[Federal Register: November 30, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 229)]
[Notices]
[Page 71822-71823]
[DOCID:fr30no05-50]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EC06-28-000, et al.]

The Potomac Edison Company and Allegheny Energy Service
Corporation, et al.; Electric Rate and Corporate Filings

November 21, 2005.
    The following filings have been made with the Commission. The
filings are listed in ascending order within each docket
classification.

1. The Potomac Edison Company and Allegheny Energy Service Corporation;
Allegheny Energy Service Corporation; The Potomac Edison Company; and
Virginia Electric and Power Company

[Docket Nos. EC06-28-000; ER06-202-000; ER06-203-000; ER06-204-000]

    Take notice that on November 14, 2005, The Potomac Edison Company
(Potomac Edison) and Allegheny Energy Service Corporation (AESC)
(jointly referred to as Applicants), jointly tendered for filing an
application under section 203 of the Federal Power Act for Commission
authorization for Potomac Edison to assign its interest in the
Borderline Interchange Agreement between The Potomac Edison Company of
Virginia and Virginia Electric and Power Company (Borderline
Interchange Agreement) to its affiliate, AESC as agent for Potomac
Edison, Monongahela Power Company (Mon Power) and West Penn Power
Company (West Penn). Mon Power and West Pennstate that they are
affiliates of AESC and Potomac Edison. Also, pursuant to section 205 of
the FPA, AESC tendered for filing the Borderline Interchange Agreement
designated as an AESC rate schedule and Potomac Edison tendered for
filing cancellation documents to terminate its Borderline Interchange
Agreement. Virginia

Electric and Power Company, d/b/a Dominion Virginia Power, tendered for
filing its revised version of the Borderline Interchange Agreement
reflecting the assignment.
    The Applicants request that the Commission accept the Application
and authorize the proposed assignment within sixty days of the date of
filing, which is January 13, 2006. AESC requests that its Borderline
Interchange Agreement become effective on January 13, 2006. Potomac
Edison requests that the cancellation documents become effective on
January 13, 2006. Dominion Virginia Power requests that its revised
version of the Borderline Interchange Agreement become effective on
January 13, 2006.
    Applicants state that copies of the filing were served upon the
Virginia State Corporation Commission and Virginia Electric and Power
Company.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 5, 2005.

2. Rugby Wind, LLC

[Docket No. EG06-7-000]

    On November 14, 2005, Rugby Wind, LLC (Rugby Wind), located at 1125
NW Couch, Suite 700, Portland, OR 97209, filed with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission an application for determination of exempt
wholesale generator status pursuant to part 365 of the Commission's
regulations.
    Rugby Wind, states that it is an Oregon limited liability company,
will be engaged directly and exclusively in the business of owning all
or part of one or more eligible facilities, and selling electric energy
at wholesale. Rugby Wind further states that it is developing an
approximately 150 megawatt wind power generation facility to be located
in Pierce County, North Dakota. Rugby Wind explains that the Project
will be an eligible facility pursuant to section 32(a)(2) of PUHCA.
    Rugby Wind states it has served a copy of the filing on the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the California Public Utilities
Commission, the Oregon Public Utilities Commission, the Washington
Utilities and Transportation Commission, the Utah Public Service
Commission, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, and the Wyoming
Public Service Commission.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on December 5, 2005.

3. Manzana Wind, LLC

[Docket No. EG06-8-000]

    On November 14, 2005, Manzana Wind, LLC (Manzana), located at 1125
NW Couch, Suite 700, Portland, OR 97209, filed with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission an application for determination of exempt
wholesale generator status pursuant to part 365 of the Commission's
regulations.
    Manzana, states that it is an Oregon limited liability company,
will be engaged directly and exclusively in the business of owning all
or part of one or more eligible facilities, and selling electric energy
at wholesale. Manzana further states it is developing an approximately
300 megawatt wind power generation facility to be located in Kern
County, California. Manzana explains that the project will be an
eligible facility pursuant to section 32(a)(2) of PUHCA.
    Manzana states it has served a copy of the filing on the Securities
and Exchange Commission, the California Public Utilities Commission,
the Oregon Public Utilities Commission, the Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission, the Utah Public Service Commission, the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission, and the Wyoming Public Service
Commission.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on December 5, 2005.

4. Klondike Wind Power III, LLC

[Docket No. EG06-9-000]

