[Federal Register: April 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 79)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 21814-21818]
[DOCID:fr23ap08-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 39

[Docket Nos. AD08-6-000 and RM05-30-000]

Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability
Organization; and Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and
Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards; Statement of
Administrative Policy on Processing Reliability Notices of Penalty and
Order Revising Statement in Order No. 672

Issued April 17, 2008.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Final Rule: Statement of Administrative Policy.

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

SUMMARY: On February 3, 2006, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
issued a Final Rule (Order No. 672) implementing Subtitle A
(Reliability Standards) of the Electricity Modernization Act of 2005,
which is Title XII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). The
Commission is issuing a policy statement that adopts administrative
policy on Commission review of notices of penalty for violation of
Reliability Standards and that modifies Order No. 672.

Dates: Effective Date: April 17, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roger P. Morie, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Christy Walsh (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Before Commissioners: Joseph T. Kelliher, Chairman; Suedeen G.
Kelly, Marc Spitzer, Philip D. Moeller, and Jon Wellinghoff.

    1. On February 3, 2006, the Commission issued a Final Rule (Order
No. 672),\1\ implementing Subtitle A (Reliability Standards) of the
Electricity Modernization Act of 2005, which is Title XII of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005.\2\ Among other things, Order No. 672 amended the
Commission's regulations to implement section 215(e) of the Federal
Power Act (FPA), which authorizes the Electric Reliability Organization
(ERO) to impose a penalty for a violation of a Reliability Standard by
a user, owner or operator of the Bulk-Power System, subject to an
opportunity for Commission review.\3\ In this order, the Commission
adopts this statement of administrative policy on Commission review of
these penalties.\4\ In addition, the Commission modifies our statement
in Order No. 672 that any settlement of an alleged violation of a
Reliability Standard that the ERO files with the Commission should be
filed for information purposes only and that these settlements will not
be subject to Commission review pursuant to section 39.7(e) of our
regulations.\5\ Any settlement filed by the ERO after the date of this
order will be subject to Commission review pursuant to section 39.7(e),
although the Commission continues to encourage these settlements and
expects that it will normally allow ERO or Regional Entity settlements
to become effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Rules Concerning Certification of the Electric Reliability
Organization; Procedures for the Establishment, Approval, and
Enforcement of Electric Reliability Standards, Order No. 672, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,204 (2006), order on reh'g, Order No. 672-A,
FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,212 (2006).
    \2\ Public Law No. 109-58, Title XII, Subtitle A, 119 Stat. 594,
941, codified at 16 U.S.C. 824o (Supp. V 2005).
    \3\ These implementing regulations are found in Part 39 of our
regulations, 18 CFR Part 39 (2007).
    \4\ FPA section 215(e)(3) empowers the Commission itself to
impose a penalty against a user, owner or operator for a violation
of a Reliability Standard. This order does not address the
Commission's procedures for imposing these penalties. The Commission
discussed these procedures in Statement of Administrative Policy
Regarding the Process for Assessing Civil Penalties, 117 FERC ]
61,317, at P 5 & n.15 (2006).
    \5\ See Order No. 672 at P 598.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Background

    2. Pursuant to FPA section 215(e)(1),\6\ the North American
Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), in its capacity as

the nation's ERO,\7\ may impose a penalty on a user, owner or operator
of the Bulk-Power System for a violation of a Reliability Standard
approved by the Commission. Pursuant to FPA section 215(e)(4),\8\ the
Commission authorized NERC to delegate authority to impose such
penalties to eight Regional Entities through Commission-approved
Delegation Agreements.\9\ The Commission also approved, subject to
further modifications, NERC's Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
Program (CMEP), which establishes procedures for Regional Entities to
impose penalties and for NERC to review them, whether a registered
entity appeals a Regional Entity determination, agrees not to contest
it, or enters into a settlement with respect to the penalty.\10\ NERC
itself may also impose a penalty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(1) (Supp. V (2005)).
    \7\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 116 FERC ] 61,062
(ERO Certification Order), order on reh'g and compliance, 117 FERC ]
61,126 (2006).
    \8\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(4) (Supp. V (2005)).
    \9\ North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ] 61,060
(Delegation Agreement Order), order on reh'g, 120 FERC ] 61,260
(2007), order on responsive filing, 122 FERC ] 61,245 (2008) (Second
Delegation Agreement Order). The Regional Entity Delegation
Agreements went into effect on June 5, 2007. See Delegation
Agreement Between the North American Electric Reliability Corp. and
Texas Regional Entity, a division of ERCOT, 119 FERC ] 61,232
(2007).
    \10\ See id. The relevant CMEP provisions are sections 5.1
through 5.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. FPA section 215(e)(2) provides that a penalty NERC or a Regional
Entity imposes may take effect no earlier than 31 days after NERC files
with the Commission a notice of penalty and the record of
proceedings.\11\ FPA section 215(e)(2) further states, ``Such penalty
shall be subject to review by the Commission, on its own motion or upon
application by the user, owner or operator that is the subject of the
penalty filed within 30 days after the date such notice is filed with
the Commission.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(2) (Supp. V (2005)). See also 18 CFR
39.7(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. In Order No. 693, the Commission approved 83 Reliability
Standards that NERC proposed.\12\ These Reliability Standards generally
became effective on June 18, 2007. The Commission directed in Order No.
693 that NERC and the Regional Entities, as a matter of enforcement
discretion, focus their resources on the most serious violations during
an initial period through December 31, 2007, and that this discretion
should apply to all users, owners and operators of the Bulk-Power
System.\13\ The Commission expects that, in due course, NERC will file
notices of penalty with respect to certain violations of Reliability
Standards that occurred during the June 18 to December 31, 2007 initial
period. The Commission further expects that NERC will file notices of
penalty representing settlements entered into by it or a Regional
Entity of violations that occurred or are alleged to have occurred
during this period. The Commission also expects that, in due course,
NERC will file notices of penalty for violations that occurred or are
alleged to have occurred after this initial six-month period.
Accordingly, the Commission believes that an explanation of how it
plans to process any notice of penalty filed by NERC will afford
entities identified in notices of penalty, and the electric industry as
a whole, increased transparency into the Commission's enforcement
processes involving Reliability Standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Mandatory Reliability Standards for the Bulk-Power System,
Order No. 693, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,242, at P 1 (2007), order on
reh'g, Order No. 693-A, 120 FERC ] 61,053 (2007). The Commission
subsequently approved other Reliability Standards. North American
Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ] 61,260 (2007) (approving
eight regional standards proposed by the Western Electricity
Coordinating Council); Facilities Design, Connections and
Maintenance Reliability Standards (Order No. 705), 121 FERC ] 61,296
(2007); Mandatory Reliability Standards for Critical Infrastructure
Protection (Order No. 706), 122 FERC ] 61,040 (2008).
    \13\ Order No. 693 at P 222.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Commission Review of ERO-Approved Penalties

