[Federal Register: April 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 76)]
[Notices]
[Page 20856]
[DOCID:fr21ap10-80]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1874-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

Virginia; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Virginia (FEMA-1874-DR), dated February 16,
2010, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: April 13, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Virginia is hereby amended to include the
following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely
affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of February 16, 2010.

    Craig, Roanoke, and Tazewell Counties and the Independent Cities
of Fredericksburg and Roanoke for Public Assistance.
    Craig, Roanoke, and Tazewell Counties and the Independent Cities
of Fredericksburg and Roanoke for emergency protective measures
(Category B), including snow assistance, under the Public Assistance
program for any continuous 48-hour period during or proximate to the
incident period.
    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-9122 Filed 4-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 115 (Tuesday, June 16, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34338-34346]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14836]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 61 and 141

[Docket No.: FAA-2015-1846; Notice No. 15-03]
RIN 2120-AK71

Aviation Training Device Credit for Pilot Certification

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This rulemaking proposes to relieve burdens on pilots seeking
to obtain aeronautical experience, training, and certification by
increasing the allowed use of aviation training devices. These actions
are necessary to bring the regulations in line with current needs and
activities of the general aviation training community and pilots.

DATES: Send comments on or before July 16, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-1846
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 (DOT), 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, 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, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Marcel Bernard, Airmen Certification and Training
Branch, Flight Standards Service, AFS-810, Federal Aviation
Administration, 898 Airport Park Road, Suite 204, Glen Burnie, MD
21061; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> x235 email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Anne Moore,
Regulations Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-200, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.). 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.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in 49
U.S.C. 106(f), which establishes the authority of the Administrator to
promulgate regulations and rules; 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires
the Administrator to promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air
commerce by prescribing regulations and setting minimum standards for
other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air
commerce and national security; and 49 U.S.C. 44703(a), which

requires the Administrator to prescribe regulations for the issuance of
airman certificates when the Administrator finds, after investigation,
that an individual is qualified for, and physically able to perform the
duties related to, the position authorized by the certificate.

I. Background

    Since the 1970s, the FAA has gradually expanded the permitted use
of flight simulation for training--first permitting simulation to be
used in air carrier training programs and eventually permitting pilots
to credit time in devices toward the aeronautical experience
requirements for airman certification and recency. Currently, Title 14
of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 60 governs the
qualification of flight simulation training devices (FSTDs), which
include full flight simulators (FFSs) level A through D and flight
training devices (FTDs) levels 4 through 7. The FAA has, however,
approved other devices, including aviation training devices (ATDs), for
use in pilot certification training, under the authority provided in 14
CFR 61.4(c).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 61.4(c) states that the ``Administrator may approve
a device other than a flight simulator or flight training device for
specific purposes.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For over 30 years, the FAA has issued letters of authorization
(LOAs) to manufacturers of ground trainers, personal computer-based
aviation training devices (PCATD), FTDs (levels 1 through 3), basic
aviation training devices (BATD), and advanced aviation training
devices (AATD). These LOAs were based on guidance provided in advisory
circulars (ACs) that set forth the qualifications and capabilities for
the devices. Prior to 2008, most LOAs were issued under the guidance
provided in AC 61-126, Qualification and Approval of Personal Computer-
Based Aviation Training Devices, and AC 120-45, Airplane Flight
Training Device Qualification. Starting in July of 2008, the FAA
approved devices in accordance with AC 61-136, FAA Approval of Basic
Aviation Training Devices (BATD) and Advanced Aviation Training Devices
(AATD). More recently, on December 3, 2014, the FAA published a
revision to AC 61-136A, Approval of Aviation Training Devices and Their
Use for Training and Experience.
    In 2009, the FAA issued a final rule that for the first time
introduced the term ``aviation training device'' into the regulations
and placed express limits on the amount of instrument time in an ATD
that could be credited toward the aeronautical experience requirements
for an instrument rating.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In a 2007 NPRM, the FAA proposed to limit the time in a
personal computer-based aviation training device that could be
credited toward the instrument rating. Pilot, Flight Instructor, and
Pilot School Certification NPRM, 72 FR 5806 (February 7, 2007).
Three commenters recommended that the FAA use the terms ``basic
aviation training device'' (BATD) and ``advanced aviation training
device'' (AATD). Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School
Certification Final Rule, 74 FR 42500 (August 21, 2009) (``2009
Final Rule''). In response to the commenters, the FAA changed the
regulatory text in the final rule to ``aviation training device,''
noting BATDs and AATDs ``as being aviation training devices (ATD)
are defined'' in an advisory circular.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since the 2009 final rule, Sec.  61.65(i) has provided that no more
than 10 hours of instrument time received in an ATD may be credited
toward the instrument time requirements of that section. In addition,
appendix C to part 141 permits an ATD to be used for no more than 10
percent of the total flight training hour requirements of an approved
course for an instrument rating.
    Prior to the 2009 final rule, the FAA had issued hundreds of LOAs
to manufacturers of devices that permitted some ATDs (as well as ground
trainers, and FTDs (levels 1 through 3)) to be used to a greater extent
than was ultimately set forth in the regulations. The FAA continued to
issue LOAs for AATDs in excess of the express limitations in the
regulations after the publication of the 2009 final rule.
    On January 2, 2014, the FAA published a notice of policy requiring
manufacturers of ATDs to obtain new LOAs reflecting the appropriate
regulatory allowances for ATD use. 79 FR 20.\3\ The notice stated the
FAA's conclusion that it could not use LOAs to exceed express
limitations that had been placed in the regulations through notice and
comment rulemaking. The FAA noted that, since August 2013, LOAs issued
for new devices reflect current regulatory requirements. However,
manufacturers and operators who held LOAs issued prior to August 2013
acted in reliance on FAA statements that were inconsistent with the
regulations. Therefore, the FAA granted a limited exemption from the
requirement in the regulations to provide manufacturers, operators, and
pilots currently training for an instrument rating time to adjust to
the reduction in creditable hours. This short-term exemption was
intended to provide an interim period to transition the LOAs for all
previously approved devices in accordance with the new policy. The FAA
found the exemption to be in the public interest in order to prevent
undue harm caused by reasonable reliance on the LOAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Notice of Policy Change for the Use of FAA Approved
Training Devices,'' January 2, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the notice, this short term exemption expired on
January 1, 2015. The FAA explained that after that date, no applicant
training for an instrument rating under part 61 may use more than 10
hours of instrument time in an ATD toward the minimum aeronautical
experience requirements required to take the practical test for an
instrument rating.\4\ In addition, no instrument rating course approved
under appendix C to part 141 may credit more than 10 percent of
training in ATDs toward the total flight training hour requirements of
the course (unless that program has been approved in accordance with
Sec.  141.55(d) or (e)).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Under Sec.  61.65, a person who applies for an instrument
rating must have completed 40 hours of actual or simulated
instrument time of which 15 hours must have been with an authorized
instructor who holds the appropriate instrument rating.
    \5\ Under appendix C, each approved course for an instrument
rating must include 35 hours of instrument training for an initial
instrument rating or 15 hours of instrument training for an
additional instrument rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address the discrepancy between the level of ATD credit allowed
historically by LOA and the lower allowances placed in the regulations,
the FAA published a direct final rule that would have amended the
regulations governing the use of ATDs.\6\ The direct final rule would
have increased the use of these devices for instrument training
requirements above the levels established in the 2009 final rule. In
developing this direct final rule, the FAA noted that ATD development
has advanced to an impressive level of capability. Many ATDs can
simulate weather conditions with variable winds, variable ceilings and
visibility, icing, turbulence, high definition (HD) visuals, hundreds
of different equipment failure scenarios, navigation specific to
current charts and topography, specific navigation and communication
equipment use, variable ``aircraft specific'' performance, and more.
The visual and motion component of some of these devices permit
maneuvers that require outside visual references in an aircraft to be
successfully taught in an AATD. Many of these simulation capabilities
were not possible in previously approved devices (such as PCATDs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 79 FR 71634, December 3, 2014, withdrawn at 80 FR 2001,
January 15, 2015 (RIN 2120-AK62).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the direct final rule, the FAA stated its belief that permitting
pilots to log increased time in ATDs would encourage pilots to practice
maneuvers until they are performed to an acceptable level of
proficiency. In an

