attached Mailing List Retention Form (Appendix
2 of this NOI). Also, indicate on the form your preference for
receiving a paper version of the EIS in lieu of an electronic version
of the EIS on CD-ROM. If you do not return this form, we will not add
your name to our mailing list.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC (3372) or on
the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary

link.'' Click on the eLibrary link, select ``General Search'' and enter
the project docket number excluding the last three digits (i.e., PF06-
13) in the ``Docket Number'' field. Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance with eLibrary, the eLibrary
helpline can be reached at 1-866-208-3676, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The eLibrary link on the FERC
Internet Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents
issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the FERC now offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. To register for this service, go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm
.

    Public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx

along with other related information.
    Finally, Downeast has established an Internet Web site for this
project at http://www.downeastlng.com/index.htm. The Web site includes

a project overview, status, potential impacts and mitigation, and
answers to frequently asked questions. You can also request additional
information by calling Downeast directly at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-20816 Filed 12-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 133 (Monday, July 13, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40050-40051]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17052]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD15-2-000]

Billing Procedures for Annual Charges For the Costs of Other
Federal Agencies for Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act;
Notice Reporting Costs for Other Federal Agencies' Administrative
Annual Charges for Fiscal Year 2014

    1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
required to determine the reasonableness of costs incurred by other
Federal agencies (OFAs) \1\ in connection with their participation in
the Commission's proceedings under the Federal Power Act (FPA) Part I
\2\ when those agencies seek to include such costs in the
administrative charges licensees must pay to reimburse the United
States for the cost of administering Part I.\3\ The Commission's Order
on Remand and Acting on Appeals of Annual Charge Bills \4\ determined
which costs are eligible to be included in the administrative annual
charges and it established a process for Commission review of future
OFA cost submittals. This order established a process whereby the
Commission would annually request each OFA to submit cost data, using a
form \5\ specifically designed for this purpose. In addition, the order
established requirements for detailed cost accounting reports and other
documented analyses, which explain the cost assumptions contained in
the OFAs' submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The OFAs include: The U.S. Department of the Interior
(Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of
Reclamation, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Office of the Solicitor, Office of Environmental Policy &
Compliance, Office of Hearings and Appeals and Office of Policy
Analysis); the U.S. Department of Agriculture (U.S. Forest Service);
the U.S. Department of Commerce (National Marine Fisheries Service);
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 794-823d (2006).
    \3\ See id. Sec.  803(e)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 7178.
    \4\ 107 FERC ] 61,277, order on reh'g, 109 FERC ] 61,040 (2004).
    \5\ Other Federal Agency Cost Submission Form, available at
https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/forms.asp#ofa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Commission has completed its review of the forms and
supporting documentation submitted by the U.S. Department of the
Interior (Interior), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Agriculture),
and the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) for fiscal year 2014.
This notice reports the costs the Commission included in its
administrative annual charges for fiscal year 2015.

Scope of Eligible Costs

    3. The basis for eligible costs that should be included in the
OFAs' administrative annual charges is prescribed by the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Circular A-25--User Charges and the
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board's Statement of Federal
Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) Number 4--Managerial Cost
Accounting Concepts and Standards for the Federal Government. Circular
A-25 establishes Federal policy regarding fees assessed for government
services and provides specific information on the scope and type of
activities subject to user charges. SSFAS Number 4 provides a
conceptual framework for federal agencies to determine the full costs
of government goods and services.
    4. Circular A-25 provides for user charges to be assessed against
recipients of special benefits derived from federal activities beyond
those received by the general public.\6\ With regard to licensees, the
special benefit derived from federal activities is the license to
operate a hydropower project. The guidance provides for the assessment
of sufficient user charges to recover the full costs of services
associated with these special benefits.\7\ SFFAS Number 4 defines full
costs as the costs of resources consumed by a specific governmental
unit that contribute directly or indirectly to a provided service.\8\
Thus, pursuant to OMB requirements and authoritative accounting
guidance, the Commission must base its OFA administrative annual charge
on all direct and indirect costs incurred by agencies in administering
Part I of the FPA. The special form the Commission designed for this
purpose, the ``Other Federal Agency Cost Submission Form,'' captures
the full range of costs recoverable under the FPA and the referenced
accounting guidance.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ OMB Circular A-25 Sec.  6.
    \7\ OMB Circular A-25 Sec.  6. a. 2.
    \8\ SFFAS Number 4 ] 7.
    \9\ To avoid the possibility of confusion that has occurred in
prior years as to whether costs were being entered twice as ``Other
Direct Costs'' and ``Overhead,'' the form excluded ``Other Direct
Costs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Commission Review of OFA Cost Submittals