    On November 14, 2005, Klondike Wind Power III, LLC (Klondike III),
located at 1125 NW Couch, Suite 700, Portland, OR 97209, filed with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission an application for determination
of exempt wholesale generator status pursuant to Part 365 of the
Commission's regulations.
    Klondike III, states that it is an Oregon limited liability
company, will be engaged directly and exclusively in the business of
owning all or part of one or more eligible facilities, and selling
electric energy at wholesale. Klondike III is developing an
approximately 300 megawatt wind power generation facility to be located
in Sherman County, Oregon. Klondike III further states that the Project
will be an eligible facility pursuant to section 32(a)(2) of PUHCA.
    Klondike III states that it has served a copy of the filing on the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the California Public Utilities
Commission, the Oregon Public Utilities Commission, the Washington
Utilities and Transportation Commission, the Utah Public Service
Commission, the Idaho Public Utilities Commission, and the Wyoming
Public Service Commission.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on December 5, 2005.
    Standard Paragraph: 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, 385.214).
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must
file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate.
Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the
comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to
serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the
Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E5-6709 Filed 11-29-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 72 (Friday, April 13, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16015-16017]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07631]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0275; Product Identifier 2018-NM-011-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700,
701, & 702) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705)
airplanes; Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes; and
Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This proposed
AD was prompted by reports indicating that corrosion was found on the
main landing gear (MLG) retraction actuator brackets and their
associated pins. This proposed AD would require an inspection of the
retraction actuator brackets, their associated pins and hardware, and
the mating lugs on the MLG outer cylinder for any corrosion, and
replacement if necessary. We are proposing this AD to address the
unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 29, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-
free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone 1-514-855-2999;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected]; internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-
231-3195.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0275; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations
office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dorie Resnik, Aerospace Engineer,
Aviation Safety Section AIR-7B1, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, 1200 District
Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0275;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-011-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2017-34, dated October 19, 2017 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model CL-600-
2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D15
(Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet
Series 900) airplanes; and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000)
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    There have been in-service reports of corrosion on the main
landing gear (MLG) retraction actuator bracket and its associated
pins. Bombardier's investigation determined that the corrosion is
the consequence of inadequate corrosion protection being applied
during production. Undetected corrosion on the MLG retraction
actuator bracket and its associated pins could result in a MLG
collapse.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates the inspection of the MLG retraction
actuator bracket, its associated pins and hardware, and the mating
lugs on the MLG outer cylinder for corrosion. This [Canadian] AD
also mandates the replacement of corroded MLG parts and the
application of corrosion protection in order to mitigate the risk of
MLG collapse.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0275.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued Service Bulletin 670BA-32-060, Revision B,
dated November 10, 2017. The service information describes a detailed
visual inspection of the retraction actuator brackets, their associated
pins and hardware, and the mating lugs on the MLG outer cylinder for
any corrosion, and replacement if necessary. This service information
is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to
it through their normal course of business or by the means identified
in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 541 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection............................  16 work-hours x $85 per               $0          $1,360        $735,760
                                         hour = $1,360.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Action                      Labor cost            Parts cost               Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement.......................  1 work-hour x $85 per  Up to $75,790.......  Up to $75,875.
                                     hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2018-0275; Product Identifier 2018-
NM-011-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by May 29, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model airplanes,
certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1),
(c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD.
    (1) Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702)
airplanes, serial numbers 10002 and subsequent.
    (2) Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes and
Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, serial
numbers 15001 and subsequent.
    (3) Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes,
serial numbers 19001 and subsequent.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports indicating that corrosion was
found on the main landing gear (MLG) retraction actuator brackets
and their associated pins. We are issuing this AD to address
undetected corrosion on the MLG retraction actuator brackets and
their associated pins, which could lead to a MLG collapse.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Replacement

    For any MLG dressed shock strut assembly with part numbers and
serial numbers specified in paragraph 1.A., ``Effectivity,'' of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-060, Revision B, dated November
10, 2017, at the applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs
(g)(1), (g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD, do a detailed visual
inspection of the retraction actuator brackets, their associated
pins and hardware, and the mating lugs on the MLG outer cylinder for
any corrosion, and do all applicable replacements, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin
670BA-32-060, Revision B, dated November 10, 2017. Do all applicable
replacements before further flight.
    (1) For any MLG dressed shock strut assembly that has
accumulated less than 10,000 total flight hours on the MLG dressed
shock strut assembly and has been in service for less than 60 months
since its first installation on an airplane: Within 6,600 flight
hours or 39 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date
of this AD.
    (2) For any MLG dressed shock strut assembly that has
accumulated less than or equal to 14,000 total flight hours on the
MLG dressed shock strut assembly, and has been in service for less
than 84 months since its first installation on an airplane, and does
not meet the criteria in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD: Within 4,400
flight hours or 26 months, whichever occurs first, after the
effective date of this AD, but not to exceed 16,600 total flight
hours on the MLG dressed shock strut assembly or 99 months since its
first installation on an airplane, whichever occurs first.
    (3) For any MLG dressed shock strut assembly that has
accumulated more than 14,000 total flight hours on the MLG dressed
shock strut assembly or 84 months or more since its first
installation on an airplane: Within 2,600 flight hours or 15 months,
whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.

(h) Parts Exempted From This AD

    For any MLG dressed shock strut assembly with part numbers and
serial numbers specified in paragraph 1.A., ``Effectivity,'' of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-060, Revision B, dated November
10, 2017: The actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD are not
required provided that the actions in paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), or
(h)(3) of this AD have been done.
    (1) The actions in paragraphs (h)(1)(i), (h)(1)(ii),
(h)(1)(iii), and (h)(1)(iv) of this AD, as applicable, have been
done on the MLG dressed shock strut assembly since its entry-into-
service date.
    (i) Airplane maintenance manual (AMM) Task 32-32-05-400-803,
Installation of the Outboard MLG Retraction Actuator Bracket Pin, or
equivalent task in component maintenance manual (CMM) 32-11-05 (for
Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes),
or CMM 32-11-06 (for Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705)
airplanes and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900)
airplanes), or CMM 32-11-34 (for Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet
Series 1000) airplanes); and
    (ii) AMM Task 32-32-05-400-804, Installation of the Inboard MLG
Retraction-Actuator Bracket Pin, or equivalent task in CMM 32-11-05
(for Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702)
airplanes), or CMM 32-11-06 (for Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet
Series 705) airplanes and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series
900) airplanes), or CMM 32-11-34 (for Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional
Jet Series 1000) airplanes); and
    (iii) AMM Task 32-32-05-400-805, Installation of the Inboard-MLG
Retraction-Actuator Pin, or AMM Task 32-32-05-400-801, Installation
of the MLG Retraction-Actuator, or AMM Task 32-11-05-400-801,
Installation of the MLG Shock-Strut Assembly; and
    (iv) For Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702)
airplanes, Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes,
and Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes equipped
with MLG auxiliary actuators: AMM Task 32-32-03-400-801,
Installation of the MLG Auxiliary Actuator, or AMM Task 32-11-05-
400-801, Installation of the MLG Shock-Strut Assembly.
    (2) AMM Task 32-32-05-400-806, Installation of the MLG
Retraction-Actuator Bracket has been accomplished on the MLG dressed
shock strut assembly since its entry-into-service date.
    (3) AMM-Tasks 32-11-00-610-801 Restoration (Overhaul) of the MLG
Assembly has been accomplished since its entry into service date.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-060,
dated May 2, 2017, or Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-32-060,
Revision A, dated June 22, 2017.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2017-34, dated October
19, 2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0275.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Dorie Resnik,
Aerospace Engineer, Aviation Safety Section AIR-7B1, Boston ACO
Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone
781-238-7693.
    (3) For information about AMOCs, contact Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO
Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center
North America toll-free telephone 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial
telephone 1-514-855-2999; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected]; internet http://www.bombardier.com. You
may view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on March 29, 2018.
Chris Spangenberg,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-07631 Filed 4-12-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on December 6, 2004

July 21, 2004

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2002-135274-19479

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application  of BRENDAN AIRWAYS, LLC d/b/a USA 3000 AIRLINES (USA 3000)
filed 610/25/17/04 for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following serviceRenewal of exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C.
40109 to provide the following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Bermuda.  USA 3000 states that
it plans to begin service to Bermuda on this route on or about February
10, 2005, or as soon thereafter as all necessary Bermuda licenses have
been obtained.