ATD, a pilot can replay the training scenario, identify any improper
action, practice abnormal/emergency procedures, and determine
corrective actions without undue hazard or risk to persons or property.
In this fashion, a pilot can continue to practice tasks and maneuvers
in a safe, effective, and cost efficient means of maintaining
proficiency.

II. The Direct Final Rule

    As described in the previous section, to address the discrepancy
between FAA regulations and prior policy, on December 3, 2014, the FAA
published a direct final rule that would have increased the allowed use
of ATDs. The FAA received 20 comments to the direct final rule.\7\ The
provisions of the direct final rule, the comments received, and FAA's
responses to those comments are discussed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The direct final rule and the comments received thereto may
be found in FAA Docket No. FAA-2014-0987 at http://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Credit for Aeronautical Experience Requirements for an Instrument
Rating and Approved Instrument Rating Courses

    Credit for aeronautical experience requirements for an instrument
rating: The direct final rule would have increased the maximum time
that may be credited in an ATD toward the aeronautical experience
requirements for an instrument rating under Sec.  61.65(i). The direct
final rule would have permitted a person to credit a maximum of 20
hours of aeronautical experience acquired in an approved ATD toward the
requirements for an instrument rating. Devices that qualify as AATDs
would have been authorized for up to 20 hours of experience to meet the
instrument time requirements. Devices that qualify as BATDs would have
been authorized for a maximum of 10 hours of experience to meet the
instrument time requirements.
    Approved instrument rating courses: The direct final rule also
would have amended appendix C to part 141 to increase the limit on the
amount of training hours that may be accomplished in an ATD in an
approved course for an instrument rating. An ATD would have been
permitted to be used for no more than 40 percent of the total flight
training hour requirements in an approved instrument rating course.
    Comments received: The FAA received 20 comments regarding these
provisions. Eighteen comments supported the provisions. However, two
commenters raised concerns. As those comments were adverse to the
direct final rule, the FAA was required to withdraw the direct final
rule, 80 FR 2001, (Jan. 15, 2015). 14 CFR 11.13. The comments and FAA's
responses are discussed below.
    Comments supporting the direct final rule: Eighteen comments
supported the direct final rule provisions with 16 comments from
individuals, and two from the Society of Aviation and Flight Educators
(SAFE) and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA).
    Nine commenters simply stated their general support. Several other
commenters noted that use of ATDs would save pilots time and money. The
FAA notes that none of those commenters provided quantified estimates
regarding time or cost savings.
    One commenter asserted that the ability to simulate a wide variety
of situations or to drill procedures through repetition in an ATD is
far greater than in the actual aircraft. The commenter believed that
the ATD learning environment is less stressful, less noisy, and less
unpredictable, thus making it a better classroom to learn detailed
instrument procedures.
    Another commenter asserted that the rule provisions would enhance
safety by allowing more pilots to add instrument ratings to their
certificates. The commenter believed that the rule provisions would
potentially reduce controlled flight into terrain accidents because
pilots would be more likely to have a higher level of proficiency in
controlling solely by reference to the instruments.
    One commenter expressed a desire that the same principles applied
to required instrument experience under 14 CFR 61.57. The FAA notes
that this comment is beyond the scope of this rulemaking.
    Adverse comments: The FAA received two adverse comments regarding
these provisions. The first commenter, who indicated he is a
professional pilot, airline transport pilot, and flight instructor with
multiple ratings (airplane multiengine, airplane single-engine, and
instrument-airplane), believed that flight requires the use and
correlation of all senses in order to make a lasting impression. The
commenter believed the fundamentals of instructing agrees with this
position. More importantly, the commenter believed that acclimation to
instrument meteorological conditions helps pilots relate these various
inputs and strategies to deal with them. The commenter asserted that
ATDs are valuable as procedure trainers, but not as valuable as
``everyone seems to think. The rapid redeployment of a situation seems
like an advantage, yet it diminishes the learning because it seems so
easy to recover from a botched maneuver.'' The commenter also asserted
that resetting the situation diminishes the ``routine'' that a pilot
relies on to take him or her to a specific place, which interferes
greatly with the learning of each step.
    The commenter also believed that no amount of graphic imagery or
display setup, even in full motion simulators, ever causes a pilot to
lose consciousness of the fact that it is a simulator. The commenter
asserted that flight simulators are wonderful, but very limited
devices. Instead of increasing a pilot's skill, however, they have come
between real-world flying and desktop flying. The commenter stated that
they have increased reliance on screens and autopilots and diminished
the pilot's sense of being in charge of the aircraft and the flight.
Stalls, thunderstorms, and icing are the greatest dangers, yet ATDs
cannot depict these accurately or realistically.
    Finally, the commenter noted the belief that the industry at large
always diminishes the importance of safety and increases the importance
of costs whenever training requirements are considered. The commenter
believed one hour in any aircraft is worth ten in front of an ATD. The
commenter stated, ``The cost of a lost aircraft and all its crew is not
worth the imagined savings gained from flying imaginary aircraft in
imaginary environments.''
    The second commenter, who is or was, a flight instructor with an
instrument rating and an air traffic controller, questioned whether
flight students should be trained and live in an unrealistic world. The
commenter believed that training in the classroom environment and in
labs was an excellent preparatory environment, but nothing like the
realities of real life. While the commenter ``highly recommend[ed]''
the use of such devices, the commenter cautioned the direct final rule
included too much of a reduction. The commenter advised: ``Proceed with
appropriate caution and understand the risk involved.''
    Public comments responding to the adverse comments: SAFE submitted
a comment in response to the first adverse comment received. SAFE noted
that microprocessor developments over the past several years have
resulted in a new generation of increasingly affordable mid and upper
level devices which replicate sensory inputs with an incredible degree
of accuracy and which are becoming commonplace in the training market.
SAFE stated that ATDs can provide the student with excellent
opportunities to focus on learning the correct procedures for
situations such as