    5. Pursuant to section 39.7(e)(1) of our regulations, an entity
subject to a notice of penalty may file an application for review of it
within 30 days of the date NERC files the notice of penalty.\14\ Any
answer, intervention or comment to an application for review of a
proposed penalty must be filed within 20 days after the application is
filed, unless otherwise ordered by the Commission.\15\ If the entity
subject to a proposed penalty files an application for review of the
proposed penalty, the Commission will take action on that application
within 60 days of the date on which it is filed, unless the Commission
determines on a case-by-case basis that an alternative expedited
procedure is appropriate.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 18 CFR 39.7(e)(1).
    \15\ 18 CFR 39.7(e)(4). All notices of penalty will receive a
docket number with an ``NP'' prefix, as the Commission's Secretary
stated in a February 7, 2008 notice.
    \16\ 18 CFR 39.7(e)(6). The Commission may determine that an
alternative time period is appropriate at any point within the
``default'' 60-day period that section 39.7(e)(6) establishes. If
the Commission determines to extend that period in a particular
proceeding, it will issue an order establishing the alternative time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. In addition, any proposed penalty filed by NERC is subject to
review by the Commission on its own motion within 30 days after the
date on which NERC files the notice of penalty.\17\ Should the
Commission determine to review a proposed penalty on its own motion, it
will issue an order initiating review of the proposed penalty and
establishing a filing date for any answers, interventions or comments.
The Commission's regulations do not state when answers, interventions
and comments ordinarily would be filed if the Commission were to
initiate review of a notice of penalty. However, we generally will
establish the filing deadline as 20 days after the date of the
Commission's order initiating a review of a proposed penalty on its own
motion. Likewise, the Commission's regulations do not specify a default
time period for the Commission to complete the review of a notice of
penalty on its own motion. The Commission nevertheless anticipates that
it would ordinarily issue a determination within 60 days of ordering
that review, unless issues in a particular case require a longer period
for consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 18 CFR 39.7(e)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Section 39.7(e)(1) provides that the Commission may take action
within 30 days after NERC files a notice of penalty, other than moving
to review the notice of penalty, to prevent a proposed penalty from
being affirmed by operation of law on the expiration of that 30-day
period. For example, the Commission could issue an order stating that
it requires more than 30 days to determine whether it should review a
proposed penalty on its own motion. While we anticipate that the
Commission will issue such orders rarely, in appropriate instances, the
Commission retains the option of doing so. Such an order will not
solicit answers, intervention or comments. If the Commission determines
to review the notice of penalty, it will issue a subsequent order
initiating review of the proposed penalty and establishing a filing
deadline for any answers, intervention or comments. Should the
Commission decide not to review the notice of penalty, the Commission
will issue an order terminating the proceeding. The proposed penalty
shall be affirmed by operation of law immediately upon the issuance of
that order.
    8. We wish to make clear that in an application for review of a
proposed penalty filed by NERC, an entity may seek review of the amount
of the proposed penalty or its type (i.e., argue that a proposed
monetary penalty should be a non-monetary penalty, for example) as well
as of any determinations underlying the proposed