Applicant rep:   Pierre Murphy<PHONE_NUMBER>     DOT Analyst:  Linda
L. LundellThuy H. Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>5423

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted (subject to conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken:   July 21, 2004  December 6,
2004, through July 21, 2006   December 6, 2006.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

XX   The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and the United Kingdom.

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

XX  Holder’s certificate of public convenience and necessity

		XX  Standard Exemption Conditions (attached)

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

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

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

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at: http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.aspU.S. Carrier
Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

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

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.
To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government requirements
concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing any new service
(including charter flights) to or from a foreign airport, contact its
International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of
its plans and to find out whether the Transportation Security
Administration has determined that security is adequate to allow such
airport(s) to be served; and

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all
applic扡敬氠睡⁳景琠敨唠楮整瑓瑡獥മ名敨愠瑵潨楲
祴朠慲瑮摥猠慨汬戠晥敦瑣癩湯祬搠牵湩桴数
楲摯眠敨桴潨摬牥椠⁳湩挠浯汰慩据楷桴琠敨挠
湯楤楴湯⁳浩潰敳扡癯⹥഍഍഍഍഍」⼵〲㐰

hä


Class 2 (2016)..................................................             236            1.15           271.4
Class 2 (2017)..................................................             264            1.15           303.6
Class 2 (2018)..................................................             169            1.15          194.35
Class 3 (2014)..................................................              15             1.3            19.5
Class 3 (2015)..................................................               8             1.3            10.4
Class 3 (2016)..................................................              10             1.3              13
Class 3 (2017)..................................................              19             1.3            24.7
Class 3 (2018)..................................................               9             1.3            11.7
Class 4 (2014)..................................................             394            1.45           571.3
Class 4 (2015)..................................................             375            1.45          543.75
Class 4 (2016)..................................................             332            1.45           481.4
Class 4 (2017)..................................................             367            1.45          532.15
Class 4 (2018)..................................................             337            1.45          488.65
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total for Area 6............................................           3,504  ..............        4,507.05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Area 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1 (2014)..................................................               3               1               3
Class 1 (2015)..................................................               0               1               0
Class 1 (2016)..................................................               4               1               4
Class 1 (2017)..................................................               4               1               4
Class 1 (2018)..................................................               0               1               0
Class 2 (2014)..................................................             177            1.15          203.55
Class 2 (2015)..................................................             169            1.15          194.35
Class 2 (2016)..................................................             174            1.15           200.1
Class 2 (2017)..................................................             151            1.15          173.65
Class 2 (2018)..................................................             102            1.15           117.3
Class 3 (2014)..................................................               3             1.3             3.9
Class 3 (2015)..................................................               0             1.3               0
Class 3 (2016)..................................................               7             1.3             9.1
Class 3 (2017)..................................................              18             1.3            23.4
Class 3 (2018)..................................................               7             1.3             9.1
Class 4 (2014)..................................................             243            1.45          352.35
Class 4 (2015)..................................................             253            1.45          366.85
Class 4 (2016)..................................................             204            1.45           295.8
Class 4 (2017)..................................................             269            1.45          390.05
Class 4 (2018)..................................................             188            1.45           272.6
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total for Area 8............................................           1,976  ..............          2623.1
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Combined total..........................................           5,480  ..............        7,130.15
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
            Average weighting factor (weighted transits/number    ..............            1.30  ..............
             of transits).......................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Table 36--Average Weighting Factor for District Three, Designated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Number of       Weighting       Weighted
                      Vessel class per year                          transits         factor         transits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class 1 (2014)..................................................              27               1              27
Class 1 (2015)..................................................              23               1              23
Class 1 (2016)..................................................              55               1              55
Class 1 (2017)..................................................              62               1              62

Class 1 (2018)..................................................              47               1              47
Class 2 (2014)..................................................             221            1.15          254.15
Class 2 (2015)..................................................             145            1.15          166.75
Class 2 (2016)..................................................             174            1.15           200.1
Class 2 (2017)..................................................             170            1.15           195.5
Class 2 (2018)..................................................             126            1.15           144.9
Class 3 (2014)..................................................               4             1.3             5.2
Class 3 (2015)..................................................               0             1.3               0
Class 3 (2016)..................................................               6             1.3             7.8
Class 3 (2017)..................................................              14             1.3            18.2
Class 3 (2018)..................................................               6             1.3             7.8
Class 4 (2014)..................................................             321            1.45          465.45
Class 4 (2015)..................................................             245            1.45          355.25
Class 4 (2016)..................................................             191            1.45          276.95
Class 4 (2017)..................................................             234            1.45           339.3
Class 4 (2018)..................................................             225            1.45          326.25
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................................           2,296  ..............           2,977
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Average weighting factor (weighted transits per number    ..............            1.30  ..............
         of transits)...........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Step 9: Calculate Revised Base Rates
    In this step, we revise the base rates so that once the impact of
the weighting factors are considered, the total cost of pilotage would
be equal to the revenue needed. To do this, we divide the initial base
rates, calculated in Step 7, by the average weighting factors
calculated in Step 8, as shown in Table 37.