nighttime operations, narrow or sloping runways, glassy water, and
instrument meteorological conditions without interference from
conflicting or adverse sensory inputs before being exposed to them in
the live flight environment where confusion can occur between the body
and the brain until training and experience overcome the sensory input.
    SAFE claimed that ``Peer reviewed research conclusively shows that
when properly utilized as part of a comprehensive training program
[training] devices actually speed up the learning process by allowing
students to bypass areas of successful understanding and to concentrate
on areas where more practice is required. . . . Specific research by
the military and major airlines show that these devices can
consistently enhance student retention of lesson material, increase
student confidence levels, and reduce accident and loss rates.'' The
FAA notes that SAFE did not provide sources for these claims.
    SAFE further asserted that ATDs have proven very effective in
simulating certain emergencies too dangerous to practice in the air.
This practice builds pilot confidence in being prepared to handle such
situations should they occur. SAFE also asserted that current military
and civilian research shows a positive relationship between ATD use and
safer flying. SAFE did not provide research or source citations to
support these assertions.
    Finally, SAFE noted that one of the key factors in today's extreme
dropout rate in flight training is the ``very high cost.'' SAFE stated
``[W]e must find a way to contain the training costs without
sacrificing safety or operation utility. ATDs, properly utilized, are a
modern component in achieving this.''
    AOPA also supported the rule with the following statement and
stated that the FAA should ``continue to permit the flight training
industry to maximize the use of aviation training devices (ATDs) for
instrument flight training in order to certificate safe competent
pilots in a structured and economical way.'' AOPA also provided
discussion concerning the adverse comments received and suggested why
they should be considered without substance and not adverse within the
context of the direct final rulemaking process.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees with the commenters who support
increased training time in ATDs, including the comments related to the
dynamic training capability of these devices, cost savings, and recent
technical advancements that enhance the usability of ATDs.
    To the extent that an adverse commenter asserted that flying must
involve a ``correlation of all senses'' and that ``sounds and feel are
vital to recognizing unusual attitudes'' when other senses fail, the
FAA disagrees concerning positive aircraft control skills and has
provided extensive guidance on this topic in the Instrument Flying
Handbook (FAA-H-8083-15B).\8\ In particular, the Handbook advises that
pilots should disregard sensory perceptions and ``[m]ost importantly,
become proficient in the use of the flight instruments and rely upon
them.'' The Handbook further states ``[t]hese undesirable sensations
cannot be completely prevented, but through training and awareness,
pilots can ignore or suppress them by developing absolute reliance on
the flight instruments.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/.
    \9\ FAA-H-8083-15B Instrument Flying Handbook updated 7/2/2014
pg. 3-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA believes that training in ATDs and FSTDs, when used in
conjunction with training in an aircraft, teach an instrument student
to trust the appropriate sense, vision, in order to successfully
operate an aircraft in low visibility conditions. Training in an ATD
reinforces this necessary skill and any reliance on ``sounds or feel''
may ultimately lead to loss of control when operating an aircraft in
instrument meteorological conditions. Because ignoring the postural
senses involves relying on visual clues, the ATD provides an excellent
platform for a pilot to develop this portion of his or her instrument
flying skills. The FAA recognizes that a device does not require motion
in order to be approved as an AATD; thus, these devices are limited in
that they cannot completely train the pilot to ignore outside sensory
perceptions. The FAA finds that a pilot can develop this ability during
the aeronautical experience that an applicant for an instrument rating
must obtain in an aircraft.
    The same commenter also discussed the capability of an aviation
training device to ``[reset] the situation.'' The commenter suggested
that this capability makes it too easy to recover from an
unsatisfactory maneuver by simply returning to a previous location
during the simulated flight. The commenter explained that this
diminishes the routine that a pilot relies on during flight. The FAA
does not agree and finds significant value in the ability of the device
to be reconfigured to return to a point at which the pilot is having
difficulty with a particular procedure or maneuver. This will allow the
pilot to practice the corrective action until able to successfully
complete the procedure or maneuver. This feature allows repetitive
practice of a difficult procedure in a short period of time that could
potentially add hours of training if accomplished in an aircraft.
Additionally, simulation supports the long-endorsed teaching practice
of ``meaningful repetition.'' \10\ More practice in an aviation
training device until a pilot performs a particular segment of a
procedure or action correctly, before attempting the same in an
aircraft, is an acceptable and desirable practice. Because half of the
required instrument time under part 61 (20 hours), or 60 percent of the
total flight training hours under part 141 (21 hours), would be
accomplished in an aircraft, the necessary routine mentioned by the
commenter will be provided during those lessons performed while in
flight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ FAA-H-8083-9A Flight Instructors Handbook pg. 2-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the commenter stated that ``[T]he consequences of
training pilots in ATDs is that they do not experience the fear that
accompanies real-life emergencies, or the sensory inputs that come with
icing and thunderstorm contact.'' The FAA does not support flight
training that involves intentional flight into dangerous weather
conditions. Rather, the FAA expects pilots to purposely avoid icing
\11\ and thunderstorm conditions \12\ and be taught to be proficient at
doing so. In contrast, ATDs allow training to simulate inadvertent
flight into these adverse conditions that cannot be accomplished safely
in an aircraft. In an ATD, students are afforded an opportunity to
practice recommended actions when encountering these undesirable
weather conditions without risk. There are many emergency procedures
that can be practiced in ATDs that cannot be safely accomplished in the
aircraft. This allows for training that students would not otherwise
receive and provides the appropriate mitigation of risk without
diminishing the quality or depth of training.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ AC 91-74A Pilot Guide: Flight in Icing Conditions, Pilot
Strategies pg. 42.
    \12\ AIM Aeronautical Information Manual 7-1-29 Thunderstorm
Flying.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the commenter stated that ``[f]light simulators are
wonderful, but very limited devices,'' asserting that simulators have
increased reliance on screens and autopilots and diminish the pilot's
sense of being in charge. The commenter disapproved of instructors
relying less on real world experience