    5. The Commission received cost forms and other supporting
documentation from the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and
Commerce (OFAs). The Commission completed a review of each OFA's cost
submission forms and supporting reports. In its examination of the
OFAs' cost data, the Commission considered each agency's ability to
demonstrate a system or process which effectively captured, isolated,
and reported Part I costs as required by the ``Other Federal Agency
Cost Submission Form.''
    6. The Commission held a Technical Conference on March 26, 2015 to
report its initial findings to licensees and OFAs. No OFA
representatives attended the conference. Following the technical
conference, licensees had the opportunity to submit comments \10\ to
the Commission regarding its initial review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Letter from Charles R. Sensiba, Van Ness Feldman, to
the Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, FERC, Docket No. AD15-2-000 (filed
May 11, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Written comments were filed by Idaho Falls Group (Idaho Falls).
Idaho Falls generally supported the Commission's analysis but raised
questions regarding certain various individual cost submissions. The
Commission will address the issues in the Appendix to this notice.
    8. After additional reviews, full consideration of the comments
presented, and in accordance with the previously cited guidance, the
Commission accepted as reasonable any costs reported via the cost
submission forms that were clearly documented in the OFAs' accompanying
reports and/or analyses. These documented costs will be included in the
administrative annual charges for fiscal year 2015.

Summary of Reported & Accepted Costs for Fiscal Year 2014

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Municipal                     Non-Municipal                       Total
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Reported        Accepted        Reported        Accepted        Reported        Accepted
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Department of Interior
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureau of Indian Affairs................................         143,046         143,046         216,666         216,666         359,713         359,713
Bureau of Land Management...............................          98,020          96,140           1,494           2,212          99,514          98,352
Bureau of Reclamation...................................             141             141          39,044          39,044          39,185          39,185
National Park Service...................................         280,357         280,357         278,416         278,416         558,773         558,773
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service..........................         881,471         880,657       1,036,499       1,035,447       1,917,972       1,916,104
U.S. Geological Survey..................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............              --              --
Office of the Solicitor.................................          13,599          13,599         111,186         108,414         124,785         122,013
Office of Environmental Policy & Compliance.............          55,825          55,825         132,834         132,834         188,658         188,658
Office of Hearings and Appeals..........................             489             489           1,840           1,840           2,329           2,329
Office of Policy Analysis...............................  ..............  ..............           9,646           9,646           9,646           9,646
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Department of Agriculture
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Forest Service.....................................         493,060         378,925       1,550,580       1,594,016       2,043,640       1,572,941
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Department of Commerce
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Marine Fisheries Service.......................       1,563,763       1,132,389         551,280         400,071       2,115,043       1,532,460
    Total...............................................       3,529,771       2,981,588       3,929,485       3,418,606       7,459,258       6,400,174
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Figure 1

    9. Figure 1 summarizes the total reported costs incurred by
Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce with respect to each OFA's
participation in administering Part I of the FPA. Additionally, Figure
1 summarizes the reported costs that the Commission determined were
clearly documented and accepted for inclusion in its FY 2015
administrative annual charges.

Summary Findings of Commission's Costs Review

    10. As presented in the preceding table, the Commission determined
that $6,400,174 of the $7,459,258 in total reported costs were
determined to be reasonable and clearly documented in the OFAs'
accompanying reports and/or analyses. Based on these findings, 14% of
the total reported cost was determined to be unreasonable. The
Commission noted the most significant issues with regard to the
insufficiency of documentation provided by the OFAs was the lack of
supporting documentation to substantiate costs reported on the ``Other
Federal Agency Cost Submission Form'' as well as the inability to
segregate Municipal and Non-Municipal costs.
    11. The cost reports that the Commission determined were clearly
documented and supported could be traced to detailed cost-accounting
reports, which reconciled to data provided from agency financial
systems or other pertinent source documentation. A further breakdown of
these costs is included in the Appendix to this notice, along with an
explanation of how the Commission determined their reasonableness.

Points of Contact

    12. If you have any questions regarding this notice, please contact
Norman Richardson at<PHONE_NUMBER> or Raven Rodriquez at (202) 502-
6276.