penalty, including whether a violation of a Commission-approved
Reliability Standard occurred or whether there is a sufficient factual
record to support any such determination.\18\ Likewise, if the
Commission moves to review a proposed penalty, it may review the amount
or type of the proposed penalty, as well as any determinations
underlying it, such as the existence of one or more violations of a
Commission-approved Reliability Standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Order No. 672 at P 508 (allowing the Commission to
remand a penalty to the ERO for additional fact-finding
proceedings). Nevertheless, for example, it would not be
appropriate, absent extraordinary circumstances, for an entity that
applies for a review of a notice of penalty to contest a finding of
violation included in it if that entity had admitted or not
contested a finding of violation, as set forth in the record of
proceedings the NERC submits with a notice of penalty. Similarly, we
ordinarily would look with great disfavor on an entity's attempt in
an application for review to contest a fact or matter if that entity
stipulated to it, as described in the record of proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Section 215(e)(6) of the FPA states that a penalty imposed for a
violation of a Reliability Standard ``shall bear a reasonable relation
to the seriousness of the violation and shall take into consideration
the efforts of [the registered entity] to remedy the violation in a
timely manner.'' \19\ When reviewing a notice of penalty, whether
pursuant to an application for review or on our own motion, we will
conduct a de novo review of the record of the proceeding below to
ascertain whether the record contains adequate evidence that the
proposed penalty determination accords with this test. \20\ We observe
in this regard that FPA section 215(e)(2) states that in any proceeding
to review a notice of penalty, the Commission must provide notice and
an opportunity for hearing that ``may consist solely of the record
before the ERO and opportunity for the presentation of supporting
reasons to affirm, modify, or set aside the penalty.'' \21\ As we
stated in Order No. 672, based on this provision, we expect in most
instances not to open the record set forth in or accompanying a notice
of penalty to additional material from third parties.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(6) (Supp. V (2005)).
    \20\ See Order No. 672 at P 614 (de novo review is consistent
with the practice of other administrative agencies that review
sanctions imposed by their associated self-regulatory
organizations). We concluded in the Delegation Agreement Order that
a Regional Entity or NERC may not impose a penalty in an
adjudication without concluding that the preponderance of the
evidence supports the penalty. Delegation Agreement Order at P 146.
    \21\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(2) (Supp. V (2005)).
    \22\ Order No. 672 at P 511. In this regard, we emphasize our
agreement in the ERO Certification Order at P 491 that NERC affords
appropriate deference in its procedures to the Regional Entities'
role as reliability managers and their familiarity with operating
conditions by prohibiting NERC's consideration on appeal of any fact
that is not in the record compiled by the relevant Regional Entity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, the Commission retains the discretion in particular cases
to permit additions to the record with respect to a notice of
penalty.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ See 18 CFR 39.7(e)(2) (an applicant for Commission review
of a penalty in a notice of penalty may support its explanation by
providing information that is not included in the ERO's record) and
39.7(e)(3) (when reviewing a notice of penalty, the Commission may
``establish a hearing before an administrative law judge or initiate
such further procedures as it determines to be appropriate'').
However, in neither of these situations is the Commission required
to admit into the record information or documents proffered by
parties to the review proceeding. In particular, the Commission
would look with disfavor on admitting into the record in a
proceeding to review a notice of penalty documents or information
that a party had an opportunity to move into the record before the
Regional Entity, but failed to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. We believe that entities that are subject to Reliability
Standards should have notice of the general criteria the Commission
will use to determine whether it will review particular notice of
penalty on its own motion. We will use the following principles in this
matter. First, the Commission does not anticipate moving to review
every notice of penalty that NERC files, or even most. While the
Commission is required to review every notice of penalty for which a
registered entity files an application for review, the Commission's
limited resources would likely preclude review of all uncontested
notices of penalty. Second, as described earlier, the Commission has
approved NERC's CMEP as the framework for NERC's enforcement authority
under section 215 of the FPA, as well as NERC's delegation of
enforcement powers to Regional Entities through the Delegation
Agreements. The Commission sees no general need to review each notice
of penalty for which a Regional Entity has developed a record and which
it has approved, and which NERC has reviewed for sufficiency and
consistency. Third, the Commission recognizes that, on a continuing
basis, Regional Entities and NERC retain an element of enforcement
discretion similar to our own discretion in enforcement matters.\24\
Reviewing every uncontested notice of penalty on our own motion would
be inconsistent with this recognition and would ultimately weaken the
enforcement efforts of the Regional Entities and NERC.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Order No. 693 at P 225 (``The Commission agrees that,
separate from our specific directive that all concerned focus their
resources on the most serious violations during an initial period,
the ERO and Regional Entities retain enforcement discretion as would
any enforcement entity.'').
    \25\ Id. (observing that NERC's Sanction Guidelines, which set
forth the principles under which NERC and the Regional Entities will
determine penalties, provide flexibility as to establishing the
appropriate penalty within the range of applicable penalties).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Nonetheless, because the Commission bears ultimate
responsibility for the enforcement of Reliability Standards, we may
review a notice of penalty even if the registered entity that is the
subject of the notice of penalty does not file an application for
review.\26\ In determining whether to review a notice of penalty (which
will occur prior to receiving an application for review), we would look
first to the apparent relative seriousness of the violation at issue in
the notice of penalty. For example, we would evaluate the seriousness
of a violation by the combination of violation risk factor and
violation severity level that NERC has assigned and that we have
approved for particular requirements of the Reliability Standards
implicated in the notice of penalty.\27\ We also will analyze notices
of penalty to ascertain the potential risk to the reliability of the
Bulk-Power System, as well as any actual harm, presented by their
particular fact patterns. The more serious a violation described in a
notice of penalty appears to be, the more likely it is that we would
review the proposed penalty. In addition, the Commission retains the
authority to review notices of penalty on its own motion to ensure that
penalties are applied in a reasonably consistent manner, or to improve
compliance with Reliability Standards and thereby increase the
reliability of the Bulk-Power System.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ It is possible that a registered entity will file an
application for review of a notice of penalty after the Commission
has issued an order stating that it will review the notice of
penalty on its own motion. In that situation, the Commission will
adhere to the procedural provisions of section 39.7(e)(4) and (e)(6)
with respect to an application for review of a notice of penalty.
    \27\ Pursuant to section 4.1 of NERC's Sanction Guidelines, NERC
and Regional Entities use the intersection of the violation risk
factor and violation severity level in setting the initial range of
the Base Penalty Amount that is calculated in the process of
determining an appropriate penalty for a particular violation. See
North American Electric Reliability Corp., 119 FERC ] 61,248, at P
74 (2007). While the Commission has approved or directed revisions
to violation risk factors for all requirements of Reliability
Standards it has currently approved to apply nationwide, NERC's
proposed violation severity levels for these standards are currently
pending before the Commission in Docket No. RR08-4-000. Pending
Commission review of this filing, as an interim measure when
determining penalties, NERC and Regional Entities may use existing
Levels of Non-Compliance assigned to particular standards to
substitute for violation severity levels. Id. P 79.
    \28\ See Second Delegation Agreement Order at P 60 (The
Commission's discretion to review penalty determinations on its own
motion includes, but is broader than, ascertaining whether they
clearly conflict with the goal of consistent national reliability
enforcement or whether their revision is needed for oversight of
Regional Entity compliance activities, citing Delegation Agreement
Order at P 173).