and that the industry at large puts costs before safety. The FAA
believes that these comments reflect the commenter's concern about
automation and advanced avionics versus concern about simulators.
Despite the commenter's concern over automation and advanced avionics,
the FAA recognizes that use of these systems has become commonplace in
general aviation aircraft. It is therefore beneficial to teach the use
of these advanced systems in ATDs to supplement training in the
aircraft.
    The second commenter provided some support for the use of ATDs,
noting for example that the cockpit is not a suitable classroom in
which to teach. The commenter also expressed concerns that are not
specific to ATDs, such as communication skills, not directly pertinent
to the direct final rule or to this proposed rule. However, the
commenter discussed whether training flight students in an unrealistic
world is appropriate.
    The FAA believes that ATDs are specifically designed to replicate
the real world and help pilots to develop their instrument skills in
advance of receiving training and experience in an aircraft.\13\ The
concerns raised by both commenters are mitigated by the fact that a
substantial portion of the required instrument time would still be
accomplished in an aircraft. Instrument rating applicants would need to
obtain a minimum of 20 hours of instrument time in an aircraft under
part 61 or complete a minimum of 60 percent of the training
requirements in an aircraft under part 141.\14\ Additional scrutiny of
the pilot's proficiency occurs before an FAA examiner during a
practical test which must be conducted in an aircraft in the national
airspace system. The FAA specifically notes that the airman instrument
practical test requires demonstration of a specific level of
proficiency and expertise in flight, and airman testing in ATDs is not
permitted.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ AC 61-136A, FAA Approval of Aviation Training Devices and
Their Use for Training and Experience.
    \14\ An exception would still exist for those courses that are
approved under 14 CFR 141.55(d) and (e).
    \15\ FAA-S-8081-4E, Instrument Rating Practical Test Standards,
Appendix 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recently documented research concerning training effectiveness in
simulation devices that reflect modern ATD systems is limited. The FAA
notes two studies related to ATDs that were done in the past 20 years.
The first paper published in May of 2005 titled ``Effectiveness of
Flight Training Devices Used for Instrument Training,'' \16\ referenced
the use of an Elite PCATD and a Frasca 141 Level 1 FTD. Students using
these two trainers generally completed their flight lessons (i.e.,
those accomplished in an aircraft) in less time. The overall findings
reported that flight training hours required to develop basic
instrument flying skills (the report referenced aircraft control,
instrument departures, en-route and approach procedures) was reduced.
Training hours required to develop advanced skills, such as NDB holds,
approaches, and partial panel procedures, were not necessarily reduced.
However, cross country flight training time was reduced by up to 50
percent for some of these same individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Taylor, H.L., Talleur, D.A., Emanuel Jr., T.W., Rantaner,
E., ``Effectiveness of Flight Training Devices Used for Instrument
Training,'' Final Technical Report AHFD-05-9/FAA-05-4, Federal
Aviation Administration, May 2005. A copy of this document has been
placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second research paper, ``Transfer of Training Effectiveness of
Personal Computer-Based Aviation Training Devices,'' \17\ published in
May 1997, discusses the use of a PCATD trainer for a two-semester
instrument course. Trainees that used the training device were able to
develop the proficiency to perform some exercises in the aircraft with
a flight time savings of 15 percent to 40 percent relative to those
that did not use the training device. However, for some other
exercises, a burden of an extra 25 percent in flight time resulted for
those students that used the training device.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Taylor, H.L., Lintern, G., Hulin, C.L., Talleur, D.,
Emanuel, T., Phillips, S., ``Transfer of Training Effectiveness of
Personal Computer-Based Aviation Training Devices,'' DOT/FAA/AM-97/
11, Office of Aviation Medicine, Washington, DC, May 1997. A copy of
this document has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA believes that these earlier studies are largely incomplete
because the training devices used in the aforementioned studies do not
reflect the current capabilities and standards \18\ required for AATDs
as the FAA approves them today. Most of these older devices utilized in
the available studies lack the sophistication now facilitated by more
readily available advanced computer system software and hardware,
including improved visuals/databases, and the increased system fidelity
and replication that these newer training systems take advantage of
today. The FAA also notes that with the increased implementation of
scenario-based training, ATDs are used more effectively than in the
past. Therefore, the FAA considers the results of these findings
somewhat inapplicable and, for the reasons described above, believes
that the proposed regulatory change is still in the best interest of
aviation safety. The FAA seeks comment regarding any additional
relevant data or institutional research that supports the training and
safety advantages when using ATDs, or establishes that such devices do
not enhance pilot training and flight safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ AC 61-136 first published in July 2008 provided the
standards used today for the approval and use of ATD's. This was
recently revised in December 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As of January 1, 2015, all LOAs issued prior to August 23, 2013,
for training devices approved to meet requirements under parts 61 and
141 terminated.\19\ This means that experience obtained in these
devices may no longer be credited toward aeronautical experience or
currency requirements in parts 61 and 141 unless the FAA has issued an
updated LOA. Therefore, any FAA-approved ATDs being used to meet
current aeronautical experience requirements have been demonstrated to
meet the updated standards for AATDs set forth in AC 61-136 (as
amended). Devices that were approved beginning August 23, 2013, were
issued an LOA with a 5-year expiration date. This will ensure that the
type of device meets acceptable standards for use in crediting
aeronautical experience and currency. Devices that do not meet the
standard for an AATD will either be issued an LOA that approves the
device as a BATD (with lower time crediting allowances as described in
AC 61-136) or will simply not be issued an LOA in which case the device
can be used as a training aid, but not credited for aeronautical
experience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 79 FR 20, Notice of Policy Change for the Use of FAA
Approved Training Devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, current ATD approval and use involves substantial FAA
scrutiny and oversight as provided in the recently revised AC 61-136A,
FAA Approval of Aviation Training Devices and Their Use for Training
and Experience. As noted above, this includes a review for renewal of
approvals every five years, confirming that these training devices
continue to perform to the updated standards. This review is based on
standards and practices that combine over 30 years of experience
between the FAA and industry.