                                 Table 37--Revised Base Rates for District Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Revised rate
                                                                                Average     (initial rate/
                              Area                                 Initial rate      weighting        average
                                                                     (Step 7)      factor (Step      weighting
                                                                                8)            factor)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Three: Designated......................................            $807            1.30            $621
District Three: Undesignated....................................             425            1.30             327
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Step 10: Review and Finalize Rates
    In this step, the Director reviews the rates set forth by the
staffing model and ensures that they meet the goal of ensuring safe,
efficient, and reliable pilotage. To establish that the proposed rates
do meet the goal of ensuring safe, efficient and reliable pilotage, the
Director considers whether the proposed rates incorporate appropriate
compensation for pilots to handle heavy traffic periods and whether
there is a sufficient number of pilots to handle those heavy traffic
periods. The Director also considers whether the proposed rates would
cover operating expenses and infrastructure costs, and takes average
traffic and weighting factors into consideration. Based on this
information, the Director is not proposing any alterations to the rates
in this step. We propose to modify the text in Sec.  401.405(a) to
reflect the final rates shown in Table 38.

                                Table 38--Proposed Final Rates for District Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Final 2019     Proposed 2020
                     Area                                    Name                pilotage rate    pilotage rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District Three: Designated...................  St. Mary's River...............             $594             $621
District Three: Undesignated.................  Lakes Huron, Michigan, and                   306              327
                                                Superior.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. Surcharges
    The Coast Guard is not proposing any surcharges in this ratemaking.
As stated earlier, we previously used surcharges to pay for the
training of new pilots, rather than incorporating training costs into
the overall ``needed revenue'' that is used in the calculation of the
base rate, because the surcharge accelerates the reimbursement of
certain necessary and reasonable expense. For the 2019 ratemaking, this
reimbursement needed to be accelerated because of the large number of
registered pilots retiring, and the large number of new pilots being
trained to replace them. As the vast majority of registered pilots are
not anticipated to retire in the next 20 years, we believe that pilot
associations are now able to plan for the costs associated with
retirements without relying on the Coast Guard to impose surcharges.

VIII. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. A summary of our analyses
based on these statutes or Executive orders follows.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) direct agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying costs and
benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs) directs agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory
costs and provides that ``for every one new regulation issued, at least
two prior regulations be identified for elimination, and that the cost
of planned regulations be prudently managed and controlled through a
budgeting process.''
    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not designated this
proposed rule a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it. Because
this proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action, it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771. See the OMB Memorandum
titled ``Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771, titled `Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs' '' (April 5, 2017). A
regulatory analysis (RA) follows.
    The purpose of this proposed rule is to establish new base pilotage
rates. The Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960 requires that rates be
established or reviewed and adjusted each year. The Act requires that
base rates be established by a full ratemaking at least once every five
years, and in years when base rates are not established, they must be
reviewed and, if necessary, adjusted. The last full ratemaking was
concluded in June of 2018.\43\ Table 39 summarizes proposed changes
with no cost impacts or where the cost impacts are captured in the
proposed rate change. Table 40 summarizes the affected population,
costs, and benefits of the proposed rate change. The Coast Guard
estimates a decrease in cost of approximately $0.23 million to industry
as a result of the change in revenue needed in 2020 compared to the
revenue needed in 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Great Lakes Pilotage Rates--2018 Annual Review and
Revisions to Methodology (83 FR 26162), published June 5, 2018.