    Dated: July 7, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-17052 Filed 7-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 61 (Friday, March 29, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11984-11985]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06069]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-N-4130]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Recordkeeping
Requirements for Microbiological Testing and Corrective Measures for
Bottled Water

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by April
29, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to [email protected]. All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0658.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: JonnaLynn Capezzuto, Office of
Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-
12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Recordkeeping Requirements for Microbiological Testing and Corrective
Measures for Bottled Water--21 CFR 129.35(a)(3)(i), 129.80(g), and
129.80(h)

OMB Control Number 0910-0658--Extension

    The bottled water regulations in parts 129 and 165 (21 CFR parts
129 and 165) require that if any coliform organisms are detected in
weekly total coliform testing of finished bottled water, followup
testing must be conducted to determine whether any of the coliform
organisms are Escherichia coli. The adulteration provision of the
bottled water standard (21 CFR 165.110(d)) provides that a finished
product that tests positive for E. coli will be deemed adulterated
under section 402(a)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 342(a)(3)). In addition, the current good manufacturing practice
(CGMP) regulations for bottled water in part 129 require that source
water from other than a public water system (PWS) be tested at least
weekly for total coliform. If any coliform organisms are detected in
the source water, the bottled water manufacturers are required to
determine whether any of the coliform organisms are E. coli. Source
water found to contain E. coli is not considered water of a safe,
sanitary quality and would be unsuitable for bottled water production.
Before a bottler may use source water from a source that has tested
positive for E. coli, a bottler must take appropriate measures to
rectify or otherwise eliminate the cause of the contamination. A source
previously found to contain E. coli will be considered negative for E.
coli after five samples collected over a 24-hour period from the same
sampling site are tested and found to be E. coli negative.
    Description of Respondents: The respondents to this information
collection are domestic and foreign bottled water manufacturers that
sell bottled water in the United States.
    In the Federal Register of November 7, 2018 (83 FR 55726), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. No comments were received.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                               Table 1--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Number of                     Average burden
   21 CFR section; activity        Number of      records per    Total annual          per          Total hours
                                 recordkeepers   recordkeeper       records       recordkeeping
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  Sec.   129.35(a)(3)(i)               319               6           1,914  0.08 (5 minutes)             153
 and 129.80(h) (bottlers
 subject to both source water
 and finished product testing).
Sec.   129.80(g) and (h)                    95               3             285  0.08 (5 minutes)              23
 (bottlers only subject to
 finished product testing).
Sec.  Sec.   129.35(a)(3)(i)                 3               5              15  0.08 (5 minutes)               1
 and 129.80(h) (bottlers
 conducting secondary testing
 of source water).
Sec.  Sec.   129.35(a)(3)(i)                 3               3               9  0.25 (15                       2
 and 129.80(h) (bottlers                                                         minutes).
 rectifying contamination).
                               ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.....................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ................             179
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Based on a review of the information collection since our last
request for OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden
estimate.
    The current CGMP regulations already reflect the time and
associated recordkeeping costs for those bottlers that are required to
conduct microbiological testing of their source water, as well as total
coliform testing of their finished bottled water products. We therefore
conclude that any additional burden and costs in recordkeeping based on
followup testing that is required if any coliform organisms detected in
the source water test positive for E. coli are negligible.
    We estimate that the labor burden of keeping records of each E.
coli followup test is about 5 minutes per test. We also require
followup testing of source water and finished bottled water products
for E. coli when total coliform positives occur. We expect that 319
bottlers that use sources other than PWSs may find a total coliform
positive sample about 3 times per year in source water testing and
about 3 times in finished product testing and thus would need to
conduct 6 tests for E. coli, for a total of 153 hours of recordkeeping.
In addition, about 95 bottlers that use PWSs may find a total coliform
positive sample about 3 times per year in finished product testing and
thus would need to conduct 3 tests for E. coli, for a total of 23 hours
of recordkeeping.
    We expect that three bottlers per year will test positive for E.
coli in source water and will need to take actions to rectify or
eliminate the cause of the contamination and verify that E. coli is
negative by taking five samples over a 24-hour period from the same
sampling site that originally tested positive for E. coli. We expect
that recordkeeping for the followup test for E. coli will also take
about 5 minutes per test. As shown in table 1, we expect that three
bottlers per year will test positive for E. coli in source water and
will have to carry out the additional E. coli testing, with a burden of
1 hour. These bottlers will also have to keep records about rectifying
the source contamination, for a burden of 2 hours. For all expected
total coliform testing, E. coli testing, and source rectification, we
estimate a total burden of 179 hours. We base our estimate on our
experience with the current CGMP regulations.

    Dated: March 22, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Acting Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-06069 Filed 3-28-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 194 (Monday, October 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53432-53434]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21793]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF19-5-000]

Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment Statement
for the Sempra PALNG Holdings, LLC Planned Port Arthur LNG Expansion
Project, and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Port Arthur LNG Expansion
Project (Project) involving construction and operation of facilities by
Sempra PALNG Holdings, LLC (Sempra) in Jefferson County, Texas. The
Commission will use this EA in its decision-making process to determine
whether the project is in the public interest.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies about issues regarding the project. The National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the
environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it
considers the issuance of an authorization. NEPA also requires the
Commission to discover concerns the public may have about proposals.
This process is referred to as ``scoping.'' The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of issues to address in the EA. To ensure that
your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your
comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or
before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 12, 2019.
    You can make a difference by submitting your specific comments or
concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential
environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid
or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission
staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Commission
staff will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the
EA.
    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on June 14, 2019, you will need to file those
comments in Docket No. PF19-5-000 to ensure they are considered as part
of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this planned
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know? is available for
viewing on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/gas/gas.pdf. This fact sheet addresses a number of
typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how
to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