B. View-Limiting Devices

    Under Sec.  61.51(g), a person may log instrument time only for
that flight time when the person operates an aircraft solely by
reference to the instruments under actual or simulated conditions. When
instrument time is logged in an

aircraft, a pilot wears a view-limiting device to simulate instrument
conditions and ensure that he or she is flying without utilizing
outside visual references. Currently, Sec.  61.65(i) requires a pilot
who is logging instrument time in an ATD to wear a view-limiting
device. The direct final rule would have revised Sec.  61.65(i)(4) to
eliminate the requirement that pilots accomplishing instrument time in
an ATD wear a view-limiting device.
    The purpose of a view-limiting device is to prevent a pilot (while
training in an aircraft during flight) from having outside visual
references that would naturally be present otherwise. These references
are not available in a training device and a pilot has no opportunity
to look outside for any useful visual references pertaining to the
simulation. The FAA recognizes that the majority of these devices have
a simulated visual display that can be configured to be unavailable or
represent ``limited visibility'' conditions that preclude any need for
a view-limiting device to be worn by the student. This lack of visual
references requires the pilot to give his or her full attention to the
flight instruments which is the goal of any instrument training or
experience. The FAA believes that using a training device can be useful
because it trains the pilot to focus on, appropriately scan and
interpret the flight instruments. Since these devices incorporate a
visual system that can be configured to the desired visibility level,
use of a view-limiting device would have no longer been required by the
direct final rule.
    When the FAA introduced Sec.  61.65(i)(4) requiring view-limiting
devices in the 2009 final rule, the preamble was silent as to why a
view-limiting device was necessary. 74 FR 42500, 42523. Based on
comments from industry, the FAA has determined that due to the
sophistication of the flight visual representation for ATDs and the
capability of presenting various weather conditions appropriate to the
training scenario, a view-limiting device is unnecessary. Because
persons operating an ATD can simulate both instrument and visual
conditions, FAA LOAs specifically reference Sec.  61.51 that stipulates
a pilot can only log instrument time when using the flight instruments
for reference and operation.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ AC 61-136A Appendix 4, Training Content and Logging
Provisions references limitations for logging instrument time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments received: The FAA received one comment in response to this
provision in the direct final rule. The commenter believed that
removing the requirement for a student to wear a view-limiting device
while using an ATD is a sensible decision. The commenter believed that
there is much more benefit to be gained by the view limiting features
of the ATD itself than by a view-limiting piece of headgear.
    FAA Response: The FAA agrees that it is unnecessary for a student
to wear a view-limiting device when using an ATD. The FAA finds that
this requirement is not necessary because ATDs do not afford relevant
outside references.

III. The Proposed Rule

    After consideration of the comments received to the direct final
rule, the FAA is proposing the following changes to 14 CFR parts 61 and
141. These changes are the same as in the direct final rule, 79 FR
71634, (Dec. 3, 2014), withdrawn at 80 FR 2001, (Jan. 15, 2015).

A. Credit for the Aeronautical Experience Requirements for an
Instrument Rating

    The FAA is proposing to increase the maximum time that may be
credited in an ATD toward the instrument time requirements for an
instrument rating under Sec.  61.65(i). A person would be permitted to
credit a maximum of 20 hours of instrument time in an approved ATD
toward the requirements for an instrument rating.\21\ Devices that
qualify as AATDs would be authorized for up to 20 hours of instrument
time. Devices that qualify as BATDs would be authorized for a maximum
of 10 hours of instrument time. In light of this difference, pilots
must--as required by current regulations--include in their logbooks the
type and identification of any ATD that is used to accomplish
aeronautical experience requirements for a certificate, rating, or
recent flight experience. 14 CFR 61.51(b)(1)(iv). The FAA is retaining
the existing limit of 20 hours of combined time in FFSs, FTDs, and ATDs
that may be credited towards the aeronautical experience requirements
for an instrument rating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ As required under Sec.  61.51(g)(4), to log instrument time
in an ATD for the purpose of a certificate or rating, an authorized
instructor must be present.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Approved Instrument Rating Courses

    The FAA is also proposing to amend appendix C to part 141 to
increase the limit on the amount of training hours that may be
accomplished in an ATD in an approved course for an instrument rating.
An ATD could be used for no more than 40 percent of the total flight
training hour requirements in an instrument rating course. The FAA
notes that this rule would not change the current provisions in
appendix C which limit credit for training in FFSs, FTDs, and ATDs,
that if used in combination, cannot exceed 50 percent of the total
flight training hour requirements of an instrument rating course.
    In addition, the FAA is proposing to amend Sec.  141.41 to clarify
the existing qualification and approval requirement for FSTDs and to
add the qualification and approval of ATDs by the FAA, which is
currently conducted pursuant to Sec.  61.4(c).

C. View-Limiting Device

    The FAA is proposing to revise Sec.  61.65(i)(4) to eliminate the
requirement that pilots accomplishing instrument time in an ATD wear a
view-limiting device. The FAA emphasizes, however, that a pilot--
whether in an aircraft, FFS, FTD, or ATD--may log instrument time only
when the pilot is operating solely by reference to the instruments
under actual or simulated conditions. If a pilot is using an ATD and
the device is providing visual references upon which the pilot is
relying, this would not constitute instrument time under Sec.
61.51(g).

IV. Advisory Circulars and Other Guidance Materials

    To further implement this rule, the FAA is proposing to revise the
following FAA Order:
    FAA Order 8900.1, Flight Standards Information Management System,
Volume 11, Chapter 10, Section 1, (Basic and Advanced Aviation Training
Device) Approval and Authorized Use under 14 CFR parts 61 and 141.

V. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(Public Law 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Public Law 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that
create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. In developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies
to consider international standards and, where appropriate, that they
be the basis of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4) requires agencies to
prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits, and other effects
of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to
result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more
annually (adjusted for inflation with base year of 1995). This portion
of the preamble summarizes the FAA's analysis of the economic impacts
of this notice of proposed rulemaking.
    In conducting these analyses, FAA has determined that this proposed
rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs; (2) is not an
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(5) would not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States; and (6) would not impose an unfunded mandate on
State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by
exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized
below.
    Department of Transportation DOT Order 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the costs and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this notice of proposed
rulemaking. The reasoning for this determination follows:
    The provisions included in this rule are either relieving or
voluntary. The elimination of the requirement to use a view-limiting
device is a relieving provision. The other two provisions are voluntary
and cost relieving--additional ATD credit for instrument time for an
instrument rating and additional ATD credit for approved instrument
courses, if acted upon, is cheaper than flight training time.
    Persons who use the new provisions would do so only if the benefit
they would accrue from their use exceeded the costs they might incur to
comply. Given the hundreds of LOAs issued, industry's high usage of
ATDs, and SAFE and AOPA's endorsement of ATDs, the proposed change in
requirements is likely to be relieving. Benefits will exceed the costs
of a voluntary rule if just one person voluntarily complies.
    Since this proposed rule would offer a lower cost alternative,
would provide regulatory relief for the use of view-limiting devices,
and would allow greater voluntary use of ATDs, the expected outcome
would be cost relieving to minimal impact with positive net benefits.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
    Most of the parties affected by this rule would be small businesses
such as flight instructors, aviation schools, and fixed base operators.
The general lack of publicly available financial information from these
small businesses precludes a financial analysis of these small
businesses. While there is likely a substantial number of small
entities affected, the provisions of this proposed rule are either
relieving (directly provides cost relief) or voluntary (provides
benefits or costs only if a person voluntarily chooses to use the rule
provision). The FAA made the same determination as part of the direct
final rule and received no comments.
    If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA.
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies
that this rulemaking would not result in a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-39), as amended by
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Public Law 103-465), prohibits
Federal agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of
standards is not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign
commerce of the United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate
domestic objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not
operate in a manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The
statute also requires consideration of international standards and,
where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    The FAA has assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and
determined that it would have only a domestic impact and therefore
would not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the
United States.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law
104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $151.0 million in lieu of $100
million.
    This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate. Therefore, the
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there is no new requirement for information

collection associated with this proposed rule.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
has identified no differences with these regulations.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.