              Table 39--Proposed Changes With No Costs or Cost Captured in the Proposed Rate Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Affected
             Change                   Description         population       Basis for no cost       Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Working capital fund              The Coast Guard is  The 3 pilotage      All three           Provides increased
 requirements.                     proposing to add    associations.       districts opened    transparency and
                                   regulatory text                         accounts for the    oversight of how
                                   to Sec.   403.110                       working capital     the money in the
                                   requiring the                           fund in response    working capital
                                   pilotage                                to a policy         fund is spent and
                                   associations keep                       letter sent by      how much each
                                   money allocated                         the Coast Guard     association has
                                   to the working                          in November,        allocated for
                                   capital fund in a                       2018; therefore,    infrastructure
                                   separate account                        there is no         expenses.
                                   and limit the use                       additional cost
                                   of the funds to                         as a result of
                                   infrastructure                          this rulemaking.
                                   expenses.                               In addition,
                                                                           based on
                                                                           discussion with
                                                                           the associations,
                                                                           we believe the
                                                                           cost to open
                                                                           these accounts
                                                                           was negligible,
                                                                           as each
                                                                           association was
                                                                           able to open a
                                                                           bank account
                                                                           online with their
                                                                           existing
                                                                           financial
                                                                           institutions with
                                                                           minimal effort.
                                                                          We estimate that
                                                                           any recordkeeping
                                                                           or reporting
                                                                           requirements
                                                                           associated with
                                                                           the working
                                                                           capital fund
                                                                           would also be
                                                                           minimal. The
                                                                           associations must
                                                                           already report
                                                                           and keep records
                                                                           on their
                                                                           infrastructure
                                                                           expense as part
                                                                           of their
                                                                           reporting
                                                                           requirements
                                                                           under Sec.
                                                                           403.105. We
                                                                           believe any
                                                                           recordkeeping
                                                                           associated with
                                                                           the new bank
                                                                           accounts may be
                                                                           conducted
                                                                           simultaneously
                                                                           with the
                                                                           recordkeeping for
                                                                           the existing
                                                                           accounts, as all
                                                                           accounts are with
                                                                           the same
                                                                           financial
                                                                           institution.
Address inconsistent terms......  The Coast Guard is  The 3 pilotage      The Coast Guard     Creates
                                   proposing to        associations.       previously          consistency
                                   replace the text                        renamed ``return    across the CFR
                                   in Sec.                                 on investment''     and reduces
                                   404.106, ``return                       as the ``working    confusion.
                                   on investment''                         capital fund'' in
                                   with ``working                          the Great Lakes
                                   capital fund''.                         Pilotage Rates
                                                                           2017 Annual
                                                                           Review final rule
                                                                           (82 FR 41466);
                                                                           however, this
                                                                           text was not
                                                                           modified in that
                                                                           rulemaking.
Target pilot compensation.......  The Coast Guard is  Owners and          Pilot compensation  This compensation
                                   proposing to        operators of 266    costs are           target achieves
                                   change the base     vessels             accounted for in    the Coast Guard's
                                   pilot               journeying the      the base pilotage   goals of safety
                                   compensation        Great Lakes         rates.              through rate and
                                   benchmark in Sec.   system annually,                        compensation
                                     401.405(a) to     52 U.S. Great                           stability, while
                                   the 2019            Lakes pilots, and                       promoting
                                   compensation        3 pilotage                              recruitment and
                                   benchmark after     associations.                           retention of
                                   adjusting for                                               qualified U.S.
                                   inflation.                                                  registered
                                                                                pilots.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Table 40--Economic Impacts Due to Proposed Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Affected
             Change                   Description         population             Costs             Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rate and surcharge changes......  Under the Great     Owners and          Decrease of         New rates cover an
                                   Lakes Pilotage      operators of 266    $225,658 due to     association's
                                   Act of 1960, the    vessels             change in revenue   necessary and
                                   Coast Guard is      transiting the      needed for 2020     reasonable
                                   required to         Great Lakes         ($27,762,527)       operating
                                   review and adjust   system annually,    from revenue        expenses.
                                   base pilotage       52 U.S. Great       needed for 2019    Promotes safe,
                                   rates annually.     Lakes pilots, and   ($27,988,185) as    efficient, and
                                                       3 pilotage          shown in Table 41   reliable pilotage
                                                       associations.       below.              service on the
                                                                                Great Lakes.
                                                                                Provides fair
                                                                                compensation,
                                                                                adequate
                                                                                training, and
                                                                                sufficient rest
                                                                                periods for
                                                                                pilots.
                                                                                Ensures the
                                                                                association
                                                                                receives
                                                                                sufficient
                                                                                revenues to fund
                                                                                future
                                                                                improvements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Coast Guard is required to review and adjust pilotage rates on
the Great Lakes annually. See Sections IV and V of this preamble for
detailed discussions of the legal basis and purpose for this rulemaking
and for background information on Great Lakes pilotage ratemaking.
Based on our annual review for this rulemaking, we are proposing to
adjust the pilotage rates for the 2020 shipping season to generate
sufficient revenues for each district to reimburse its necessary and
reasonable operating expenses, fairly compensate trained and rested
pilots, and provide an appropriate working capital fund to use for
improvements. The rate changes in this proposed rule would increase the
rates for four areas (District One: Designated, District Two:
Undesignated, and all of District Three), and decrease the rates for
the remaining two areas (District One: Undesignated, and District Two:
Designated). In addition, the proposed rule would not implement a
surcharge. These changes lead to a net decrease in the cost of service
to shippers. However, because the proposed rates would increase for
some areas and decrease for others, the change in per unit cost to each
individual shipper would be dependent on their area of operation, and
if they previously paid a surcharge.
    A detailed discussion of our economic impact analysis follows.
Affected Population
    This rule would impact U.S. Great Lakes pilots, the three pilot
associations, and the owners and operators of oceangoing vessels that
transit the Great Lakes annually. We estimate that there would be 52
pilots working during the 2020 shipping season. The shippers affected
by these rate changes are those owners and operators of domestic
vessels operating ``on register'' (engaged in foreign trade) and owners
and operators of non-Canadian foreign vessels on routes within the
Great Lakes system. These owners and operators must have pilots or
pilotage service as required by 46 U.S.C. 9302. There is no minimum
tonnage limit or exemption for these vessels. The statute applies only
to commercial vessels and not to recreational vessels. U.S.-flagged
vessels not operating on register and Canadian ``lakers,'' which
account for most commercial shipping on the Great Lakes, are not
required by 46 U.S.C. 9302 to have pilots. However, these U.S.- and
Canadian-flagged lakers may voluntarily choose to engage a Great Lakes
registered pilot. Vessels that are U.S.-flagged may opt to have a pilot
for varying reasons, such as unfamiliarity with designated waters and
ports, or for insurance purposes.
    The Coast Guard used billing information from the years 2016
through 2018 from the Great Lakes Pilotage Management System (GLPMS) to
estimate the average annual number of vessels affected by the rate
adjustment. The GLPMS tracks data related to managing and coordinating
the dispatch of pilots on the Great Lakes, and billing in accordance
with the services. As described in Step 7 of the methodology, we use a
10-year average to estimate the traffic. We used 3 years of the most
recent billing data to estimate the affected population. When we
reviewed 10 years of the most recent billing data, we found the data
included vessels that have not used pilotage services in recent years.
We believe using 3 years of billing data is a better representation of
the vessel population that is currently using pilotage services and
would be impacted by this rulemaking. We found that 457 unique vessels
used pilotage services during the years 2016 through 2018. That is,
these vessels had a pilot dispatched to the vessel, and billing
information was recorded in the GLPMS. Of these vessels, 420 were
foreign-flagged vessels and 37 were U.S.-flagged vessels. As previously
stated, U.S.-flagged vessels not operating on register are not required
to have a registered pilot per 46 U.S.C. 9302, but they can voluntarily
choose to have one.
    Numerous factors affect vessel traffic, which varies from year to
year. Therefore, rather than using the total number of vessels over the
time period, we took an average of the unique vessels using pilotage
services from the years 2016 through 2018 as the best representation of
vessels estimated to be affected by the rates in this rulemaking. From
2016 through 2018, an average of 266 vessels used pilotage services
annually.\44\ On average, 248 of these vessels were foreign-flagged
vessels and 18 were U.S.-flagged vessels that voluntarily opted into
the pilotage service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Some vessels entered the Great Lakes multiple times in a
single year, affecting the average number of unique vessels
utilizing pilotage services in any given year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Total Cost to Shippers
    The proposed rate changes resulting from this adjustment to the
rates would result in a net decrease in the cost of service to
shippers. However, because the rates would increase for some areas and
decrease for others, the proposed change in per unit cost to each
individual shipper would be dependent on their area of operation, and
if they previously paid a surcharge.
    The Coast Guard estimates the effect of the rate changes on
shippers by comparing the total projected revenues needed to cover
costs in 2019 with the total projected revenues to cover costs in 2020,
including any temporary surcharges we have authorized.\45\ We set
pilotage rates so that pilot associations receive enough revenue to
cover their necessary and reasonable expenses. Shippers pay these rates
when they have a pilot as required by 46 U.S.C. 9302. Therefore, the
aggregate payments of shippers to pilot associations are equal to the
projected necessary revenues for pilot associations. The revenues each
year represent the total costs that shippers must pay for pilotage