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

    12. Section 39.7(e)(3) of our regulations provides that neither an
application for review of a notice of penalty nor the Commission's
initiation of a review of a notice of penalty will operate as a stay of
the proposed penalty unless the Commission otherwise orders, upon
application by the subject of a notice of penalty or upon the
Commission's own motion. Nevertheless, as a matter of policy, the
Commission intends as a general matter to stay any proposed penalty
under Commission review. Not doing so would require a user, owner or
operator to pay a penalty that the Commission may later set aside or
modify. To the extent that any proposed penalty is later affirmed by
the Commission, the penalty amount must be paid with interest from the
date of the stay.
    13. Pursuant to section 39.7(e)(5) of our regulations, in any
proceeding to review a proposed penalty, the Commission, after public
notice and opportunity for hearing, may by order affirm, set aside, or
modify the proposed penalty, or remand the determination of the
proposed penalty, or its form or amount, to the ERO for further
proceedings. Any party to the proceeding may seek rehearing of the
Commission's order, as described in Rule 713 of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 18 CFR 385.713 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Commission Review of Settlements of Reliability Penalties by
Regional Entities or NERC

A. Order No. 672

    14. Order No. 672 stated the ERO should file, for informational
purposes only, any settlement of an alleged violation regardless of
whether the agreement contains an admission by the settling user, owner
or operator. While settlements will be made public, Order No. 672
provided that settlements would not be noticed for public comment; nor
would they be subject to Commission review pursuant to section 39.7(e)
of the Commission's regulations regarding Commission review of a notice
of penalty.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Order No. 672 at P 598. The Commission presumes that a
settlement will require a registered entity that is a party to
forego any right to file an application for Commission review of the
settlement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Commission Determination

    15. Upon reconsideration based on our experience since Order No.
672 issued, the Commission revises its policy stated in Order No. 672
with regard to reviewing settlements of alleged violations. In
modifying our policy regarding ERO and Regional Entity settlements, we
note that the Commission may change its policy if it provides, as it
does here, a reasoned basis for that change.\31\ The Commission
believes that, on reflection, our statement in Order No. 672 is not in
the public interest for several reasons. First, it is contrary to
Commission policy regarding settlements in other contexts. For example,
pursuant to Rule 602 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, the Commission must review written offers of settlement
filed in any proceeding pending before the Commission.\32\ Further, the
Commission reviews settlements entered into by the Commission's Office
of Enforcement.\33\ Second, after issuing Order No. 672, the Commission
decided that the ERO should have authority on its own motion to reject
settlements into which Regional Entities have entered.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ E.g., B&J Oil and Gas v. FERC, 353 F.3d 71 (D.C. Cir.
2004).
    \32\ 18 CFR 385.602(g)(3), (h)(1)(i) (2007).
    \33\ See, eg., Statement of Administrative Policy Regarding the
Process for Assessing Civil Penalties, 117 FERC ] 61,317, at P 2
(2006) (noting that ``civil penalties often are negotiated as part
of a stipulation and agreement resolving compliance issues'' and
that ``[i]n such cases the civil penalty is imposed through a
Commission order approving the negotiated agreement. * * *'') See
also, e.g., In re Gexa Energy, LLC, 120 FERC ] 61,175 (2007); In re
Cleco Power, LLC, 119 FERC ] 61,271 (2007).
    \34\ Delegation Agreement Order at P 107.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. The Commission does not believe that it should afford
settlements entered into by the ERO or a Regional Entity relating to an
alleged or confirmed violation of Commission-approved mandatory
Reliability Standards more deference than we would afford to those
entered into by the Office of Enforcement or approved by the
Commission's Administrative Law Judges. Nor should the Commission
abstain from reviewing settlements approved by the ERO in the manner in
which it has permitted the ERO to review Regional Entity settlements.
Finally, we do not believe it reasonable to treat settlements as
categorically different than other notices of penalty.
    17. Not allowing Commission review of a settlement would mean, for
example, that an entity that does not contest a proposed penalty would
nonetheless have its notice of penalty subject to review by the
Commission, whereas an entity that initially contested the proposed
penalty but subsequently settled with the Regional Entity would not
have its settlement subject to review by the Commission. This
distinction makes little sense and could actually increase litigation
(in an effort to produce formal settlements) rather than reduce it.
Therefore, any settlement entered into by the ERO or a Regional Entity
after the date of this order will be subject to Commission review
pursuant to section 39.7(e) of the Commission's regulations.
    18. As a final matter, we wish to make it clear that the Commission
continues to encourage settlements by Regional Entities and NERC.\35\
Similar to the Commission's statement that it does not expect the ERO
to reject Regional Entity settlements as a normal practice, the
Commission expects that it will normally allow ERO or Regional Entity
settlements to become effective.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See ERO Certification Order at P 479; Delegation Agreement
Order at P 107.
    \36\ Id.

    By the Commission.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.

APPENDIX

FLOW CHART ILLUSTRATING NOTICE OF PENALTY PROCESSES

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR23AP08.000

[FR Doc. E8-8745 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-C


[Federal Register: June 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 104)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 26297-26299]
[DOCID:fr02jn09-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0424]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone: F/V PATRIOT, Massachusetts Bay, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is creating a temporary safety zone
surrounding the sunken fishing vessel PATRIOT located approximately 17
miles northeast of Scituate, Massachusetts in Massachusetts Bay. The
safety zone is in effect while the vessel remains on the sea floor and
subsequently re-floated during salvage operations. The safety zone will
then move with the vessel until the PATRIOT is safely moored. This
action is necessary to ensure that vessels are not endangered by
conducting dredging, diving, anchoring, fishing or other activities
while the PATRIOT sits on the sea floor. This action is also necessary
to assist in providing a safe work environment for those conducting the
salvage operation. This temporary rulemaking is needed to protect the
environment, the commercial fishing industry, salvage operators and the
general public from potential hazards associated with the sunken vessel
and from potential hazards associated with the salvage of the vessel.

DATES: This rule is effective from May 20, 2009 through June 10, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-0424 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket
Search option on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2009-0424
in the Docket ID box, pressing Enter, and then clicking on the item in
the Docket ID column. They are also available for inspection or copying
at the following location: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail Chief Eldridge McFadden, U.S. Coast
Guard, Sector Boston, Waterways Management Division, telephone 617-223-
5160, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because initial immediate action was needed
to protect the public from the hazards posed by an unknown underwater
object located in Massachusetts Bay. This object was later identified
as the F/V PATRIOT, located in approximately 95 feet of water 17 miles
northeast of Scituate, Massachusetts. This rule replaces the existing
safety zone set to May 20, 2009, to ensure, to the extent practicable,
the immediate, continued protections for the environment, the
commercial fishing industry, salvage operators and the general public
from the potential hazards associated with the salvage of the F/V
PATRIOT. The loss of the F/V PATRIOT created significant interest in
the local fishing community and considerable media interest. Salvage of
the F/V PATRIOT has the potential of attracting a variety of on-lookers
who may be searching for unanswered questions or are just curious;
operations also have the potential of generating considerable media
interest. An uncontrolled gathering of vessels surrounding the location
of salvage operations has the potential of creating an unsafe work
environment during salvage operations. It would be contrary to the
public interest for the existing safety zone to lapse on the eve of
such operations.
    For the same reason, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard
finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than
30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    On January 3, 2009, the F/V PATRIOT, a 54-foot steel-hull boat,
sank with the loss of two crewmembers onboard. The vessel was reported
to