VI. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this rule under the principles and criteria of
Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has determined that this
action would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, and, therefore, would not have Federalism implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
would not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order
and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

C. Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation

    Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, (77 FR 26413, May 4, 2012) promotes international
regulatory cooperation to meet shared challenges involving health,
safety, labor, security, environmental, and other issues and to reduce,
eliminate, or prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory
requirements. The FAA has analyzed this action under the policies and
agency responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined
that this action would have no effect on international regulatory
cooperation.

VII. Additional Information

A. Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy,
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting this document.
The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the rule,
explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting
data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments,
commenters should send only one copy of written comments, or if
comments are filed electronically, commenters should submit only one
time.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this rulemaking. Before acting on this proposed
rule, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the
closing date for comments. The agency may change this rule in light of
the comments it receives.
    Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Commenters should
not file proprietary or confidential business information in the
docket. Such information must be sent or delivered directly to the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document, and marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting
information on a disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD
ROM, and identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary
information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the
docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have
access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received
it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information,
it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act
(5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of
Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
Internet by--
     Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
     Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies, or
     Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at
http://www.fdsys.gov.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
    All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced above.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 61

    Aircraft, Airmen, Aviation safety, Teachers.

14 CFR Part 141

    Airmen, Educational facilities, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Schools.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend chapter I of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

PART 61--CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND
INSTRUCTORS

0
1. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707,
44709-44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.

0
2. Amend Sec.  61.65 by revising paragraph (i) and adding paragraph (j)
to read as follows:

Sec.  61.65  Instrument rating requirements.

* * * * *
    (i) Use of an aviation training device. A maximum of 20 hours of
instrument time received in an aviation training device may be credited
for the instrument time requirements of this section if--
    (1) The device is approved and authorized by the FAA;
    (2) An authorized instructor provides the instrument time in the
device; and

    (3) The FAA approved the instrument training and instrument tasks
performed in the device.
    (j) A person may not credit more than 20 total hours of instrument
time in a flight simulator, flight training device, aviation training
device, or combination toward the instrument time requirements of this
section.

PART 141--PILOT SCHOOLS

0
3. The authority citation for part 141 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707,
44709, 44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.

0
4. Revise Sec.  141.41 to read as follows:

Sec.  141.41  Flight simulators, flight training devices, aviation
training devices, and training aids.

    An applicant for a pilot school certificate or a provisional pilot
school certificate must show that its flight simulators, flight
training devices, aviation training devices, training aids, and
equipment meet the following requirements:
    (a) Flight simulators and flight training devices. Each flight
simulator and flight training device used to obtain flight training
credit in an approved pilot training course curriculum must be:
    (1) Qualified under part 60 of this chapter; and
    (2) Approved by the Administrator for the tasks and maneuvers.
    (b) Aviation training devices. Each aviation training device used
to obtain flight training credit in an approved pilot training course
curriculum must be evaluated, qualified, and approved by the
Administrator.
    (c) Training aids and equipment. Each training aid, including any
audiovisual aid, projector, mockup, chart, or aircraft component listed
in the approved training course outline, must be accurate and relevant
to the course for which it is used.
0
5. Amend Appendix C to part 141 by revising paragraph (b) in section 4
to read as follows:

Appendix C to Part 141--Instrument Rating Course

* * * * *
    4. Flight training. * * *
    (b) For the use of flight simulators, flight training devices,
or aviation training devices--
    (1) The course may include training in a flight simulator,
flight training device, or aviation training device, provided it is
representative of the aircraft for which the course is approved,
meets the requirements of this paragraph, and the training is given
by an authorized instructor.
    (2) Credit for training in a flight simulator that meets the
requirements of Sec.  141.41(a) cannot exceed 50 percent of the
total flight training hour requirements of the course or of this
section, whichever is less.
    (3) Credit for training in a flight training device that meets
the requirements of Sec.  141.41(a), an aviation training device
that meets the requirements of Sec.  141.41(b), or a combination of
these devices cannot exceed 40 percent of the total flight training
hour requirements of the course or of this section, whichever is
less.
    (4) Credit for training in flight simulators, flight training
devices, and aviation training devices if used in combination,
cannot exceed 50 percent of the total flight training hour
requirements of the course or of this section, whichever is less.
However, credit for training in a flight training device or aviation
training device cannot exceed the limitation provided for in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, under the authority of 49 U.S.C.
106(f), 44701(a)(5), and 44703(a), on June 10, 2015.
Michael J. Zenkovich,
Acting Director Flight Standards Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-14836 Filed 6-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 5, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26048-26049]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11992]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RM98-1-000]

Records Governing Off-the-Record Communications; Public Notice

    This constitutes notice, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.2201(b), of
the receipt of prohibited and exempt off-the-record communications.
    Order No. 607 (64 FR 51222, September 22, 1999) requires Commission
decisional employees, who make or receive a prohibited or exempt off-
the-record communication relevant to the merits of a contested
proceeding, to deliver to the Secretary of the Commission, a copy of
the communication, if written, or a summary of the substance of any
oral communication.
    Prohibited communications are included in a public, non-decisional
file associated with, but not a part of, the decisional record of the
proceeding. Unless the Commission determines that the prohibited
communication and any responses thereto should become a part of the
decisional record, the prohibited off-the-record communication will not
be considered by the Commission in reaching its decision. Parties to a
proceeding may seek the opportunity to respond to any facts or
contentions made in a prohibited off-the-record communication, and may
request that the Commission place the prohibited communication and
responses thereto in the decisional record. The Commission will grant
such a request only when it determines that fairness so requires. Any
person identified below as having made a prohibited off-the-record
communication shall serve the document on all parties listed on the
official service list for the applicable proceeding in accordance with
Rule 2010, 18 CFR 385.2010.
    Exempt off-the-record communications are included in the decisional
record of the proceeding, unless the communication was with a
cooperating agency as described by 40 CFR 1501.6, made under 18 CFR
385.2201(e)(1)(v).
    The following is a list of off-the-record communications recently
received by the Secretary of the Commission. The communications listed
are grouped by docket numbers in ascending order. These filings are
available for electronic review at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Docket No.               File date     Presenter or requester
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Prohibited
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CP17-101-000................       5-14-2018  Williams Northeast
                                                  Supply Enhancement
                                                  Supporters.
2. CP17-101-000................       5-14-2018  Pipeliners Local 798
                                                  Supporters.
3. CP17-101-000................       5-14-2018  Pennsylvania Power
                                                  Plant Services Group,
                                                  LLC.
4. CP17-101-000................       5-17-2018  G.W. Gunner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Exempt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. CP15-554-000................       5-11-2018  U.S. Congressman G.K.
                                                  Butterfield.
2. CP15-554-000................       5-14-2018  U.S. Congresswoman Alma
                                                  S. Adams.
3. CP17-101-000................       5-15-2018  U.S. Congressman Frank
                                                  Pallone, Jr.
4. CP17-458-000................       5-16-2018  FERC Staff.\1\
5. CP17-40-000.................       5-17-2018  U.S. Senator Richard J.
                                                  Durbin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Record of 5-8-18 conference call with Environmental Resources
  Management, Inc., Midship Pipeline, LLC, and TRC Solutions.