services. The change in revenue from the previous year is the
additional cost to shippers discussed in this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ While the Coast Guard implemented a surcharge in 2019, we
are not proposing any surcharges for 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The impacts of the rate changes on shippers are estimated from the
district pilotage projected revenues (shown in Tables 8, 20, and 32 of
this preamble). The Coast Guard estimates that for the 2020 shipping
season, the projected revenue needed for all three districts is
$27,762,527.
    To estimate the change in cost to shippers from this rule, the
Coast Guard compared the 2020 total projected revenues to the 2019
projected revenues. Because we review and prescribe rates for the Great
Lakes Pilotage annually, the effects are estimated as a single-year
cost rather than annualized over a 10-year period. In the 2019
rulemaking, we estimated the total projected revenue needed for 2019,
including surcharges, as $27,988,185.\46\ This is the best
approximation of 2019 revenues as, at the time of this publication, we
do not have enough audited data available for the 2019 shipping season
to revise these projections. Table 41 shows the revenue projections for
2019 and 2020 and details the additional cost increases to shippers by
area and district as a result of the rate changes on traffic in
Districts One, Two, and Three.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ 84 FR 20551, see table 36.

                                                    Table 41--Effect of the Rule by Area and District
                                                                 [$U.S.; Non-discounted]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Total 2019                                      Total 2020       Change in
                  Area                    Revenue needed  2019 Temporary     projected    Revenue needed  2020 Temporary     projected     costs of this
                                              in 2019        surcharge        revenue         in 2020        surcharge        revenue      proposed rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, district one.....................      $9,271,852        $300,000      $9,571,852      $9,201,688              $0      $9,201,688       -$370,164
Total, district two.....................       7,864,224         150,000       8,014,224       8,152,300               0       8,152,300         138,076
Total, district three...................       9,802,109         600,000      10,402,109      10,408,539               0      10,408,539           6,430
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
    System total........................      26,938,185       1,050,000      27,988,185      27,762,527               0      27,762,527       -$225,658
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The resulting difference between the projected revenue in 2019 and
the projected revenue in 2020 is the annual change in payments from
shippers to pilots as a result of the rate change imposed by this
proposed rule. The effect of the rate change to shippers varies by area
and district. The rate changes, after taking into account the change in
pilotage rates, would lead to affected shippers operating in District
One experiencing a decrease in payments of $370,164, over the previous
year. District Two and District Three would experience an increase in
payments of $138,076 and, $6,430 respectively, when compared with 2019.
The overall adjustment in payments would be a decrease in payments by
shippers of $225,658 across all three districts (a 1-percent decrease
when compared with 2019). Again, because the Coast Guard reviews and
sets rates for Great Lakes Pilotage annually, we estimate the impacts
as single-year costs rather than annualizing them over a 10-year
period.
    Table 42 shows the difference in revenue by revenue-component from
2019 to 2020, and presents each revenue-component as a percentage of
the total revenue needed. In both 2019 and 2020, the largest revenue-
component was pilotage compensation (66% of total revenue needed in
2019 and 69% of total revenue needed in 2020), followed by operating
expenses (27% of total revenue needed in 2019 and 2020).

                                                      Table 42--Difference in Revenue by Component
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Difference
                                                          Revenue needed   Percentage of  Revenue needed   Percentage of  (2020 revenue-    Percentage
                    Revenue-component                         in 2019      total revenue      in 2020      total revenue   2019 revenue)    change from
                                                                          needed in 2019                  needed in 2020                   previous year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adjusted Operating Expenses.............................      $7,565,310              27      $7,624,298              27         $58,988               1
Total Target Pilot Compensation.........................      18,354,237              66      19,088,420              69         734,183               4
Working Capital Fund....................................       1,018,638               4       1,049,809               4          31,171               3
Total Revenue Needed, without Surcharge.................      26,938,185              96      27,762,527             100         824,342               3
Surcharge...............................................       1,050,000               4               0               0      -1,050,000            -100
Total Revenue Needed, with Surcharge....................      27,988,185             100      27,762,527             100        -225,658              -1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.

    Table 43 presents the percentage change in revenue by area and
revenue-component, excluding surcharges as they are applied at the
district level.\47\ The majority of the decrease in revenue is due to
the removal of surcharges to cover the cost of applicant pilot training
expenses and decreased operating expenses. The change in revenue also
accounts for the inflation of pilotage compensation and the net
addition of one additional pilot. The target compensation for these
pilots is $367,085 per pilot. The addition of this pilot to full
working status accounts for $367,085 of the increase ($734,183 is the
difference between the revenues needed in 2019 to the revenues needed
in 2020, which takes into account the effect of increasing compensation
for the other 51 pilots). The remaining amount is attributed to
increases in the working capital fund.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ The 2019 projected revenues are from the Great Lakes
Pilotage Rates--2019 Annual Review and Revisions to Methodology
final rule (84 FR 20551) Tables 15-17. The 2020 projected revenues
are from tables 8, 20, and 32 of this proposed rule.