have an estimated 5,000 gallons of fuel onboard. There were no
survivors and the exact position of the vessel was not immediately
known. On January 8, 2009, the Coast Guard established a temporary
safety zone around a reported underwater object believed to be the F/V
PATRIOT, located in Massachusetts Bay approximately 17 miles northeast
of Scituate, Massachusetts, in position 42[deg]24[min]27.34[sec] N.,
70[deg]27[min]17.23[sec] W.
    On January 23, 2009, underwater exploratory operations with
photographic equipment confirmed that the object was the F/V PATRIOT.
The owners of the vessel intend to conduct dive and salvage operations
on the vessel. The Coast Guard is implementing this safety zone to
surround the F/V PATRIOT and the salvage equipment transporting it from
its current resting place to its future berth.

Discussion of Rule

    This regulation creates a temporary safety zone around the F/V
PATRIOT currently located in Massachusetts Bay, Massachusetts, 17 miles
northeast of Scituate, Massachusetts. The safety zone will protect the
vessel until it is salvaged and subsequently transported to the shore,
at which time the safety zone will no longer be enforced. This
regulation is necessary to allow the owners of the F/V PATRIOT to
safely conduct salvage operations and transport the vessel to shore.
This safety zone is in place to protect the public from the hazards
associated with a salvage operation. The zone extends for 500 yards, in
all directions, from the F/V PATRIOT, currently in approximate position
42[deg]24[min]27.34[sec] N, 70[deg]27[min]17.23[sec] W. Once F/V
PATRIOT has been re-floated, the safety zone shall remain in effect,
reduce in size to 50 yards and move with the vessel until the vessel is
safely moored.
    This action is intended to prohibit vessels and persons from
entering, transiting, anchoring, diving, dredging, dumping, fishing,
trawling, laying cable, or conducting salvage operations in this zone
except as authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Boston,
Massachusetts. Public notifications about this safety zone will be made
through broadcast and local notice to mariners. Marine traffic may
transit safely in surrounding areas, but are restricted from entering
the area delineated above.
    The Captain of the Port anticipates minimal negative impact on
vessel traffic due to the limited area and duration covered by this
safety zone.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    This regulation is not significant regulatory action as it
encompasses a sunken fishing vessel and the immediate area surrounding
it.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule may affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit, anchor, or fish in a portion of the waterway covered by the
safety zone. This rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The
area this rule is affecting is very small and there is plenty of water
in the area for vessels to transit around.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g.), of the Instruction. This rule involves a temporary safety
zone which may last longer than a week and is not an emergency
situation. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination will be available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T01-0424, to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-0424  Safety Zone: F/V PATRIOT, Massachusetts Bay, MA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters, from surface to bottom, of Massachusetts Bay within a 500-yard
radius of the F/V PATRIOT while located in its currently approximate
position of 42[deg]24'27'' N, 070[deg]27'17'' W. When the vessel is re-
floated during salvage operations, the safety zone will reduce to a 50-
yard radius and move with the F/V PATRIOT until safely moored.
    (b) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
Designated representative means any commissioned, warrant, and petty
officers of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Auxiliary, and local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels who
have been authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port
Boston.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR
165.23 apply.
    (2) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  165.23 of
this part, all vessels and persons are prohibited from entering the
safety zone without permission from the Captain of the Port Boston. In
addition, all vessels and persons are prohibited from anchoring,
diving, dredging, dumping, fishing, trawling, laying cable, or
conducting salvage operations in this zone except as authorized by the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port Boston.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the Coast Guard
Captain of the Port Boston or designated representative.
    (4) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel or designated
representative by siren, radio, flashing light or other means, the
operator of the vessel shall proceed as directed.
    (5) Persons desiring to enter the safety zone may request
permission from the Captain of the Port Boston via VHF Channel 16 or
via telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (d) Enforcement Period. This rule will be enforced from May 20,
2009, until midnight June 10, 2009.

    Dated: May 20, 2009.
John N. Healey,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Boston.
[FR Doc. E9-12706 Filed 6-1-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 208 (Tuesday, October 28, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 64244]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25612]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2014-106]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before November 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2014-
0783 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Troutman,<PHONE_NUMBER>, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20951.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 21, 2014.
Dale A. Bouffiou,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2014-0783.
    Petitioner: Team 5, LLC.
    Section of 14 CFR: 61.113(a) and (b), 91.103, 91.119(c), 91.121,
91.151(a), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), and 91.417(a) and
(b).
    Description of Relief Sought: The petitioner is seeking an
exemption to commercially operate their unmanned aircraft systems
(UAS), 55 pounds or less, for aerial photography in the motion picture
and television industries.

[FR Doc. 2014-25612 Filed 10-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 11, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 154)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 48627]
[DOCID:fr11au10-24]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0871; FRL-9188-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Transportation Conformity Regulations; Withdrawal of Proposed
Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On June 18, 2010 (75 FR 34669), EPA published a proposed rule
to approve revisions to the Maryland State Implementation Plan (SIP).
The revisions amended Maryland's transportation conformity regulations
and general conformity regulations. EPA's approval did not include
Maryland's regulation regarding conflict resolution associated with
conformity determinations (COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>). EPA has determined that
it cannot proceed with approval of these SIP revisions until and unless
it also approves Maryland's regulation regarding conflict resolution
associated with conformity determinations. Therefore, EPA is
withdrawing its proposed rule to approve Maryland's conformity
regulations. This withdrawal action is being taken under section 110 of
the Clean Air Act.