    Dated: May 30, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-11992 Filed 6-4-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 137 (Thursday, July 17, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 41644]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16842]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2014-0570]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Norwalk River, Norwalk, CT

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Metro North WALK Bridge across the
Norwalk River, mile 0.1, at Norwalk, Connecticut. The deviation is
necessary to facilitate necessary maintenance and repairs to the
electrical and mechanical operating systems at the bridge. This
temporary deviation authorizes the bridge to open after an eight-hour
advance notice is given under a revised operating schedule.

DATES: This deviation is effective without actual notice from July 17,
2014 through December 30, 2014. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used on July 4, 2014, until July 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2014-0570] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140, on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Mr. Christopher J. Bisignano,
Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, First Coast Guard District,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Metro North WALK Bridge, mile 0.1,
across the Norwalk River at Norwalk, Connecticut, has a vertical
clearance in the closed position of 16 feet at mean high water and 23
feet at mean low water. The drawbridge operation regulations are listed
at 33 CFR 117.217(b).
    The waterway users are seasonal recreational vessels and commercial
vessels of various sizes.
    The owner of the bridge, Connecticut Department of Transportation,
requested a temporary deviation from the regulations from July 4, 2014
through December 30, 2014, to allow the bridge to open after an eight-
hour advance notice is given to help facilitate necessary electrical
and mechanical maintenance and repairs at the bridge.
    The Coast Guard will work with Connecticut Department of
Transportation and Metro North to develop a long term repair schedule
during this initial temporary deviation time period.
    Under this temporary deviation, in effect from July 4, 2014 through
December 30, 2014, the Metro North WALK Bridge at mile 0.1, across the
Norwalk River, at Norwalk, Connecticut shall open after at least an
eight-hour advance notice is given as follows:
    (1) From 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., a maximum of one opening each day
Monday through Friday, excluding holidays.
    (2) From 9 p.m. to 3 a.m., a maximum of two openings each night,
starting on Monday at 9 p.m. through Friday at 3 a.m. including
holidays.
    (3) From 9 p.m. Fridays to 3 a.m. Mondays, including holidays.
    (4) For emergencies only at all other times.
    (5) A delay of up to 20 minutes may be expected if a train is
approaching so closely that it may not be safely stopped.
    Vessels that can pass under the bridge in the closed position may
do so at any time. There are no alternate routes. The bridge can open
in the event of an emergency situation.
    Vessel operators will be notified of these changes to the bridge
operating schedule through a Local Notice to Mariners publication and a
Safety Marine Information Broadcast (SMIB) issued by the Coast Guard so
that vessels can arrange their transits to minimize any impact caused
by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: July 1, 2014.
Linda L. Fagan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2014-16842 Filed 7-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21118-21120]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07655]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2022-0175; FRL-9570-01-OGC]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA or the
Act), notice is given of a proposed consent decree in Sierra Club et
al. v. Regan, No. 21-cv-6956 (N.D. Cal, September 8, 2021). On
September 8, 2021, Plaintiffs Sierra Club, Environmental Integrity
Project, and Natural Resources Defense Council (collectively,
Plaintiffs) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, Oakland Division. Plaintiffs
alleged that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency)
failed to undertake certain non-discretionary duties in accordance with
the Act to timely respond to numerous state implementation plan
submissions and to issue findings of failure to submit to numerous
other states who had failed to respond to an EPA finding that their
state plans were substantially inadequate under the Act. The proposed
consent decree would establish deadlines for EPA to act on certain
submissions and establish that certain claims in the Complaint are now
moot.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by May 11, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OGC-2022-0175, online at https://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
number for this action. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending

comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
``Additional Information about Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree'' heading under the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this
document. Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and
our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are closed to the
public, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of transmitting
COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide remote
customer service via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the public
to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov, as there may be a
delay in processing mail and faxes. Hand-deliveries and couriers may be
received by scheduled appointment only. For further information on EPA
Docket Center services and the current status, please visit us online
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    EPA continues to carefully and continuously monitor information
from the CDC, local area health departments, and our Federal partners
so that we can respond rapidly as conditions change regarding COVID-19.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seth Buchsbaum, Air and Radiation Law
Office (mail code), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining a Copy of the Proposed Consent Decree

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2022-0175) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree.
    The electronic version of the public docket for this action
contains a copy of the proposed consent decree and is available through
https://www.regulations.gov. You may use https://www.regulations.gov to
submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the official public docket, and access those documents in
the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select
``search.''

II. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    On June 15, 2015, EPA issued findings of substantial inadequacy
pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5) for SIP provisions applying to excess
emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction (``SSM'') periods
for 45 states and air districts. State Implementation Plans: Response
to Petition for Rulemaking; Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy
Applicable to SIPs; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls
to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, 80 FR 33840 (June 12, 2015). EPA
accordingly issued a SIP Call requiring those 45 states and air
districts to submit plan revisions to correct SSM-related deficiencies
in their SIPs within 18 months, i.e., by November 22, 2016 (2015 SSM
SIP Call).
    The proposed consent decree would establish deadlines for EPA to
take action pursuant to CAA section 110(k) on certain SIP revisions
that were submitted by the following states and air districts in
response to the 2015 SSM SIP Call: Alaska, Arizona--Arizona Department
of Environmental Quality, Arizona--Maricopa County Air Quality
Department, California--Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control District,
California--Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, Colorado,
Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey,
New Mexico, North Dakota, New Mexico--Albuquerque-Bernalillo County,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and West
Virginia. Plaintiffs also alleged that EPA had failed to take action on
SIP revisions submitted by Texas and North Carolina in response to the
SIP call; however, EPA has withdrawn the SIP Calls submitted to those
states, mooting that portion of the litigation. SIP Call Withdrawal and
Air Plan Approval; NC: Large Internal Combustion Engines NOX
Rule Changes, 85 FR 23700 (April 28, 2020); Withdrawal of Finding of
Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan and of Call for Texas
State Implementation Plan Revision-Affirmative Defense Provisions, 85
FR 7232 (February 7, 2020; effective March 9, 2020).
    CAA section 110(k) sets forth the process by which EPA reviews SIP
submissions and revisions. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k). According to that
process, EPA must determine no later than 6 months after the date by
which a state is required to submit a SIP submittal whether a state has
made a submission that meets the minimum completeness criteria. Id.
7410(k)(1)(B). EPA refers to the determination that a state has not
submitted a requisite SIP submittal as a ``finding of failure to
submit.'' Plaintiffs alleged in the complaint that EPA failed to make
findings of failure to submit SIP revisions that remove or amend the
SIP-called provisions pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C.
7410(k)(1)(B), for twelve additional states and air districts. However,
on January 12, 2022, EPA published findings of failure to submit in the
Federal Register for those twelve states and air districts, mooting
that portion of the litigation. Findings of Failure to Submit State
Implementation Plan Revisions in Response to the 2015 Findings of
Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying
Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction,
87 FR 1680 (January 12, 2022).
    Additionally, during the pendency of this litigation, in the
ordinary course of its administrative action, EPA has taken final
action on some of the SIP submissions originally at issue in the
litigation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 87 FR 7725 (February 10, 2022); 87 FR 8952 (February 17,
2022); 87 FR 14802 (March 16, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA shall sign a
notice or notices approving, disapproving, conditionally approving, or
approving in part and conditionally approving or disapproving in part
the SIP revisions as listed and identified in the proposed consent
decree by the established deadlines. The proposed consent decree
provides that if any State withdraws one of the listed SIP revisions,
EPA's obligation to take such an action is terminated.
    In accordance with section 113(g) of the CAA, for a period of
thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this document,
the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed
consent decree. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or
withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments
disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is
inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the
requirements of the Act.

III. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2022-
0175, via https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from this docket. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other

information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. For additional information
about submitting information identified as CBI, please contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
document. Note that written comments containing CBI and submitted by
mail may be delayed and deliveries or couriers will be received by
scheduled appointment only.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment. This ensures that you
can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to
contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your
comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of
a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the
official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public
docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.
    Use of the https://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments
to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
The electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
    Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.

Gautam Srinivasan,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2022-07655 Filed 4-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 156 (Friday, August 12, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53380-53381]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19142]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0006; FRL-9950-61-Region 2]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Deletion of the Jackson Steel Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of intent for deletion.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 2, is
issuing this Notice of Intent to Delete (NOID) the Jackson Steel Site,
located in the Village of Mineola, Nassau County, New York, from the
National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this
proposed action. The NPL, promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan. EPA and the State of
New York, through the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC), have determined that other than the ongoing
operation and maintenance of the vapor intrusion mitigation systems at
the daycare center, periodic vapor intrusion monitoring, ensuring that
the institutional controls are in place and effective, and five-year
reviews, all appropriate response actions under CERCLA have been
completed at the Site and that the soil on the Site and the groundwater
beneath the Site no longer pose a threat to public health or the
environment.

DATES: Comments must be received by September 12, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2000-0006, by mail to Joel Singerman, Chief, Central New York
Remediation Section, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, 20th Floor,
New York, NY, 10007-1866. Comments may also be submitted electronically
or through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions
in the ``Addresses'' section of the direct final rule located in the
rules section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Singerman at the address noted in
the ADDRESSES section; by telephone at 212-

637-4258; or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' Section of
today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a direct final Notice of
Deletion (NOD) of the Site without a prior NOID because EPA views this
as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse comment. EPA
has explained its reasons for this deletion in the preamble to the
direct final NOD. If EPA receives no adverse comment(s) on this
deletion action, EPA will proceed with the deletion without further
action on this NOID. If EPA receives adverse comment(s), EPA will
withdraw the direct final NOD, and it will not take effect. EPA will,
as appropriate, address all public comments in a subsequent final NOD
based on this NOID. EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this NOID. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this
time.
    For additional information, see the direct final NOD, which is
located in the ``Rules'' section of this Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: August 2, 2016.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region.
[FR Doc. 2016-19142 Filed 8-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 50 (Friday, March 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 14502]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05624]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 803-103]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Application for Temporary Variance of
License Requirement.
    b. Project No.: 803-103.
    c. Date Filed: March 4, 2014.
    d. Applicant: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (licensee).
    e. Name of Project: DeSabla Centerville.
    f. Location: Butte Creek and West Branch Feather River in Butte
County, California.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Rich Doble, Senior License Coordinator,
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Mail Code: N11C, P.O. Box 770000, San
Francisco, CA 94177. Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Mr. John Aedo,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests,
and recommendations is 15 days from the issuance date of this notice by
the Commission (March 24, 2014). The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests,
comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or
(202) 502-8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper
copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-
803-103) on any comments, motions to intervene, protests, or
recommendations filed.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests Commission
approval for a temporary variance of the minimum flow requirements of
Article 39 of the project license. The licensee proposes to reduce
flows from Philbrook Reservoir to 0.8 cubic feet per second (cfs) (with
an additional 0.2 cfs flow buffer) to ensure the availability of cold
water storage for spring-run Chinook salmon during the fish holding
period in the summer. The licensee explains that current drought
conditions have resulted in depressed storage levels in Philbrook
Reservoir and that spring-run Chinook salmon have already entered Butte
Creek. The licensee requests the above variance until June 1, 2014, or
until conditions improve, as determined by the licensee and resource
agencies at monthly meetings.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``Comments'', ``Protest'', or
``Motion To Intervene'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of the license surrender.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.

    Dated: March 7, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-05624 Filed 3-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 189)]
[Notices]
[Page 50792-50793]
[DOCID:fr01oc09-71]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP09-1065-000]

Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Notice of Offer of Settlement

September 24, 2009.
    Take notice that on September 22, 2009, Gulf South Pipeline
Company, LP (Gulf South) filed an Offer of Settlement and Stipulation
and Agreement (Settlement), including pro forma tariff sheets, pursuant
to 18 CFR 385.207 (a)(5) (2009) to create a new Rate Zone 5 on its
system and resolve uncertainty regarding the proper rates for
transportation on Gulf South's Southeast Expansion.
    Gulf South states that copies of this filing are being mailed, or
sent by e-mail if requested, to all affected customers of Gulf South
and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214 (2009)) by the date
set forth below. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to
become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to
intervene, as appropriate. Such notices or motions

must be filed on or before the dates as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date set below need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant. Initial
comments on the Settlement are due not later than 10 days after the
filing of the Settlement, and reply comments are due not later than 17
days after the filing of the Settlement.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Interventions, Protests and Initial Comments are due by: October 2,
2009.
    Reply Comments are due by: October 9, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-23653 Filed 9-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P