                                                                      Table 43--Difference in Revenue by Component and Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Adjusted operating expenses        Total target pilot compensation            Working capital fund                 Total revenue needed
                                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Area                                               Percentage                           Percentage                           Percentage                           Percentage
                                                 2019        2020        change       2019        2020        change       2019        2020        change       2019        2020        change
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District One: Designated....................  $1,467,171  $1,567,975            6  $3,598,870  $3,670,850            2    $199,095    $205,886            3  $5,265,136  $5,444,711            3
District One: Undesignated..................   1,335,997   1,045,316          -28   2,519,209   2,569,595            2     151,510     142,066           -7   4,006,716   3,756,977           -7
District Two: Undesignated..................   1,072,441     935,104          -15   2,519,209   2,936,680           14     141,152     152,161            7   3,732,802   4,023,945            7
District Two: Designated....................   1,455,988   1,402,651           -4   2,519,209   2,569,595            2     156,225     156,109            0   4,131,422   4,128,355            0
District Three: Undesignated................   1,703,896   2,082,529           18   5,758,192   5,873,360            2     293,260     312,666            6   7,755,348   8,268,555            6
District Three: Designated..................     529,817     590,723           10   1,439,548   1,468,340            2      77,396      80,921            4   2,046,761   2,139,984            4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits
    This proposed rule would allow the Coast Guard to meet the
requirements in 46 U.S.C. 9303 to review the rates for pilotage
services on the Great Lakes. The rate changes would promote safe,
efficient, and reliable pilotage service on the Great Lakes by: (1)
Ensuring that rates cover an association's operating expenses; (2)
providing fair pilot compensation, adequate training, and sufficient
rest periods for pilots; and (3) ensuring pilot associations produce
enough revenue to fund future improvements. The rate changes would also
help recruit and retain pilots, which would ensure a sufficient number
of pilots to meet peak shipping demand, helping to reduce delays caused
by pilot shortages.

B. Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    For the rule, the Coast Guard reviewed recent company size and
ownership data for the vessels identified in the GLPMS, and we reviewed
business revenue and size data provided by publicly available sources
such as Manta \48\ and ReferenceUSA.\49\ As described in Section VIII.A
of this preamble, Regulatory Planning and Review, we found that a total
of 457 unique vessels used pilotage services from 2016 through 2018.
These vessels are owned by 55 entities. We found that of the 55
entities that own or operate vessels engaged in trade on the Great
Lakes that would be affected by this rule, 43 are foreign entities that
operate primarily outside the United States. The remaining 12 entities
are U.S. entities. We compared the revenue and employee data found in
the company search to the Small Business Administration's (SBA) small
business threshold as defined in the SBA's ``Table of Size Standards''
for small businesses to determine how many of these companies are small
entities.\50\ Table 44 shows the North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) codes of the U.S. entities and the small entity standard
size established by the SBA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See https://www.manta.com/.
    \49\ See http://resource.referenceusa.com/.
    \50\ See: https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards. SBA has established a ``Table of Size Standards'' for
small businesses that sets small business size standards by NAICS
code. A size standard, which is usually stated in number of
employees or average annual receipts (``revenues''), represents the
largest size that a business (including its subsidiaries and
affiliates) may be in order to remain classified as a small business
for SBA and Federal contracting programs.

                             Table 44--NAICS Codes and Small Entities Size Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             NAICS                         Description                      Small entity size standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
211120.........................  Crude Petroleum Extraction.....  1,250 employees.
238910.........................  Site Preparation Contractors...  $15.0 million.
488330.........................  Navigational Services to         $38.5 million.
                                  Shipping.
523910.........................  Miscellaneous Intermediation...  $38.5 million.
532411.........................  Commercial Air, Rail, and Water  $32.5 million.
                                  Transportation Equipment
                                  Rental and Leasing.
551111.........................  Offices of Bank Holding          $20.5 million.
                                  Companies.
561510.........................  Travel Agencies................  $20.5 million.
928110.........................  National Security..............  Population of 50,000 people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Of the 12 U.S. entities, 10 exceed the SBA's small business
standards for small entities. To estimate the potential impact on the 2
small entities, the Coast Guard used their 2018 invoice data to
estimate their pilotage costs in 2020. We increased their 2018 costs to
account for the changes in pilotage rates resulting from this rule and
the Great Lakes Pilotage Rates--2019 Annual Review and Revisions to
Methodology final rule (84 FR 20551). We estimated the change in cost
to these entities resulting from this rule by subtracting their
estimated 2019 costs from their estimated 2020 costs. We then compared
the estimated change in pilotage costs between 2019 and 2020 with each
firm's annual revenue and compared their total estimated 2020 pilotage
costs to their annual revenue. In both cases, their estimated pilotage
expenses were below 1 percent of their annual revenue. Table 44
presents the calculation of these cost estimates for both entities.

                                               Table 44--Estimated 2020 Pilotage Costs for Small Entities
                                                                 [Thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Estimated change
                                                              in  pilotage                        Estimated change                      Estimated change
                 Entity                     2018 pilotage    costs  between     Estimated 2019      in  pilotage      Estimated 2020      in  pilotage
                                              expenses        2018 and 2019    pilotage expenses    cost  between    pilotage expenses    expenses from
                                                                  \51\                              2018 and 2019                         2019 to 2020
                                                       (a)               (b)    (c) = (a) x (1 +               (d)    (e) = (c) x (1 +   (f) = (e) - (c)
                                                                                (b))                                  (d))
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Entity A..........................             $4.75                11                5.27                -1                5.22            -$0.05
Small Entity B..........................            148.39                11              164.71                -1              163.06             -1.65
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the owners and operators discussed above, three U.S.
entities that receive revenue from pilotage services would be affected
by this proposed rule. These are the three pilot associations that
provide and manage pilotage services within the Great Lakes districts.
Two of the associations operate as partnerships, and one operates as a
corporation. These associations are designated with the same NAICS code
and small-entity size standards described above, but have fewer than
500 employees. Combined, they have approximately 65 employees in total
and, therefore, are designated as small entities. The Coast Guard
expects no adverse effect on these entities from this rule because the
three pilot associations would receive enough revenue to balance the
projected expenses associated with the projected number of bridge hours
(time on task) and pilots.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 84 FR 20551, see table 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Coast Guard did not find any small not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields that would be impacted by this rule. We did
not find any small governmental jurisdictions with populations of fewer
than 50,000 people that would be impacted by this rule. Based on this
analysis, we conclude this rulemaking would not affect a substantial
number of small entities, nor have a significant economic impact on any
of the affected entities.
    Based on our analysis, this proposed rule would have a less than 1
percent annual impact on 2 small entities; therefore, the Coast Guard
certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If you think that your business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this
proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please
submit a comment to the docket at the address listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble. In your comment, explain why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree this proposed rule would
economically affect it.

C. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION section of this proposed rule. The Coast Guard
will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain
about this proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247).

D. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). This
proposed rule would not change the burden in the collection currently
approved by OMB under OMB Control Number 1625-0086, Great Lakes
Pilotage Methodology.

E. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism) if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive
Order 13132 and have determined that it is consistent with the
fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements as
described in Executive Order 13132. Our analysis follows.
    Congress directed the Coast Guard to establish ``rates and charges
for pilotage services.'' See 46 U.S.C. 9303(f). This regulation is
issued pursuant to that statute and is preemptive of State law as
specified in 46 U.S.C. 9306. Under 46 U.S.C. 9306, a ``State or
political subdivision of a State may not regulate or impose any
requirement on pilotage on the Great Lakes.'' As a result, States or
local governments are expressly prohibited from regulating within this
category. Therefore, this proposed rule is consistent with the
fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described
in Executive Order 13132.
    While it is well settled that States may not regulate in categories
in which Congress intended the Coast Guard to be the sole source of a
vessel's obligations, the Coast Guard recognizes the key role that
State and local governments may have in making regulatory
determinations. Additionally, for rules with implications and
preemptive effect, Executive Order 13132 specifically directs agencies
to consult with State and local governments during the rulemaking
process. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism under
Executive Order 13132, please contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION section of this preamble.

F. Unfunded Mandates

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

an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this proposed rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

G. Taking of Private Property

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

H. Civil Justice Reform

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

I. Protection of Children

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

J. Indian Tribal Governments

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

K. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211
(Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use). We have determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

L. Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act, codified as a
note to 15 U.S.C. 272, directs agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides
Congress, through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.,
specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test
methods; sampling procedures; and related management systems practices)
that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards. If you
disagree with our analysis or are aware of voluntary consensus
standards that might apply, please send a comment explaining your
disagreement or identifying appropriate standards to the docket using
the method listed in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

M. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01-001-01, Revision 1 (DHS Directive
023-01), Commandant Instruction 5090.1 (COMDTINST 5090.1), and U.S.
Coast Guard Environmental Planning Policy (April 2019), which guide the
Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket where
indicated under the ADDRESSES portion of this preamble. This proposed
rule appears to meet the criteria for categorical exclusion (CATEX)
under paragraphs A3 and L54 in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard
Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures, which is available in
the docket at www.regulations.gov. Paragraph A3 pertains to the
promulgation of rules, issuance of rulings or interpretations, and the
development and publication of policies, orders, directives, notices,
procedures, manuals, advisory circulars, and other guidance documents
of the following nature: (a) Those of a strictly administrative or
procedural nature; (b) Those that implement, without substantive
change, statutory or regulatory requirements; or (c) those that
implement, without substantive change, procedures, manuals, and other
guidance documents; and (d) Those that interpret or amend an existing
regulation without changing its environmental effect. Paragraph L54
pertains to regulations which are editorial or procedural.
    This proposed rule involves: (1) Clarifying the rules related to
the working capital fund, (2) adjusting the base pilotage rates, and
(3) eliminating surcharges for administering the 2020 shipping season
in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory mandates
pursuant to the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960. We seek any comments
or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects

46 CFR Part 401

    Administrative practice and procedure, Great Lakes, Navigation
(water), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.

46 CFR Part 403

    Great Lakes, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Seamen, Uniform System of Accounts.

46 CFR Part 404

    Great Lakes, Navigation (water), Seamen.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 46 CFR parts 401, 403, and 404 as follows:

PART 401--GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE REGULATIONS

0
 1. The authority citation for part 401 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104(a), 6101, 7701, 8105, 9303,
9304; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1(II)(92.a), (92.d), (92.e), (92.f).

0
 2. Revise Sec.  401.405(a) to read as follows:

Sec.  401.405   Pilotage rates and charges.

    (a) The hourly rate for pilotage service on--
    (1) The St. Lawrence River is $757;
    (2) Lake Ontario is $462;
    (3) Lake Erie is $573;
    (4) The navigable waters from Southeast Shoal to Port Huron, MI is
$602;
    (5) Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior is $302; and
    (6) The St. Mary's River is $621.
* * * * *

PART 403--GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE UNIFORM ACCOUNTING SYSTEM

0
3. The authority citation for part 403 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104(a), 9303, 9304; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(92.a), (92.f).

0
4. Amend Sec.  403.110 by:
0
(a) Designating the text as paragraph (a); and
0
(b) Adding paragraph (b).
    The addition to read as follows:

Sec.  403.110   Accounting entities

    (a) * * *
    (b) Each Association will maintain a separate account called the
``Working Capital Fund.'' Each Association will deposit into the
working capital fund an amount each year at least equal to the amount
calculated in Step 5, 46 CFR 404.105. Working capital funds may only be
used for infrastructure improvements and infrastructure maintenance
necessary to provide safe, efficient, and reliable pilot service such
as pilot boat replacements, major repairs to pilot boats, non-recurring
technology purchases necessary for providing pilot services, or for the
acquisition of real property for use as a dispatch center, office
space, or pilot lodging. The Director may grant exceptions to the
requirements of this paragraph (403.110(b)) upon request by an
Association.

PART 404--GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE RATEMAKING

0
5. The authority citation for part 404 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 2103, 2104(a), 9303, 9304; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1(II)(92.a), (92.f).

Sec.  404.106  [Amended]

0
6. In Sec.  404.106, remove the words ``return on investment'' and add
in their place ``working capital fund''.

    Dated: October 23, 2019.
R.V. Timme,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Prevention
Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-23510 Filed 10-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P