DATES: The proposed rule published June 18, 2010 (75 FR 34669) is
withdrawn as of August 11, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0871 for
this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at Air Protection Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Martin Kotsch,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

    Dated: August 2, 2010.
W. C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2010-19804 Filed 8-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 198 (Tuesday, October 13, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 64608]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22520]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. 2020-70]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Premier Air
Charters, Inc.

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before November 2, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2020-0771
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Ross,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 2, 2020.
Brandon Roberts,
Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2020-0771.
    Petitioner: Premier Air Charters, Inc.
    Sections of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  135.339(a)(2).
    Description of Relief Sought: Due to the COVID-19 national health
emergency, the petitioner requests a one-time exemption to allow an
FAA-approved Designee Pilot Examiner who is employed by the company and
meets all other requirements to serve as a part 135 check airman
without conducting a proficiency or competency check under the
observation of an FAA inspector.

[FR Doc. 2020-22520 Filed 10-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 27, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 80781-80782]
[FR Doc No: 2011-33046]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 219

[Docket No. FRA-2001-11213, Notice No. 15]
RIN 2130-AA81

Alcohol and Drug Testing: Determination of Minimum Random Testing
Rates for 2012

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of determination.

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

    According to data from FRA's Management Information System, the
rail industry's random drug testing

positive rate has remained below 1.0 percent for the last two years.
The Federal Railroad Administrator (Administrator) has therefore
determined that the minimum annual random drug testing rate for the
period January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2012, will remain at 25
percent of covered railroad employees. In addition, because the
industry-wide random alcohol testing violation rate has remained below
0.5 percent for the last two years, the Administrator has determined
that the minimum random alcohol testing rate will remain at 10 percent
of covered railroad employees for the period January 1, 2012, through
December 31, 2012. Railroads remain free, as always, to conduct random
testing at higher rates.

DATES: This notice of determination is effective December 27, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lamar Allen, Alcohol and Drug Program
Manager, Office of Safety Enforcement, Mail Stop 25, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>); or Kathy Schnakenberg, FRA Alcohol/Drug
Program Specialist, (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 20, 2011.
Joseph C. Szabo,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-33046 Filed 12-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 201 (Monday, October 19, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63147-63151]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26217]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3986; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-057-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -402 airplanes.
This proposed AD was prompted by reports of chafing damage due to
insufficient clearance on the main landing gear (MLG) stabilizer brace,
the nacelle A-frame structure, and the adjacent electrical wiring
harnesses. An insufficient fillet radius may also exist on certain
airplanes. This proposed AD would require, depending on airplane
configuration, an inspection of the nacelle A-frame structure for
insufficient fillet radius; an inspection for cracking of affected
structure, and rework or repair if necessary, and rework of the nacelle
A-frame structure; repetitive inspections of the nacelle A-frame
structure and the MLG stabilizer brace for insufficient clearance and
damage, and repair if necessary, and rework of the nacelle A-frame
structure, which would terminate the repetitive inspections;
installation of new stop brackets and a shim on each MLG stabilizer
brace assembly; and rework of the electrical wiring harnesses in the
nacelle area. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct chafing
damage and subsequent premature cracking and fracture of the nacelle A-
frame structure, which could result in failure of the MLG stabilizer
brace and loss of the MLG down-lock indication, which could adversely
affect the safe landing of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 3,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt Boulevard,
Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 416-375-
4539; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.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>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3986; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-3986;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-057-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,

economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2014-45, dated December 23, 2014 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition on certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-
400, -401, and -402 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    The aeroplane manufacturer has discovered that an insufficient
fillet radius may exist on the flange of the nacelle A-frame
structure on certain aeroplanes. There have also been several in-
service reports of chafing damage on the main landing gear (MLG)
stabilizer brace, the nacelle A-frame structure and its adjacent
electrical wiring harnesses due to insufficient clearance.
    An insufficient fillet radius and chafing damage on the nacelle
A-frame structure and MLG stabilizer brace could lead to premature
cracking. Fracture of the nacelle A-frame structure or failure of
the MLG stabilizer brace could adversely affect the safe landing of
the aeroplane. The damage to the electrical wiring harnesses could
result in the loss of the MLG downlock indication.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates the inspection and rework of the
nacelle A-frame structure, and the rework of the forward MLG
stabilizer brace assembly and the electrical harnesses in the
nacelle area adjacent to the A-frame structure.