Public Participation

    The Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which
makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals
regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant
email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and
provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of
time you spend researching proceedings. To sign up go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment is an easy method for
submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;

    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is also on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under
the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide
comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on eRegister. You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; a comment on a particular project is considered a Comment on a
Filing; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(PF19-5-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington,
DC 20426

Summary of the Planned Project

    Sempra plans to construct and operate additional liquefaction
capacity at the site of the recently approved Port Arthur Liquefaction
Project near Port Arthur, Texas. The planned expansion would add two
liquefaction trains, increasing liquefied natural gas production
capacity from 13.5 million metric tons per annum (MTPA) to
approximately 27.0 MTPA.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction and operation of the planned project would be wholly
within property already certificated for the Port Arthur Liquefaction
Project. No additional land would be required. The Project facilities,
once constructed, would occupy approximately 60 acres.

The EA Process

    The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the
construction and operation of the planned project under these general
headings:

     Geology and soils;
     water resources and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;
     threatened and endangered species;
     cultural resources;
     socioeconomics;
     land use;
     air quality and noise;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts

    Commission staff will also evaluate possible alternatives to the
planned project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on
how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Although no formal application has been filed, Commission staff
have already initiated a NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing
process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early
involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve
issues before the Commission receives an application. As part of the
pre-filing review, Commission staff will contact federal and state
agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the
preparation of the EA.
    The EA will present Commission staffs' independent analysis of the
issues. The EA will be available in electronic format in the public
record through eLibrary \2\ and the Commission's website (https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis.asp). If eSubscribed, you will
receive instant email notification when the EA is issued. The EA may be
issued for an allotted public comment period. Commission staff will
consider all comments on the EA before making recommendations to the
Commission. To ensure Commission staff have the opportunity to consider
and address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in
the Public Participation section, beginning on page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the
environmental issues related to this project to formally cooperate in
the preparation of the EA.\3\ Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate
consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office,
and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies,
interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential
effects on historic properties.\4\ The EA for this project will
document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and
summarize the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes: Federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials; and other
interested parties. This list also includes all affected landowners (as
defined in the Commission's regulations) who own homes within certain
distances of aboveground facilities as well as anyone who submits
comments on the project. Commission staff will update the environmental
mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices
related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals,
organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially
affected by the planned project.
    If the Commission issues the EA for an allotted public comment
period, a Notice of Availability of the EA will be sent to the
environmental mailing list and will provide instructions to access the
electronic document on the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov). If you need
to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to remove
your name from the mailing list, please return the attached ``Mailing
List Update Form'' (appendix 2).

Becoming an Intervenor

    Once Sempra files its application with the Commission, you may want
to become an intervenor which is an official party to the Commission's
proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the
Commission's decision and be heard by the courts if they choose to
appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally
participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene
pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Motions to intervene are more fully
described at http://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
Please note that the Commission will not accept requests

for intervenor status at this time. You must wait until the Commission
receives a formal application for the project, after which the
Commission will issue a public notice that establishes an intervention
deadline.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on General Search and enter the docket number in
the Docket Number field, excluding the last three digits (i.e., PF19-
5). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along
with other related information.

    Dated: October 1, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-21793 Filed 10-4-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16251-16255]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06615]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-1032; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-121-AD;
Amendment 39-18122; AD 2015-06-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2011-13-07 for
all Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes. AD 2011-13-07 requires
revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) to include a procedure to
power off a radio-altimeter or revert to the correct radio-altimeter
output. This new AD requires revising the AFM to include a simpler
procedure to revert to the correct radio-altimeter output. This AD was
prompted by an analysis which showed that AFM procedures could be
simplified. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew has
procedures in the event of a radio-altimeter lock-up, which inhibits
the display of warnings along with certain abnormal conditions, during
the switch into landing mode during altitude cruise. If not corrected,
this could result in the flightcrew being unaware of possible system
failures that require immediate action by the flightcrew, leading to
possible loss of control of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 1, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 1, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2013-1032; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault
Falcon Jet,

P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this referenced
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2013-1032.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2011-13-07, Amendment 39-16730 (76 FR 36283,
June 22, 2011). AD 2011-13-07 applied to all Dassault Aviation Model
FALCON 7X airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
December 26, 2013 (78 FR 78292). The NPRM was prompted by an analysis
which showed that AFM procedures could be simplified. The NPRM proposed
to continue to require revising the AFM to include a procedure to power
off a radio-altimeter or revert to the correct radio-altimeter output.
The NPRM also proposed to require revising the AFM to include a simpler
procedure to revert to the correct radio-altimeter output.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2009-0208R2, dated May 22, 2012 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition on all Dassault Aviation
Model FALCON 7X airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Several occurrences of untimely radio-altimeter lock-up have
been reported, where the failed radio-altimeter (RA) indicated a
negative distance to the ground despite the aircraft was flying at
medium or high altitude.
    A locked RA #1 leads to untimely inhibition of warnings that
could be displayed along with certain abnormal conditions while the
avionic system switches into landing mode during altitude cruise.
    This condition, if not corrected, may cause the flight crew to
be unaware of possible system failures that could require immediate
actions, which could ultimately lead to loss of control of the
aeroplane.
    To address this unsafe condition, Dassault Aviation developed an
Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) operational procedure that, in case of
RA #1 lock-up, allows the crew to restore the system warning
performance by depowering the RA #1. EASA issued AD 2009-0208
[http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2009-0208R3] to require application of
that new abnormal procedure when RA #1 lock-up occurs. That EASA AD
also prohibited dispatch of the aeroplane with any radio-altimeter
inoperative.
    Since issuance of EASA AD 2009-0208, Dassault Aviation developed
Easy avionics load 10 which is embodied through Dassault Aviation
production modification M0566 or in-service through Service Bulletin
(SB) Falcon 7X n[deg]100. This modification provides new features to
display a ``RA miscompare'' flag on both Primary Display Units (PDU)
and allows a commanded system reversion to the correct RA output.
    Prompted by this modification, EASA issued AD 2009-0208R1 [
http://ad.easa.europa.eu/ad/2009-0208R3], to allow not deactivating
RA #1 in case lock-up conditions occurred in flight, for aeroplanes
on which M0566 or SB Falcon 7X n[deg]100 was embodied.
    Since issuance of EASA AD 2009-0208R1, further analysis shows
that, for aeroplanes with M0566 applied in production, or SB Falcon
7X N[deg]100 applied in service, the RA#2 lock-up occurrence should
be addressed through a commanded system reversion, now only
contained in a simplified Falcon 7X AFM procedure 3-140-70A.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD revises EASA AD
2009-0208R1 to reduce the requirement to amend the AFM by deleting
the reference to procedure 3-140-65B. In addition, Dassault Aviation
have confirmed that all Falcon 7X have been or are being modified
with Mod M0566 applied in production, or SB Falcon 7X n[deg]100
applied in service. For this reason, paragraph (1) of this [EASA] AD
has been deleted. Finally, many editorial changes have been made to
align the writing of the AD with the current writing standards.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-1032-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM (78
FR 78292, December 26, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Remove Paragraph (g) of the Proposed AD (78 FR 78292,
December 26, 2013)

    Dassault requested that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD (78 FR
78292, December 26, 2013) be removed if it is meant to be a retained
action. Dassault stated that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD addresses
the lock-up of the radio-altimeter #1 and paragraph (h) of the proposed
AD addresses the radio-altimeter miscompare condition. Dassault noted
that any significant discrepancy, such as a lock-up condition, will
raise a miscompare flag. Dassault also stated that since paragraph (h)
of the proposed AD generalizes the issue to encompass both radio-
altimeters, paragraph (g) becomes superfluous and procedure 3-140-65
(Figure 1 to paragraph (g) of the proposed AD) no longer exists.
    We do not agree to remove paragraph (g) of this AD. Paragraph (g)
of this AD is necessary to address the identified unsafe condition
until the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD are accomplished.
Operators who complete the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD do
not need to complete the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD. We
have not revised this AD in this regard.

Request To Revise a Figure To Allow Dispatch in Certain Configuration
Conditions

    Dassault requested that figure 2 of paragraph (h) of the proposed
AD (78 FR 78292, December 26, 2013) be revised to allow dispatch with a
failed radio-altimeter. Dassault noted that the FAA issued an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC), which allows dispatch with one
failed radio-altimeter if the airplane is equipped with the newer
radio-altimeter having part number 066-01153-5001. Dassault proposed to
limit the dispatch prohibition in figure 2 of paragraph (h) of the
proposed AD only to those airplanes that are fitted with an older
radio-altimeter design having part number 066-01153-4001, which it
stated is more prone to lock-ups. Dassault reasoned that the change
would bring consistency with the AMOC letter and eliminate a need for
future AMOCs as the radio-altimeter design is revised.
    We do not agree to revise figure 2 of paragraph (h) of this AD.
This type of operational relief is only allowed through the master
minimum equipment list (MMEL) which is not an aspect we provide in an
AD. However, a global AMOC letter has been issued to allow dispatch of
airplanes equipped with the newer radio-altimeter with part number 066-
01153-5001 through the MMEL. As provided by paragraph (i)(1)(ii) of
this AD, this AMOC is valid for all operators affected by this AD.
Therefore, there is no need to revise this final rule to provide this
relief.

Request To Refer to a Later Revision of Service Information

    Dassault requested that the NPRM (78 FR 78292, December 26, 2013)
be revised to refer to the latest revision of the Dassault Falcon 7X
Airplane Flight Manual.
    We agree. We have revised paragraph (h)(2) of this AD to refer to
Dassault Falcon 7X Airplane Flight Manual, DGT105608, Revision 18,
dated November 15, 2013, as an additional method of compliance.

``Contacting the Manufacturer'' Paragraph in This AD

    Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD
based on a foreign authority's AD.
    The MCAI or referenced service information in an FAA AD often
directs the owner/operator to contact the manufacturer for corrective
actions, such as a repair. Briefly, the Airworthy Product paragraph
allowed owners/operators to use corrective actions provided by the
manufacturer if those actions were FAA-approved. In addition, the
paragraph stated that any actions approved by the State of Design
Authority (or its delegated agent) are considered to be FAA-approved.
    In the NPRM (78 FR 78292, December 26, 2013), we proposed to
prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to
correct the unsafe condition, by requiring that the repair approval
provided by the State of Design Authority or its delegated agent
specifically refer to this FAA AD. This change was intended to clarify
the method of compliance and to provide operators with better
visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to
correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we proposed to change the
phrase ``its delegated agent'' to include a design approval holder
(DAH) with State of Design Authority design organization approval
(DOA), as applicable, to refer to a DAH authorized to approve required
repairs for the proposed AD.
    No comments were provided to the NPRM (78 FR 78292, December 26,
2013) about these proposed changes. However, a comment was provided for
an NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-101-AD (78 FR 78285,
December 26, 2013). The commenter stated the following: ``The proposed
wording, being specific to repairs, eliminates the interpretation that
Airbus messages are acceptable for approving minor deviations
(corrective actions) needed during accomplishment of an AD mandated
Airbus service bulletin.''
    This comment has made the FAA aware that some operators have
misunderstood or misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to
allow the owner/operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer
as approval of deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated
action. The Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or
other information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer
for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not
cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-
required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request
the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required
actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled
it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now clarifies that
for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a
manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved
by the FAA, the EASA, or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization
Approval (DOA).
    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized
signature. The DOA signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are EASA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DOA-authorized signature approval are not EASA-
approved, unless EASA directly approves the manufacturer's message or
other information.
    This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in
manufacturers' service instructions that are ``Required for
Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to
implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is
required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an
alternative method of compliance.
    Other commenters to the NPRM having Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-
101-AD (78 FR 78285, December 26, 2013) pointed out that in many cases
the foreign manufacturer's service bulletin and the foreign authority's
MCAI might have been issued some time before the FAA AD. Therefore, the
DOA might have provided U.S. operators with an approved repair,
developed with full awareness of the unsafe condition, before the FAA
AD is issued. Under these circumstances, to comply with the FAA AD, the
operator would be required to go back to the manufacturer's DOA and
obtain a new approval document, adding time and expense to the
compliance process with no safety benefit.
    Based on these comments, we removed the requirement that the DAH-
provided repair specifically refer to this AD. Before adopting such a
requirement, the FAA will coordinate with affected DAHs and verify they
are prepared to implement means to ensure that their repair approvals
consider the unsafe condition addressed in this AD. Any such
requirements will be adopted through the normal AD rulemaking process,
including notice-and-comment procedures, when appropriate.
    We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either
the ``delegated agent'' or ``DAH with State of Design Authority design
organization approval,'' but instead we have provided the specific
delegation approval granted by the State of Design Authority for the
DAH.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Dassault Aviation issued Procedure 3-140-70A, ``Avionics--Sensor
miscompare (A/C with M566),'' Issue 2, of Section 3--Abnormal
Procedures, of the Dassault Falcon 7X Airplane Flight Manual, DGT
105608, Revision 15, dated January 30, 2012; and Procedure 3-140-70A,
``Avionics--Sensor miscompare,'' Issue 4, of Section 3--Abnormal
Procedures, of the Dassault Falcon 7X Airplane Flight Manual,
DGT105608, Revision 18, dated November 15, 2013. The service
information describes procedures to revert to the correct radio-
altimeter output. This service information is reasonably available; see
ADDRESSES for ways to access this service information.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including 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. We have determined that these
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (78 FR 78292, December 26, 2013) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 78292, December 26, 2013).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 35 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
              Action                      Labor cost             Parts cost           product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFM revision [retained actions      1 work-hour x $85 per  None.................             $85          $2,975
 from AD 2011-13-07, Amendment 39-   hour = $85.
 16730 (76 FR 36283, June 22,
 2011)].
New AFM revision [new action].....  1 work-hour x $85 per  None.................              85           2,975
                                     hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2013-1032; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

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)
2011-13-07, Amendment 39-16730 (76 FR 36283, June 22, 2011), and adding
the following new AD:

2015-06-04 Dassault Aviation: Amendment 39-18122. Docket No. FAA-
2013-0132; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-121-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective May 1, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2011-13-07, Amendment 39-16730 (76 FR 36283,
June 22, 2011).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dassault Aviation Model FALCON 7X airplanes,
certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 34, Navigation.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of untimely radio-altimeter
lock-ups, where the failed radio-altimeter indicated a negative
distance to the ground when the airplane was flying at medium or
high altitude. We are issuing this AD to ensure that the flightcrew
has procedures in the event of a radio-altimeter lock-up, which
inhibits the display of warnings along with certain abnormal
conditions, during the switch into landing mode during altitude
cruise. If not corrected, this could result in the flightcrew being
unaware of possible system failures that require immediate action by
the flightcrew, leading to possible loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revision

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2011-13-07, Amendment 39-16730 (76 FR 36283, June 22, 2011), with
editorial changes. For airplanes on which M0566 or Dassault Service
Bulletin Falcon 7X-100 has been accomplished: Within 14 days after
July 27, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2011-13-07), revise the
Limitations Section of the Dassault Falcon 7X AFM to include the
statement in figure 1 to this paragraph. This may be done by
inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM.

When a statement identical to that in figure 1 to this paragraph has
been included in the general revisions of the AFM, the general
revisions may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may
be removed from the AFM. Accomplishing the revision required by
paragraph (h) of this AD terminates the requirements of this
paragraph, and after the revision required by paragraph (h) of this
AD has been done, before further flight, remove the revision
required by this paragraph.

       Figure 1 to Paragraph (g) of This AD--Retained AFM Language
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
If radio-altimeter #1 lock-up conditions occur in flight, revert to the
 correct radio-altimeter output, in accordance with the instructions of
 Falcon 7X AFM procedure 3-140-65B and 3-140-70A.
Dispatch of the airplane with any radio-altimeter inoperative is
 prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(h) New Requirement of This AD: Revision of the AFM

    For airplanes on which M0566 or Dassault Service Bulletin Falcon
7X-100 has been accomplished: Within 30 days after the effective
date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and
(h)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Revise the Limitations Section of the Dassault Falcon 7X AFM
to include the statement in figure 2 to this paragraph. This may be
done by inserting a copy of this AD in the AFM. Doing this revision
terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD and the
revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD must be removed. When
a statement identical to that in figure 2 to this paragraph has been
included in the general revisions of the AFM, the general revisions
may be inserted into the AFM, and the copy of this AD may be removed
from the AFM.

        Figure 2 to Paragraph (h)(1) of This AD--New AFM Language
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
If radio-altimeter miscompare indication occurs in flight, revert to the
 correct radio-altimeter output, in accordance with the instructions of
 Falcon 7X AFM procedure 3-140-70A.
Dispatch of the airplane with any radio-altimeter inoperative is
 prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Revise the Abnormal Procedures section to include Procedure
3-140-70A, ``Avionics--Sensor miscompare (A/C with M566),'' Issue 2,
of Section 3--Abnormal Procedures, of the Dassault Falcon 7X
Airplane Flight Manual, DGT 105608, Revision 15, dated January 30,
2012; or Procedure 3-140-70A, ``Avionics--Sensor miscompare,'' Issue
4, of Section 3--Abnormal Procedures, of the Dassault Falcon 7X
Airplane Flight Manual, DGT105608, Revision 18, dated November 15,
2013; into the AFM.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (i) 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. The AMOC approval letter must specifically
reference this AD.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 2011-13-07,
Amendment 39-16730 (76 FR 36283, June 22, 2011), are approved as
alternative methods of compliance with this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of
this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions
from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method
approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport
Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design Organization Approval
(DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-
authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
EASA Airworthiness Directive 2009-0208R2, dated May 22, 2012, for
related information. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-
2013-1032-0002.

(k) 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Procedure 3-140-70A, ``Avionics--Sensor miscompare (A/C with
M566),'' Issue 2, of Section 3--Abnormal Procedures, of the Dassault
Falcon 7X Airplane Flight Manual, DGT 105608, Revision 15, dated
January 30, 2012.
    (ii) Procedure 3-140-70A, ``Avionics--Sensor miscompare,'' Issue
4, of Section 3--Abnormal Procedures, of the Dassault Falcon 7X
Airplane Flight Manual, DGT105608, Revision 18, dated November 15,
2013.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (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 Renton, Washington, on March 13, 2015.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-06615 Filed 3-26-15; 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 April 21, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKETS OST-2004-17480

________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________

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:  Air Jamaica Limited					Date Filed:  March 31, 2004

Relief requested:  Renew exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to engage in
scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail
between St. Lucia, on the one hand, and Atlanta, Georgia, on the other
hand, pursuant to a code-share arrangement with Delta Airlines, Inc.
(Delta) whereby Air Jamaica will place its code on Delta’s nonstop
Atlanta-St. Lucia flights.

Date and citation of last action:  April 20, 2004, in this docket

Applicant representative:  George U. Carneal<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT Analyst:  Gordon H. Bingham<PHONE_NUMBER>

Pleadings:  None filed

						DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved 								Action date:  April 21, 2005

Effective dates of authority granted:  April 21, 2005-April 21, 2006

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  The authority
granted is consistent with the overall state of aviation relations
between the United States and Jamaica and between the United States and
St. Lucia.

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  X  Standard exemption
conditions (attached), Air Jamaica’s foreign air carrier permit (Order
89-3-74) and the conditions imposed on Air Jamaica and Delta on March 8,
2004, in Docket OST-2003-16071.

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis:  None

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) the applicant was qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (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

Attachment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

												05/2004


 Forwarded by John Silvasi/ RTP/ USEPA/ US on 08/ 11/ 2005 08: 32 AM

John Silvasi/ RTP/ USEPA/ US 08/ 10/ 2005 02: 35 PM T o Art Fraas, Amy Flynn c c Tom Helms, Lydia Wegman/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Rich Damberg/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Jim Ketcham Colwill, Sara Schneeberg, Jan Tierney/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EP A, Robert Meyers/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EP A, Geoffrey Wilcox/ DC/ USEPA/ US@ EP A S u b j e c t Revised RACT sections 8 hr O3 NAAQS implementation rule Hi, Art & Amy The revisions reflect your faxed comments of 8/ 8/ 05, but we have added a bit of additional text in response to your changes, which we can discuss if you need.

With regard to the relationship between MACT, LAER and BACT to RACT, we do not believe we can provide a blanket statement that just because a source meets these other standards that they in all cases meet RACT. There are a number of considerations, including the ones mentioned below in bullets. Background information on factors affecting whether a prior control determination results in RACT level control Sources subject to 8 hour ozone nonattainment RACT requirements may previously have been subject to MACT for toxic pollutants or to BACT ( best available control technology for large new or modified sources in attainment areas for a pollutant), LAER ( lowest achievable emissions rate for large new or modified emissions sources in nonattainment area for a particular pollutant), or settlements of of lawsuits regarding a source's compliance with new source requirements in nonattainment areas ( NSR) or attainment areas ( PSD). These determinations may have required controls that are as stringent or more stringent than the RACT level of control for 8 hour ozone precursors ( VOC or NOx). On the other hand, in the past states and EPA have found that a prior control determination may not assure RACT level control of either ozone precursor for reasons such as the following:

° The prior determination may have focused on other pollutants and program purposes and therefore may not have required any control of VOC or NOx.

° The prior determination my have focused on other pollutants and program purposes, and may have resulted in some limited reduction in an ozone precursor that does not represent RACT equivalent control ( e. g., a MACT standard that allows substitution of non HAP VOCs for HAP VOCs may not result in significant VOC reduction).

° The prior determination may have involved review of some, but not all, of the emission points subject to RACT.

° Applicability thresholds for the prior determination may have been higher than the applicability threshold for RACT that exists in the nonattainment area.

° Costs of an existing control technology may have dropped since the prior determination.

° Control efficiency of an existing control technology may have significantly increased since the prior determination.

° New control technologies may have become available since the prior determination.

John J. Silvasi Environmental Engineer Ozone Policy and Strategies Group ( C539 02) Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 919 541 5666 ( v); 919 541 0824 ( fax) silvasi. john@ epa. govPer your request on the fax, I'm also attaching the portion of our draft Response to Comment document dealing with the issue in the footnote regarding the IPM runs for CAIR. Attached is a redline strikeout comparison of the RACT portions of the 8 hr O3 rule compared with a modified version of the 7/ 19/ 05 version we sent. The modifications to the 7/ 19/ 05 version used for the comparison reflect the revisions we sent you on 8/ 2 and 8/ 3.