    Required actions include, depending on airplane configuration, the
following actions:
     A detailed inspection of the nacelle A-frame structure for
insufficient fillet radius, an eddy current or fluorescent dye
penetrant inspection for cracking of affected structure, and rework or
repair if necessary.
     Rework of the left-hand (LH) side and right-hand (RH) side
nacelle A-frame structure, including doing a measurement of the
clearance between the fasteners/A-frame structure and MLG stabilizer
brace assembly and making sure no fouling condition exists, and repair
if necessary.
     Repetitive detailed inspections of the nacelle A-frame
structure and the MLG stabilizer brace for insufficient clearance and
damage, and repair if necessary.
     Rework of the nacelle A-frame structure, including a
measurement of the clearance between the A-frame structure and MLG
stabilizer brace assembly and a fluorescent dye penetrant inspection or
high frequency eddy current inspection for cracking and repair if
necessary, which would terminate the repetitive inspections.
     Installation of new stop brackets and a shim on each MLG
stabilizer brace assembly.
     Rework of the electrical wiring harnesses in the nacelle
area. The rework includes a detailed inspection of the conduit assembly
for certain conditions and repair if any condition is found,
replacement of damaged conduit, a measurement of the clearance between
the stabilizer brace and electrical harness on both LH and RH nacelles
to make sure there is 0.100 inch (2.54 millimeters (mm)) minimum
clearance between the MLG stabilizer brace, and a check for damage on
the A-frame structure and MLG stabilizer brace and repair if necessary.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3986.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued the following service information.
     ModSum IS4Q2400028, Revision B, dated June 22, 2012; and
ModSum IS4Q240029, Revision A, dated July 6, 2014. These modsums
describe procedures for rerouting certain electrical harnesses and
installing grommets.
     ModSum IS4Q5450002, Revision B, dated April 30, 2012. This
modsum describes procedures for installing specified fasteners on the
MLG A-frame, in both the LH and RH nacelles.
     ModSum IS4Q5450003, Revision C, released November 29,
2012. This modsum describes procedures for trimming the horizontal and
vertical stiffeners on the MLG A frame in both the LH and RH nacelles.
     Service Bulletin 84-32-112, Revision B, dated September
12, 2014, and Goodrich Service Bulletin 46400-32-102R1, Revision 1,
dated June 24, 2013, as referenced in Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-
32-112, Revision B, dated September 12, 2014. This service information
describes procedures for incorporating Bombardier ModSum 4-902416 by
installing new stop brackets and new stop shims for all MLG stabilizer
brace assemblies.
     Service Bulletin 84-32-114, Revision A, dated September
18, 2013. This service information describes procedures for rework of
the electrical wiring harnesses in the nacelle area. The rework
includes a detailed inspection of the conduit assembly for certain
conditions and repair, replacement of damaged conduit, a measurement of
the clearance to make sure there is 0.100 inch (2.54 mm) minimum
clearance between the MLG stabilizer brace, and a check for damage on
the A-frame structure and MLG stabilizer brace and repair.
     Service Bulletin 84-54-19, dated April 18, 2013. This
service information describes procedures for detailed inspections of
the nacelle A-frame structure for insufficient fillet radius, an eddy
current or fluorescent dye penetrant inspection for cracking of
affected structure, and rework or repair.
     Service Bulletin 84-54-20, Revision B, dated October 2,
2014. This service information describes procedures for detailed
inspections of the nacelle A-frame structure and the MLG stabilizer
brace for insufficient clearance and damage, and repair. This service
information also describes procedures for rework of the nacelle A-frame
structure, including a measurement of the clearance between the A-frame
structure and MLG stabilizer brace assembly, and a fluorescent dye
penetrant inspection or high frequency eddy current inspection for
cracking and repair, which would end the inspections.
     Service Bulletin 84-54-21, dated May 9, 2013. This service
information describes procedures for rework of the LH side and RH side
nacelle A-frame structure, including a measurement of the clearance
between the fasteners/A-frame structure and MLG stabilizer brace
assembly and to make sure no fouling condition exists, and repair.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this
NPRM.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of this Proposed AD

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

develop on other products of the same type design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 80 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take up to 50 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost $8,452 per
product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be up to $1,016,160, or $12,702 per product.
    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

    Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2015-3986; Directorate
Identifier 2015-NM-057-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 3, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400, -401, and -
402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers (S/Ns)
4001 through 4431 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
Gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of chafing damage due to
insufficient clearance on the main landing gear (MLG) stabilizer
brace, the nacelle A-frame structure, and the adjacent electrical
wiring harnesses. An insufficient fillet radius might also exist on
certain airplanes. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct
chafing damage and subsequent premature cracking and fracture of the
nacelle A-frame structure, which could result in failure of the MLG
stabilizer brace and loss of the MLG down-lock indication, which
could adversely affect the safe landing of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection, Corrective Actions if Necessary, and Rework

    For airplanes having S/Ns 4001 through 4055 inclusive: Do the
actions required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Within 600 flight hours or 100 days after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first: Do a detailed inspection of the
left-hand (LH) side and right-hand (RH) side nacelle A-frame
structure for insufficient fillet radius, in accordance with ``Part
A--Inspection'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-54-19, dated April 18, 2013. If an insufficient
fillet radius exists, before further flight, do an eddy current or
fluorescent dye penetrant inspection for cracking, in accordance
with ``Part A--Inspection'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-54-19, dated April 18, 2013.
    (i) If any cracking is found: Before further flight, repair
using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA;
or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s
TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO).
    (ii) If no cracking is found: Before further flight, rework the
structure, in accordance ``Part B--Rectification'' of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-54-19,
dated April 18, 2013.
    (2) Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Rework the LH side and RH
side nacelle A-frame structure, including doing a measurement of the
clearance between the fasteners/A-frame structure and MLG stabilizer
brace assembly and making sure no fouling condition exists, in
accordance with paragraph 3.B. ``Procedure,'' of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-54-21, dated May 9,
2013. If the clearance is found to be less than 0.100 inch (2.54
millimeters (mm)) between the fasteners/A-frame structure and MLG
stabilizer brace assembly after the rework is done, or a fouling
condition exists during the extension of the MLG after rework is
done, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the
Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s
TCCA DAO.

(h) Repetitive Inspections and Corrective Actions if Necessary

    For airplanes having S/Ns 4056 through 4426 inclusive: Within
600 flight hours or 100 days after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first: Do a detailed inspection of the LH side and
RH side nacelle A-frame structure and upper surface of the MLG
stabilizer brace for insufficient clearance and damage (e.g.,
cracking), in accordance with ``Part A--Inspection,'' of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-54-20,
Revision B, dated October 2, 2014. If no damage is found and
clearance is sufficient: Repeat the inspection thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 600 flight hours until the terminating
action required by paragraph (i) of this AD has been done.
    (1) If a clearance less than 0.100 inch (2.54 mm) exists between
the A-frame structure and the MLG stabilizer brace assembly in the
retracted position, after the rework is done, before further flight,
repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-
170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.
    (2) If any damage is found: Before further flight, repair using
a method approved by the

Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s
TCCA DAO.

(i) Terminating Action for Certain Airplanes

    For airplanes having S/Ns 4056 through 4426 inclusive: Within
6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first; Rework the LH side and RH side nacelle A-
frame structure, including doing a measurement of the clearance
between the A-frame structure and MLG stabilizer brace assembly and
doing a fluorescent dye penetrant inspection or high frequency eddy
current inspection for cracking, in accordance with ``Part B-
Rework,'' of the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service
Bulletin 84-54-20, Revision B, dated October 2, 2014. Accomplishment
of the actions required by this paragraph terminates the repetitive
inspections required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (1) If a clearance less than 0.100 inch (2.54 mm) exists between
the A-frame structure and the MLG stabilizer brace assembly in the
retracted position after the rework is done, before further flight,
repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-
170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.
    (2) If any cracking is found: Before further flight, repair
using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA;
or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.

(j) Modification of MLG Stabilizer Brace Assembly

    For airplanes having S/Ns 4001 through 4431 inclusive with a MLG
stabilizer brace assembly having part number 46400-27 installed:
Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs first; incorporate Bombardier ModSum 4-
902416 by installing new stop brackets and a new shim on each MLG
stabilizer brace assembly, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-112, Revision B,
dated September 12, 2014, and Goodrich Service Bulletin 46400-32-
102R1, Revision 1, dated June 24, 2013, as referenced in Bombardier
Service Bulletin 84-32-112, Revision B, dated September 12, 2014.

(k) Rework of the Electrical Wiring Harnesses

    For airplanes having S/Ns 4001 through 4411 inclusive: Within
6,000 flight hours or 36 months after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first; rework the LH and RH sides of the electrical
wiring harnesses in the nacelle area adjacent to the A-frame
structure, including doing the actions specified in paragraphs
(k)(1) through (k)(4) of this AD, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-
114, Revision A, dated September 18, 2013. If any damage is found on
the A-frame structure or MLG stabilizer brace, before further
flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.
    (1) Doing a detailed inspection of the conduit assembly for the
conditions specified in Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-114,
Revision A, dated September 18, 2013, and, before further flight,
repairing if any condition is found.
    (2) Replacing damaged conduit.
    (3) Measuring the clearance between the stabilizer brace and
electrical harness on both LH and RH nacelles to make sure there is
0.100 inch (2.54 mm) minimum clearance between the MLG stabilizer
brace.
    (4) Checking for damage on the A-frame structure and MLG
stabilizer brace.

(l) Optional Installations

    (1) Installing specified fasteners on the MLG A-frame, in both
LH and RH nacelles, in accordance with Bombardier ModSum
IS4Q5450002, Revision B, dated April 30, 2012, is acceptable for
compliance with the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD,
provided the actions specified in Bombardier ModSum IS4Q5450002 are
done within the compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of this
AD, except where ModSum IS4Q5450002, Revision B, dated April 30,
2012, specifies to contact Bombardier for reduced clearances, before
further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New
York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.
    (2) Trimming the horizontal and vertical stiffeners on MLG A-
frame in both LH and RH nacelles, in accordance with Bombardier
ModSum IS4Q5450003, Revision C, released November 29, 2012, is
acceptable for compliance with the actions specified in paragraph
(i) of this AD, provided the actions specified in Bombardier ModSum
IS4Q5450003 are done within the compliance time specified in
paragraph (i) of this AD, except where ModSum IS4Q5450003, Revision
C, released November 29, 2012, specifies to contact Bombardier for
reduced clearances, before further flight, repair using a method
approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.
    (3) Rerouting certain electrical harnesses and installing
grommets, in accordance with Bombardier ModSum IS4Q2400028, Revision
B, dated June 22, 2012 (for S/Ns 4001 through 4098 inclusive) or
Bombardier ModSum IS4Q2400029, Revision A, dated July 6, 2014 (for
S/Ns 4090 through 4411 inclusive), is acceptable for compliance with
the actions specified in paragraph (k) of this AD, provided the
actions specified in the applicable modsum are done within the
compliance time specified in paragraph (k) of this AD, except where
Bombardier ModSum IS4Q2400028, Revision B, dated June 22, 2012; and
Bombardier ModSum IS4Q2400029, Revision A, dated July 6, 2014;
specify to contact Bombardier to report stabilizer brace or
structural damaged findings, before further flight, repair using a
method approved by the Manager, New York ACO, ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA;
or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO.

(m) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (i) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using the applicable service information
specified in paragraph (m)(1)(i) or (m)(1)(ii) of this AD. This
service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-54-20, dated April 25, 2013.
    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-54-20, Revision A, dated
April 9, 2014.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (j) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using the applicable service information
specified in paragraph (m)(2)(i) or (m)(2)(ii) of this AD. This
service information is not incorporated by reference in this AD.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-112, dated December 20,
2012.
    (ii) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-112, Revision A, dated
April 16, 2014.
    (3) This paragraph provides credit for actions required by
paragraph (k) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-
114, dated June 6, 2013. This service information is not
incorporated by reference in this AD.

(n) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO, ANE-170, 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 ACO, send it to ATTN: Program
Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-
7300; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved
by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(o) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2014-45, dated December
23, 2014, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3986.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet
http://www.bombardier.com. 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<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 5, 2015.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-26217 Filed 10-16-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64838-64839]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26005]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property
at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Seattle, Washington

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the
release of land at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport under the
provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment
Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), now 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 23, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carol Suomi, Manager, Federal
Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Airports Division,
Seattle Airports District Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Suite 250,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Mr. Allan Royal, Port of Seattle Real Estate
Development, at the following address: Mr. Allan Royal, Port of Seattle
Real Estate Development, P.O. Box 68727, Seattle, Washington, 98168.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Peter Doyle, Project Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Seattle
Airports District Office, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Suite 250, Renton,
Washington 98057-3356.
    The request to release property may be reviewed, by appointment, in
person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release property at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport
under the provisions of the AIR 21 (49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2)).
    On August 28, 2012, the FAA determined that the request to release
property at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport submitted by the
airport meets the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part,
no later than November 23, 2012.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The Seattle-Tacoma International Airport is proposing the release
of approximately 40,418 square feet of airport property to Sound
Transit for expansion of the Link Light Rail. This property is needed
to facilitate the next phase of development which will extend the light
rail line 1.6 miles from the airport station to South 200th Street in
the City of SeaTac, WA. The revenue made from this sale will be used
toward an approved noise compatibility project, or an eligible project
under the Airport Improvement Program.

    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect
the application, notice and other documents germane to the application
in person at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, 17801
International Blvd., Seattle, Washington 98158.

    Issued in Renton, Washington on September 26, 2012.
Carol Suomi,
Manager, Seattle Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2012-26005 Filed 10-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE M