[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 128 (Thursday, July 3, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37938-37946]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15503]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Parts 234 and 235

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2010-0211]
RIN 2105-AE07

Reports by Air Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals During Air
Transport

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation
(DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (DOT or Department) is
issuing a final rule to amend the requirement for air carriers to
report incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal
during air transport. The final rule will: Expand the reporting
requirement to U.S. carriers that operate scheduled service with at
least one aircraft with a design capacity of more than 60 seats; expand
the definition of ``animal'' to include all cats and dogs transported
by covered carriers, regardless of whether the cat or dog is
transported as a pet by its owner or as part of a commercial shipment
(e.g., shipped by a breeder); require covered carriers to file a
calendar-year report in December, even if the carrier did not have any
reportable incidents during the calendar year; require covered carriers
to provide in their December reports the total number of animals that
were lost, injured, or died during air transport in the calendar year;
and require covered carriers to provide in their December reports the
total number of animals transported in the calendar year.

DATES: This rule is effective January 1, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Blane Workie, Tim Kelly, or Vinh Q.
Nguyen, Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department
of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, 202-
366-9342 (phone),<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

1. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    The Department is issuing a final rule to amend the requirement for
air carriers to report incidents involving the loss, injury, or death
of an animal during air transport. The Department is taking action to
provide consumers with a fuller picture of the safety record of
airlines in the transportation of animals and to clarify which entities
are subject to the reporting requirement (i.e., any U.S. air carriers
that provide scheduled passenger air transportation or only reporting
carriers), as well as which flights are covered (i.e., only domestic
scheduled passenger flights or all scheduled passenger flights,
including international flights). The legal authority for the
Department's regulatory action is 49 U.S.C. 41721.

2. Summary of Regulatory Provisions

    The final rule: (1) Expands the reporting requirement to U.S.
carriers that operate scheduled service with at least one aircraft with
a design capacity of more than 60 seats (``covered carriers''); (2)
expands the definition of ``animal'' to any warm- or cold-blooded
animal which, at the time of transportation, is being kept as a pet in
a family household in the United States and any dog or cat which, at
the time of transportation, is shipped as part of a commercial shipment
on a scheduled passenger flight, including shipments by trainers and
breeders; (3) requires covered carriers to file a calendar-year report
for December, even if the carrier did not have any reportable incidents
during the calendar year; (4) requires covered carriers to provide in
their December reports the total number of animals that were lost,
injured, or died during air transport in the calendar year; (5)
requires covered carriers to provide in their December reports the
total number of animals transported in the calendar year; and (6)
requires covered carriers to provide in their December reports a
certification signed by an authorized carrier representative affirming
that the report is true, correct, and complete.

3. Summary of Regulatory Analysis

    The quantifiable costs of this rulemaking exceed the quantifiable

benefits. The present value of monetized net benefits for a 20-year
analysis period is estimated to be -$729,166 at a 7% discount rate.
However, when unquantified costs and benefits are taken into account,
we anticipate that the benefits of this final rule will justify the
costs. Unquantifiable benefits of the final rule include providing
consumers with a fuller picture of the safety record of airlines in the
transportation of animals and producing opportunities for more
comprehensive enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), 7 U.S.C. 54,
since the Department shares the reports involving animal incidents with
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS), the government entity that enforces the
AWA.

Background

    The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st
Century or ``AIR-21'' (Pub. L. 106-181), which was signed into law on
April 5, 2000, includes section 710, ``Reports by Carriers on Incidents
Involving Animals During Air Transport.'' This provision was codified
as 49 U.S.C. 41721. Section 41721 states than an air carrier that
provides scheduled passenger air transportation shall submit monthly to
the Secretary a report on any incidents involving the loss, injury, or
death of an animal (as defined by the Secretary of Transportation)
during air transport provided by the air carrier and that the Secretary
of transportation shall publish data on incidents and complaints
involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air transport
in a manner comparable to other consumer complaint and incident data.
    On August 11, 2003, DOT, through its Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), issued a final rule implementing section 710 of
AIR-21. See 68 FR 47798. The rule required air carriers that provide
scheduled passenger air transportation to submit a report to APHIS on
any incident involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during
air transportation provided by the air carrier. Under the rule, the
reports would then be shared with DOT, which would publish the data, as
required by AIR-21, in a format similar to the manner in which it
publishes data on consumer complaints and other incidents. However,
issues arose regarding whether APHIS had the capability to accept such
information directly from the carriers and pass it on to DOT. In order
to resolve such issues, on February 14, 2005, DOT made a technical
change in the rule to require reporting airlines to submit the required
information directly to DOT's Aviation Consumer Protection Division
(ACPD) rather than APHIS and to make the rule part of DOT's economic
regulations. See 70 FR 7392. The rule was codified at 14 CFR 234.13.
    Section 234.13 required air carriers that provide scheduled
passenger air transportation to submit a report to the ACPD on any
incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air
transportation within 15 days after the end of the month during which
the incident occurred. It defined ``animal'' as any warm- or cold-
blooded animal which, at the time of transportation, is being kept as a
pet in a family household in the United States. The air transport of an
animal covered the entire period during which an animal is in the
custody of an air carrier, from check-in or delivery of the animal to
the carrier prior to departure until the animal is returned to the
owner or guardian of the animal at the final destination of the
animal.\1\ Section 234.13 also listed the information that is to be
included in each report (e.g., carrier and flight number, date and time
of the incident). However, because Sec.  234.13 is contained in part
234 of Title 14 and that part applies only to the domestic scheduled
passenger flights of carriers that account for at least 1 percent of
domestic scheduled passenger revenue (``reporting carriers''), there
was confusion regarding which entities are required to submit a report
to the ACPD on incidents involving loss, injury, or death of an animal
during air transportation as well as which flights are covered (i.e.,
only domestic scheduled passenger flights or all scheduled passenger
flights, including international flights).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ There are three categories for animals transported in
scheduled passenger air transportation: ``unassigned in the cabin;''
``accompanied baggage;'' and ``live cargo shipments.'' Animals
categorized as ``unassigned in the cabin'' are usually small pets
that remain with the owner in the cabin for the duration of the
flight. Air carriers may allow a limited number of passengers per
flight to transport their animals as ``unassigned in the cabin.''
Pursuant to 14 CFR part 382, service animals accompanying
individuals with a disability are not included in this category.
Animals categorized as ``accompanied baggage'' are pets traveling
with passengers on the flight that are checked as baggage, remain in
the custody of the air carrier for the duration of the flight, and
are transported in the cargo compartment. Animals categorized as
``live cargo shipments'' are animals that are not associated with
passengers on the flight and are transported in the cargo
compartment. While ``accompanied baggage'' and ``live cargo
shipments'' may or may not be in different areas of the cargo hold
of an aircraft, the primary differences between these two categories
are shipping procedures and price points.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In August 2010, the Department received a petition for rulemaking
on this matter from the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), an advocacy
group which works to protect the lives and advance the interest of
animals through the legal system. In its petition, ALDF requests that
the Department's regulation requiring the reporting of loss, injury, or
death of animals in air transport be revised to require airlines to
report any such incident involving any animal they carry. It contends
that the data that are currently collected by the Department capture
only incidents affecting pets, even though pets make up only part of
the total number of animals transported by airlines. The ALDF proposed
that the rules should apply to all species of animals, not just cats
and dogs. At about the same time, Senators Richard Durbin, Robert
Menendez, and Joseph Lieberman wrote to the Secretary of Transportation
urging the Department to amend the rule so that airlines would be
required to report all incidents involving the loss, injury, or death
of cats and dogs that occur while they are traveling in an airline's
care, custody, or control, regardless of whether the cat or dog is
being kept as a pet in a family household in the United States or is
part of a commercial shipment.
    On June 29, 2012, the Department published in the Federal Register
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) entitled ``Reports by Air
Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals During Air Transport.'' See 77
FR 38747. The Department announced in the NPRM that it was proposing to
amend the rule regarding the reporting of incidents involving animals
during air transport. The Department sought comment on whether it
should: (1) Expand the reporting requirement to U.S. carriers that
operate scheduled service with at least one aircraft with a design
capacity of more than 60 seats; (2) expand the definition of ``animal''
to include all cats and dogs transported by the carrier, regardless of
whether the cat or dog is transported as a pet by its owner or as part
of a commercial shipment (e.g., shipped by a breeder); (3) require
covered carriers to provide in their December reports the total number
of animals that were lost, injured, or died during air transport that
year; and (4) require covered carriers to report the total number of
animals transported in the calendar year in the December reports. We
also solicited comments on whether covered carriers should be required
to file negative reports if the carrier did not have any incidents
involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during a particular
month or year--i.e., reporting ``0'' for any

reporting category where there were no such incidents.
    The Department received 5,414 comments in response to the NPRM. Of
these, two comments were from airlines, representing the views of Delta
Air Lines (Delta) and Spirit Airlines (Spirit). Two airline
associations, Airlines for America (A4A) and the Air Carrier
Association of America (ACAA), submitted a joint comment. Six animal
rights organizations each submitted a comment: the ALDF, the American
Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS), the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI),
the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA),
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and Where is Jack?
Inc. We also received comments from two scientific research
organizations: The Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) and the
National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR). Finally, 5,403
individual consumers submitted comments. The Department has carefully
reviewed and considered the comments received. The commenters'
positions that are germane to the specific issues raised in the NPRM
are set forth below, as are the Department's responses.

Summary of Final Regulatory Analysis

    The regulatory analysis summarized in the table below shows that
the estimated monetized costs of the reporting requirement exceed the
estimated monetized benefits at a 7% discount rate. The present value
of monetized net benefits for a 20-year analysis period is estimated to
be -$729,166 at a 7% discount rate. Additional benefits were also
identified for which quantitative estimates could not be developed. The
Department believes that the non-quantifiable benefits of the reporting
requirement justify the costs and cause the total benefits of the rule
to exceed its total costs. Non-quantifiable benefits include providing
consumers with a fuller picture of the safety record of airlines in the
transportation of animals and producing opportunities for more
comprehensive enforcement of the AWA, 7 U.S.C. 54, since the Department
shares the reports involving animal incidents with APHIS, the
government entity that enforces the AWA. A more detailed discussion of
the monetized benefits and costs of the final rule is provided in the
Regulatory Analysis and Notices section below.

        Value of Quantitative Net Benefits for Rule Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Discounting period/
                                         rate            Present value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monetized Benefits..............  20 years, 7%        $0
                                   discounting.
Monetized Costs *...............  20 years, 7%        $729,769
                                   discounting.
Monetized Net Benefits..........  20 years, 7%        ($729,769)
                                   discounting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This rule will only impose monetary costs on covered air carriers.

Comments and Responses

1. Entities Covered

    Question posed in the NPRM: The NPRM proposed to require all U.S.
carriers that operate scheduled service with at least one aircraft with
a design capacity of more than 60 seats to submit a report to the ACPD
on any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal
during air transport within 15 days after the end of the month during
which the incident occurred. The then-existing reporting requirement
only applied to the domestic scheduled passenger flights of carriers
that account for at least 1 percent of domestic scheduled passenger
revenue. We also invited comments on whether there is any benefit to
expanding the applicability of the rule any further to encompass more
U.S. carriers and whether the reporting requirements should apply to
indirect cargo air carriers operating under the provisions of 14 CFR
part 296.
    Comments: Most of the comments the Department received do not
address whether the rule should be applicable to all U.S. carriers that
operate scheduled service with at least one aircraft with a design
capacity of more than 60 seats.
    A number of animal rights advocacy groups, such as ASPCA, AWI, and
AAVS, expressed support for expanding the applicability of the rule
further to encompass more carriers. AWI states that there has been
confusion over the airlines and flights covered under the law, and this
change would clarify the coverage and provide the public with more
information. AAVS states the change would be an important step to
ensure an accurate picture of how animals are protected while in air
transport. AAVS is also in favor of covering indirect cargo air
carriers that cater only to pets.
    A4A generally objects to the proposals in the NPRM and states that
there would be no benefit to expanding the applicability of the rule to
encompass more U.S. carriers. A4A also states that indirect cargo air
carriers operating under the provisions of 14 CFR part 296 should not
be covered. Spirit, the only carrier to comment on this issue, does not
object to expanding the reporting requirement to include passenger
carriers operating at least one aircraft with more than 60 seats.
    DOT response: We carefully considered all of the comments filed on
the various issues in this rulemaking. On the issue of which entities
should be covered we have decided to require all U.S. carriers that
operate scheduled service with at least one aircraft with a design
capacity of more than 60 seats to submit a report to the ACPD on any
incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air
transportation within 15 days after the end of the month during which
the incident occurred.
    As discussed above, the 49 U.S.C. 41721 states, ``An air carrier
that provides scheduled passenger air transportation shall submit
monthly to the Secretary a report on any incidents involving the loss,
injury, or death of an animal (as defined by the Secretary of
Transportation) during air transport provided by the air carrier.'' 49
U.S.C. 40102 defines ``air carrier'' as ``a citizen of the United
States undertaking by any means, directly or indirectly, to provide air
transportation.'' Section 41721 does not contain any language that
would limit the applicability of the reporting obligation to only large
carriers or ``reporting carriers'' (i.e., U.S. carriers that account
for at least 1 percent of domestic scheduled passenger revenue). For
these reasons, we believe that expanding the applicability of the
reporting requirement to all U.S. carriers that operate scheduled
service with at least one aircraft with a design capacity of more than
60 seats is more consistent with the language of section 41721.
    Contrary to A4A's assertions, we believe that expanding the
applicability of the requirement from just the ``reporting carriers''
(i.e., U.S. carriers that account for at least 1 percent of domestic
scheduled passenger revenue) to all carriers that operate scheduled
service with at least one aircraft with a design capacity of more than
60 seats will provide consumers and other interested parties a more
complete picture of the treatment of animals on scheduled passenger
flights. However, we agree with A4A in regards to excluding indirect
cargo air carriers from the reporting requirement. Pursuant to 14 CFR
part 296, an indirect cargo air carrier is any U.S. citizen who
undertakes to engage indirectly in air transportation of property, and
uses for the whole or any part of such transportation the services of
air carrier or a foreign air carrier that has received

DOT authorization. We have concluded that requiring indirect cargo air
carriers to report incidents involving animals would exceed the scope
of 49 U.S.C. 41721, which, as discussed above, states: ``An air carrier
that provides scheduled passenger air transportation shall submit
monthly to the Secretary a report on any incidents involving the loss,
injury, or death of an animal (as defined by the Secretary of
Transportation) during air transport provided by the air carrier.''
Therefore, we will not require such entities to submit a report on any
incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during air
transportation.

2. Expand the Definition of ``Animal''

    Question posed in the NPRM: The NPRM proposed to continue to define
``animal'' as any warm- or cold-blooded animal which, at the time of
transportation, is being kept as a pet in a family household in the
United States (i.e., the definition in effect up to this time), but
also expand the definition to include any dog or cat which, at the time
of transportation, is shipped as part of a commercial shipment on a
scheduled passenger flight. We also invited comments on whether the
definition of ``animal'' should be expanded further to include not only
dogs and cats in commercial shipments but all species of animals in
commercial air transportation.
    Comments: This proposal is the most contentious topic of the NPRM.
All the animal rights advocacy groups believe that ``animal'' should
include all species of animals in commercial air transportation, not
just cats and dogs. The animal rights advocacy groups state that cats,
dogs, and household pets make up only a portion of all the animals that
are transported by carriers. They assert that carriers transport a wide
variety of animal species, such as primates, rabbits, ferrets, mice,
and rats, for research facilities, zoos, and pet retailers. These
groups argue that carriers should be required to report incidents
involving all types of animal, not just cats, dogs, and household pets,
in order to provide complete and reliable data that will allow
consumers, carriers, and legislators to make informed decisions
regarding the safety of the transport of all animals.
    Most individual comments also urge the Department to include all
species of animals in commercial air transportation, not just cats and
dogs, in the definition of ``animal.'' (The vast majority of these
individual comments appear to be form letters from members of the
animal rights advocacy groups.)
    Senators Richard Durbin, Robert Menendez, and Joseph Lieberman
filed a comment in response to the NPRM reiterating the support
expressed in their 2010 letter for expanding the definition of
``animal'' to include all cats and dogs that are in an airline's care,
custody, or control, regardless of whether the cat or dog is being
transported as a pet by its owner or as part of a commercial shipment.
    The scientific research organizations adamantly oppose expanding
the definition of ``animal.'' AZA argues that it strongly believes the
Congressional intent of the underlying authorizing legislation is to
focus on the loss, injury, or death of family pets through air
transportation. AZA states that if the definition of ``animal'' is
expanded to include all species, the resource and logistical burden
placed upon the airlines could effectively force airlines to completely
discontinue the transport of all animals, creating catastrophic
consequences for the AZA zoo and aquarium community and the
sustainability of the animal collections in their care.
    NABR urges that any changes to the existing definition of
``animal'' recognize that the term should not apply to dogs and cats
bred for use in research. NABR states that the Department assumes that
dogs and cats that are transported as part of a commercial shipment are
likely being transported for the purpose of being sold as a pet in a
family household and that this assumption is flawed as dogs and cats
being transported to research facilities in the United States are not
intended to be sold as pets. NABR states that commercial dealers that
breed dogs, cats, and other species needed for research purposes must
be licensed by the USDA and are subject to the standards and
regulations mandated by the AWA. NABR states that these commercial
dealers are inspected by APHIS and reports of the inspections are
already available to the public on the USDA Web site. NABR also states
that it opposes expanding the definition of ``animal'' to include all
species of animals because such an expansion would conflict with the
legislative history of AIR-21, which does not show an intent to require
this type of reporting.
    A4A also opposes expanding the definition of ``animal'' on the
basis that doing so would conflict with Congressional intent. A4A
argues that the original regulations published in 2003 specifically
analyzed Congress' intent when it used the term ``animal,'' and that
the Department's research into the statute's legislative history found
that when Congress used the term animal, it meant pets. A4A asserts
further that passengers care most about pet incidents and do not want
nor are interested in expanding the definition of ``animal.'' A4A
states that passengers are satisfied with the current reporting program
and that complaints about animal policies regularly ranks last in the
12 categories of complaints that the Department lists every month in
its consumer report. A4A argues that this indicates that passengers are
satisfied with the balance the current regulation strikes (i.e., full
disclosure of pet incidents without including information on commercial
animal shipments that A4A says passengers do not care about).
    DOT response: We have decided to define ``animal'' as any warm- or
cold-blooded animal which, at the time of transportation, is being kept
as a pet in a family household in the United States and any dog or cat
which, at the time of transportation, is shipped as part of a
commercial shipment on a scheduled passenger flight. We are not
expanding the definition of ``animal'' to cover all species of animals.
We believe it would be unduly burdensome to require covered carriers to
report the death, loss, or injury of all species of animals because
there potentially could be thousands of individual animals such as
fish, rodents, and insects that are transported by air carriers in a
single commercial shipment.
    As explained below, we do not agree with A4A's arguments. We
believe that expanding the definition of ``animal'' to include any dog
or cat which, at the time of transportation, is shipped as part of a
commercial shipment will provide consumers with a fuller picture of the
safety record of airlines in the transportation of animals. Many dogs
and cats that are being shipped on scheduled passenger flights other
than as pets by their owners are likely being transported for the
purpose of being sold as a pet in a family household in the United
States. Moreover, even though the old definition of ``animal'' only
included any warm- or cold-blooded animal which, at the time of
transportation, is being kept as a pet in a family household, virtually
all of the reports of deaths, injuries, and loss involved cats and
dogs. Specifically, cats and dogs accounted for 95% of deaths, 100% of
the injuries, and 98% of the losses. Based on these considerations, we
believe that expanding the definition of ``animal'' to include all cats
and dogs will provide consumers with more complete data that will allow
them to make more informed decision.

3. Require Covered Carriers To Provide in Their December Reports the
Total Number of Animals That Were Lost, Injured, or Died During Air
Transport

    Question posed in the NPRM: The NPRM proposed to require each
covered carrier to provide in its December report a summary of the
total number of animal losses, injuries, and deaths for the calendar
year. The then-existing requirement did not require covered carriers to
provide any summary of the total number of animal losses, injuries, and
deaths for the calendar year.
    Comments: Most of the comments the Department received did not
address whether carriers should be required to provide in their
December report a summary of the total number of animal losses,
injuries, and deaths.
    Only one of the animal rights advocacy groups specifically
addresses this proposal. AWI states that the public will benefit from
having the airlines' December reports include the total number of
animals lost, injured, or killed.
    NABR, the only scientific research organization to address this
issue, opposes any additional monthly or annual incident reports. NABR
asserts that additional monthly or annual incident reports are
unnecessary for laboratory animal breeders to evaluate carriers, comply
with current AWA requirements, and carry out their responsibilities to
animals and customers.
    A4A also opposes requiring carriers to provide in its December
report a summary of the total number of animal losses, injuries, and
deaths. A4A states that this proposal provides no benefit beyond the
current requirements. A4A asserts that current animal incident
reporting practices already provide passengers with very detailed
information providing transparency on pet incidents, which was the
intent of the Act and is what passengers care about most.
    DOT response: We have decided to require covered carriers to
provide in their December report a summary of the total number of
animal losses, injuries, and deaths for the year. We do not believe it
to be burdensome for the covered carriers to submit this data. To
comply with this requirement, a covered carrier must simply add up the
number of animal incidents in each category that it reported in the
previous months. This complements the requirement to report the total
number of animals transported (see below). We have included in the
final rule a standardized table that covered carriers must use in the
December reports when reporting the total number of animal losses,
injuries, and deaths in the calendar year.

4. Require Covered Carriers To Include in the December Report the Total
Number of Animals Transported in the Calendar Year

    Question posed in the NPRM: We invited comments on whether carriers
should be required to report the total number of animals transported
during that year. The then-existing rule did not require covered
carriers to report the total number of animals transported during that
year. We also asked whether covered carriers should be required to
report only once per year (in the December reports) on the total number
of animals transported during that year, or whether the total number of
animals transported should be reported each month.
    Comments: A number of animal rights advocacy groups and U.S.
carriers support requiring covered carriers to report the total number
of animals transported during that year. These commenters agree that
providing the total number of animal transported will allow consumers
to calculate rates of animal loss, injury, and death per unit of
animals transported for each airline (e.g., 1.04 deaths per 10,000
animals transported) and that would help consumers and other interested
parties to compare the rate of animal incidents from one carrier to
another or one year to another. AWI states that the public will benefit
from having the airlines' December reports include the total number of
animals transported during the year. AAVS asserts that this information
would give consumers information that can be used to correctly compare
air carriers and their records. AAVS also states that information
should be provided monthly as well as in December to provide an
accurate and up to date understanding of air carriers' record with
regards to animal transport.
    ALDF states that requiring carriers to report on the total number
of animals transported will provide the context necessary to understand
the incident reports. ALDF argues that, among other benefits,
determining the number of incidents per unit of animals transported
will allow covered carriers to determine whether their practices are
reducing the rate of incidents, help consumers make more informed
decisions on which carrier to entrust their animals to, and provide
legislators critical information with which to determine if there is a
problem that warrants stronger legislative remedies. ALDF adds that the
carriers should provide this data monthly.
    Spirit states that it does not object to the proposal to require
airlines to report the total number of animals transported annually.
Spirit believes that this information would allow consumers to compare
the total number of animals transported against the number of incidents
involving animals in air transport, further highlighting the
infrequency of these incidents. Spirit adds that the Department should
not require monthly reporting of the total number of animals
transported. Spirit argues that incidents involving animals in air
transport are random and extremely infrequent, and the number of
incidents per unit of animals transported in any given month has little
if any value because the rate of incidents is so low.
    Delta states that it supports requiring carriers to report the
total number of animals transported during the year, but with two
qualifications: (1) The existing definition of ``animal'' should remain
unchanged (i.e., any warm- or cold-blooded animal which, at the time of
transportation, is being kept as a pet in a family household in the
United States); and (2) the rate calculated by the Department should
not be the number of animal incidents ``per unit of animals
transported,'' but rather, the number of incidents per passenger
enplanement. Delta's argument regarding the definition of ``animal'' is
discussed above. With respect to the rate calculated, Delta argues that
the process proposed by the Department would lead to the gathering of
data that can be easily skewed by small sample sizes. Delta asserts
that calculating the number of incidents per unit of passenger
enplanements takes all relevant data into account and conveys an
incident rate in the full context of each carrier's operation. Delta
believes that this approach would be consistent with other data
reported by carriers to the Department, e.g., oversales, mishandled
baggage, consumer complaints, all of which are calculated per passenger
enplanement. Delta states that since carriers already report these
other issues per enplanement, the data are readily available and would
not require any new data-gathering processes.
    A4A, on the other hand, opposes requiring covered carriers to
include in the December report the total number of animals transported
in the calendar year. A4A argues that the monthly consumer report
provides very detailed information on every animal incident to
consumers and that providing general statistics that include commercial
animal shipments is not relevant to what passengers care about most--
transporting pets in the baggage

compartment on a flight. A4A asserts that carriers would need to
reconfigure their systems because current procedures for tracking
animal incidents are inadequate for tracking the total number of
animals transported. A4A argues further that the Department vastly
underestimates the cost of this proposal.
    DOT response: We have decided to require covered carriers to
include in the December reports the total number of animals transported
in the calendar year. We believe the requirement to report the total
number of animals transported is important for providing consumers a
complete picture of a covered carrier's animal transport record, as the
number of animals transported by each airline may vary widely.
Consumers can use this data to calculate rates of animal loss, injury,
and death per unit of animals transported for each airline (e.g., 1.04
deaths per 10,000 animals transported). While we recognize changes may
be needed, we do not agree with A4A's assertion that current procedures
for tracking animal incidents are inadequate for tracking the total
number of animals transported. One of the two air carriers that
submitted comments in response to the NPRM, Spirit, does not believe it
is burdensome to report the total number of animals transported in the
calendar year. Additionally, for many years the former Continental
Airlines voluntarily included this information in the animal incident
reports that it filed with the Department.

5. Require Covered Carriers To File Negative Reports

    Question posed in the NPRM: We solicited comments on whether
carriers should be required to file negative reports if the carrier did
not have any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an
animal during a particular month or year--i.e., reporting ``0'' for any
reporting category where there were no such incidents. The then-
existing rule did not require covered carriers to file negative
reports.
    Comments: Most of the comments the Department received did not
address whether carriers should be required to provide negative reports
if the carrier did not have any incidents involving the loss, injury,
or death of an animal during a particular month or year.
    A couple of animal rights advocacy groups expressed support for
negative reporting by carriers. Specifically, AWI states that it
endorses the proposal to have airlines file reports in December even if
they have had no animal-related incidents at any time during the year.
AWI agrees with the Department's reasoning that ``[r]equiring negative
reporting in the recap in the December report over a signature and
certification of an official of the airline provides an additional
incentive for complete and accurate reporting by carriers.'' ALDF
asserts that negative reporting would improve reporting accuracy and
reinforce the importance of these requirements. ALDF argues that the
negative reports should be provided monthly because it would further
the goals of accuracy and clarity in the reporting process and help to
keep the safety of animals as an important issue for carriers every
month, rather than simply at the end of the year during a busy
reporting and travel season.
    A4A and Spirit oppose the negative reporting requirement. A4A
argues that a requirement to file a ``negative'' report when there are
no animal incidents to report will provide no benefit to the public and
will incur unnecessary cost to carriers. Spirit asserts that
completing, filing, and processing negative reports will create an
unnecessary burden on the carrier and the Department because the
reports will not provide the Department with any information that it
did not already know. Spirit further states that monthly negative
reporting would impose an undue burden on all air carriers covered by
the rule.
    DOT response: We have decided to require covered carriers to file
negative reports in their December reports if the carrier did not have
any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal during
the calendar year. Thus, each covered carrier would be required to file
a report for the previous calendar year by January 15 even if the
carrier did not experience any incidents involving animals and/or
carried no animals during that year. We do not believe it to be unduly
burdensome for covered carriers that did not have any incidents
involving the loss, injury, or death of an animal to enter ``0'' into
the appropriate categories and submit their December report. In
addition, we believe that requiring covered carriers to affirmatively
certify that there were no reportable animal incidents during the
calendar year provides an additional incentive to ensure that the
reports are complete and accurate. Covered carriers will not be
required to file negative reports in any other monthly report (i.e.,
January through November).

Regulatory Analysis and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures, and Executive Order 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review)

    This action has been determined not to be significant under
Executive Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory
Policies and Procedures. As a result, it has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget in accordance with Executive Order
12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive Order 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review) and is consistent with the
requirements in both orders. Executive Order 13563 refers to non-
quantifiable values, including equity and fairness. A summary of the
costs and benefits of this final rule follows. For more details, please
refer to a copy of the final regulatory evaluation, which has been
placed in the docket.
1. Cost of Monthly Reports Other Than December Report
    The cost of filing monthly reports is minimal. Aside from the
December report, a carrier is required to report only during the months
where the carrier experiences a reportable animal incident. Currently,
15 of the 27 carriers that are affected are already required to collect
information on incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an
animal. For these 15 carriers, which account for approximately 90
percent of the domestic market, there are no additional costs. For the
12 other carriers that do not currently have to report, the cost varies
depending on whether or not there is a reportable incident during any
given month. For example, if a carrier experiences no reportable
incidents all year, then the recurrent cost of filing monthly reports
for January to November is $0. However, if the carrier experiences a
reportable incident every month of the year, the cost would be $466.32
per year. This is based on our estimate that it would take a paralegal
working in scheduled air transportation making $38.86 per hour (the
average wage rate including benefits) one hour to prepare and submit
one monthly report. So, if all 12 carriers that do not currently have
to report were to each experience a reportable incident every month of
the year, the total cost would be $5,595.84. Therefore, the cost of
monthly reports will be between $0 and $5,595.84 per year depending on
the number of reportable incidents. Even the high estimate would still
be a minimal cost.

2. Cost of the December Report
    Covered carriers are required to submit a December report. In
addition to including information on any incidents involving the loss,
injury, or death of an animal during air transport that occurred in the
month of December, the December report must include the total number of
animals that were lost, injured, or died during air transport in the
calendar year and the total number of animals that were transported in
the calendar year.
    The burden on covered carriers to submit in their December report
the total number of animals that were lost, injured, or died during air
transport in the calendar year is minimal. The cost varies depending on
whether or not a carrier experienced any reportable incidents during
the calendar year. For example, if a carrier experiences no reportable
incidents all year, then the cost is $38.86, the estimated cost of a
paralegal working in scheduled air transportation to prepare and submit
one report. If a carrier had one or more animal incidents in a year, it
will be required add up all the values in any report that it filed
throughout the year. We estimate that it will take a paralegal working
in scheduled air transportation 0.5 hour to find the sum of all the
values the carrier filed throughout the year. If all 27 covered
carriers each experienced a reportable incident in the calendar year,
the total cost will be $1,573.83 ($524.61 for the carriers to add
together all the reportable incidents in the calendar year and
$1,049.22 for the carriers to prepare and submit one report).
Therefore, the cost of the December reports will be between $38.86 and
$1,573.83 per year depending on the number of reportable incidents.
    The burden on covered carriers to submit in their December reports
the total number of animals that were transported in the calendar year
is more substantial because it will require covered carriers that
transport covered animals in the baggage/cargo compartment to create
and maintain systems that will record and keep track of the number of
animals transported throughout the year. At the same time, some
carriers, such as Spirit Airlines, do not transport animals.
Additionally, some covered carriers may already have a system in place.
These carriers will incur no costs. Therefore, we estimate that first
year start-up costs for the computer hardware and software would be
approximately $270,000 for the entire industry.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This estimate is based on the 2007 Supporting Statement for
the obligation of U.S. and foreign carriers to file with the
Department an annual report detailing disability-related complaints
the carriers received from passengers in the calendar year, as
required by 14 CFR part 382, the Department's rule implementing the
Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) in the Department's Nondiscrimination
on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel 14 CFR part 382.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate that the subsequent yearly costs to maintain the
systems will be minimal. If a carrier does not transport animals in the
calendar year, such as Spirit Airlines, then there will be no cost. If
we assumed that annual maintenance costs averaged $40,000 for the
entire industry, the total cost of maintenance over 20 years discounted
at 7% would be about $424,000. Factoring in the initial $270,000 start-
up cost brings the total cost of the requirement to report in the
December reports the total number of animals transported in the
calendar year to be about $694,000.
3. Cost of Expanded Definition of an Animal
    The cost of the proposed expanded definition of an animal would
impact airlines, but the cost would still be minimal. Since 2008, the
average number of reported incidents per year is 47. If we were to
assume that it takes a paralegal one hour to prepare and submit a
report per incident, then we have estimated that the cost to the
industry is $1,826.42 per year. This is based on our estimate of a
paralegal's salary discussed above. Various trade sources indicate that
dogs and cats transported as part of a commercial shipment may account
for as much as half of all dogs, cats, and other household pets that
are transported by covered carriers. If we were to assume that
expanding the definition to include dogs and cats transported as part
of a commercial shipment would result in an additional 47 reported
incidents per year (i.e., a total of 94 incidents), the additional cost
of $1,826.42 is still minimal.
    The benefits of the rule, while difficult to quantify, exceed the
costs. Comprehensive data are not immediately available as to the total
number of animals that air carriers currently transport. Neither trade
associations for animal transportation providers nor most airlines
collect data on the number of animals transported annually by air.
Trade association (e.g., pet transportation firms) and industry
(airlines) sources estimate the actual number of pets that carriers
transport annually at up to 800,000. This rule will provide consumers
with a fuller picture of the safety record of airlines in the
transportation of animals. If the benefit of expanding reporting
requirements to dogs and cats transported as a commercial shipment were
as little as a $0.34 per animal shipped, the benefits of the rule would
exceed the costs.

B. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This final rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles
and criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism''). This
final rule does not include any provision that (1) has substantial
direct effects on the States, the relationship between the national
government and the States, or the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government; (2) imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments; or
(3) preempts State law. States are already preempted from regulating in
this area by the Airline Deregulation Act. See 49 U.S.C. 41713.
Therefore, the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order
13132 do not apply.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an
agency to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities
unless the agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
I certify that this final rule does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. A direct air carrier
or a foreign air carrier is a small business if it provides air
transportation only with small aircraft (i.e., aircraft designed to
have a maximum passenger capacity of not more than 60 seats or a
maximum payload capacity of not more than 18,000 pounds). See 14 CFR
399.73. This rule does not impose new duties or obligations on small
entities. The rule applies only to U.S. carriers that operate scheduled
service with at least one aircraft with a design capacity of more than
60 seats. Therefore, this requirement does not affect small entities.

D. Executive Order 13084

    This rule has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''). Because this final rule
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of the Indian
tribal governments or impose substantial direct compliance costs on
them, the funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order
13084 do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Department
has submitted the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Before OMB decides
whether to approve those proposed collections of information that are
part of this final rule and issue a control number, the public must be
provided 30 days to comment. Organizations and individuals desiring to
submit comments on the information collection requirements should
direct them to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk
Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, and should
also send a copy of their comments to: Department of Transportation,
Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, Office of the General
Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. OMB is
required to make a decision concerning the collection of information
requirements contained in this rule between 30 and 60 days after
publication of this document in the Federal Register. Therefore, a
comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication.
    We will respond to any OMB or public comments on the information
collection requirements contained in this rule. The Department may not
impose a penalty on persons for violating information collection
requirements which do not display a current OMB control number, if
required. The Department intends to renew the OMB control number for
the information collection requirements resulting from this rulemaking
action. The OMB control number, when renewed, will be announced by
separate notice in the Federal Register.
    The ICR was previously published in the Federal Register as part of
the NPRM. See 77 FR 38750. The Department invited interested persons to
submit comments on any aspect of each of these three information
collections, including the following: (1) The necessity and utility of
the information collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimate of the
burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of
collection without reducing the quality of the collected information.
    The final rule renews and modifies the information collection
titled ``Reports by Carriers on Incidents Involving Animals During Air
Transport'' (OMB No. 2105-0552). The collection of information
contained in the final rule is a requirement that U.S. carriers that
operate scheduled passenger service with at least one aircraft having a
designed seating capacity of more than 60 passenger seats report to the
Department's ACPD any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death
during air transport of cats and dogs that were part of a commercial
shipment. (Cats and dogs that were being kept as a household pet at the
time of such a loss, injury, or death are already required to be
reported by these airlines.) As discussed above, this requirement
expands the reporting requirement from 15 carriers to 27 carriers, an
increase of 12 carriers. The collection of information also requires
covered carriers to state in their report for the month of December the
total number of animals that were lost, injured, or died during air
transport in the calendar year and the total number of animals that
were transported in the calendar year.
    Title: Reports by Carriers on Incidents involving Animals During
Air Transport.
    OMB Control Number: 2105-0552.
    Type of Request: Modification of expired Information Collection
Request.
    Respondents: U.S. carriers that operate scheduled passenger service
with at least one aircraft having a designed seating capacity of more
than 60 seats (27).
    Frequency: For each respondent, one information set for the month
of December, plus one information set during some other months (1 to
12).
    Estimated Annual Burden on Respondents: 27 to 324 hours
(Respondents [27] x Frequency [1 to 12 per year]).

F. National Environmental Policy Act

    The Department has analyzed the environmental impacts of this
proposed action pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA) and has determined that it is
categorically excluded pursuant to DOT Order 5610.1C, Procedures for
Considering Environmental Impacts (44 FR 56420, Oct. 1, 1979).
Categorical exclusions are actions identified in an agency's NEPA
implementing procedures that do not normally have a significant impact
on the environment and therefore do not require either an environmental
assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS). See 40 CFR
1508.4. In analyzing the applicability of a categorical exclusion, the
agency must also consider whether extraordinary circumstances are
present that would warrant the preparation of an EA or EIS. Id.
Paragraph 4.c.6.i of DOT Order 5610.1C provides that ``actions relating
to consumer protection, including regulations'' are categorically
excluded. The purpose of this rulemaking is to amend the requirement
for air carriers to report incidents involving the loss, injury, or
death of an animal during air transport. The agency does not anticipate
any environmental impacts, and there are no extraordinary circumstances
present in connection with this rulemaking.

G. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this notice.
    Issued in Washington, DC, on the 24th day of June, 2014, under the
authority delegated at 49 CFR 1.27(n).

Kathryn B. Thomson,
General Counsel.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 234

    Air carriers, Consumer protection, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

14 CFR Part 235

    Air carriers, Animal incidents, Consumer protection, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of
Transportation amends 14 CFR Chapter II as follows:

PART 234--AIRLINE SERVICE QUALITY PERFORMANCE REPORTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 234 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 329 and Sections 41708 and 41709.

Sec.  234.13  [Removed]

0
2. Section 234.13 is removed.

0
3. Part 235 is added to read as follows:

PART 235--REPORTS BY AIR CARRIERS ON INCIDENTS INVOLVING ANIMALS
DURING AIR TRANSPORT

Sec.
235.1 Definitions.
235.2 Applicability.
235.3 Reports by air carriers on incidents involving animals during
air transport.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 41721.

Sec.  235.1  Definitions.

    For the purposes of this part:
    Air transport includes the entire period during which an animal is
in the custody of an air carrier, from the time

that the animal is tendered to the air carrier prior to departure until
the air carrier tenders the animal to the owner, guardian or
representative of the shipper of the animal at the animal's final
destination. It does not include animals that accompany a passenger at
his or her seat in the cabin and of which the air carrier does not take
custody.
    Animal means any warm- or cold-blooded animal which, at the time of
transportation, is being kept as a pet in a family household in the
United States and any dog or cat which, at the time of transportation,
is shipped as part of a commercial shipment on a scheduled passenger
flight, including shipments by trainers and breeders.

Sec.  235.2  Applicability.

    This part applies to the scheduled domestic and international
passenger service of any U.S. air carrier that operates such service
with at least one aircraft having a designed seating capacity of more
than 60 passenger seats. The reporting requirements of this part apply
to all scheduled-service passenger flights of such carriers, including
flights that are operated with aircraft having 60 or fewer seats.

Sec.  235.3  Reports by air carriers on incidents involving animals
during air transport.

    (a) Each covered carrier shall, within 15 days after the end of the
month to which the information applies, submit to the United States
Department of Transportation's Aviation Consumer Protection Division a
report on any incidents involving the loss, injury, or death of an
animal during air transport provided by the air carrier, including
incidents on flights by that carrier that are operated with aircraft
having 60 or fewer seats. The report shall be made in the form and
manner set forth in reporting directives issued by the Deputy General
Counsel for the U.S. Department of Transportation and shall contain the
following information:
    (1) Carrier and flight number;
    (2) Date and time of the incident;
    (3) Description of the animal, including name, if known;
    (4) Name and contact information of the owner(s), guardian, and/or
shipper of the animal;
    (5) Narrative description of the incident;
    (6) Narrative description of the cause of the incident;
    (7) Narrative description of any corrective action taken in
response to the incident; and
    (8) Name, title, address, and telephone number of the individual
filing the report on behalf of the air carrier.
    (b) Within 15 days after the end of December of each year, each
covered carrier shall submit the following information (this
information may be included in any report that the carrier may file for
the loss, injury, or death of animals during the month of December):
    (1) The total number of incidents involving an animal during air
transport provided by the air carrier for the entire calendar year,
including incidents on flights by that carrier that are operated with
aircraft having 60 or fewer seats. The report shall include subtotals
for loss, injury, and death of animals. Report ``0'' for any category
for which there were no such incidents. If the carrier had no
reportable incidents for that calendar year, it shall report ``0'' in
each category. Covered carriers shall use the following data table when
reporting the total number of animal incidents during air transport
provided by the air carrier for the entire calendar year:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Total number in the calendar
                                                       year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deaths                                   ...............................
Injuries                                 ...............................
Loss                                     ...............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) The total number of animals transported in the calendar year.
If the carrier did not transport any animals for that calendar year, it
shall report ``0.''
    (3) The December report must contain the following certification
signed by the carrier's authorized representative: ``I, the
undersigned, do certify that this report has been prepared under my
direction in accordance with the regulations in 14 CFR part 235. I
affirm that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, this is a true,
correct and complete report.''

[FR Doc. 2014-15503 Filed 7-2-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 220 (Wednesday, November 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 67810]
[FR Doc No: 2012-27614]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:
    Docket Numbers: EG13-7-000.
    Applicants: Black Bear SO, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Black Bear SO, LLC.
    Filed Date: 11/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20121105-5071.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: EG13-8-000.
    Applicants: Black Bear Development Holdings, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Black Bear Development Holdings, LLC.
    Filed Date: 11/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20121105-5073.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER12-2055-002.
    Applicants: San Gorgonio Farms, Inc.
    Description: San Gorgonio Farms, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35:
Updated Market-Based Tariff Revised Limitations and Exemptions Section
to be effective 8/15/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20121105-5083.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-313-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Amended SGIA & DSA to Cascade Solar Project, Cascade
Solar, LLC to be effective 11/6/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20121105-5041.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-314-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Queue Position #W4-001A--AT9 ? Original SA No. 3407 to
be effective 10/4/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20121105-5052.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-315-000.
    Applicants: Startrans IO, LLC.
    Description: Startrans IO, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2013 Update to TRBAA in Appendix I to be effective 1/
1/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20121105-5060.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-317-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. submits Resource Termination
Filing.
    Filed Date: 11/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20121105-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-318-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Arkansas, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Service Agreement No. 668 to be effective 1/1/2013.
    Filed Date: 11/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20121105-5103.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER13-319-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Arkansas, Inc. submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Oxy-SPO-ED DTOA to be effective 11/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 11/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20121105-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/12.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:
    Docket Numbers: ES13-8-000.
    Applicants: Northern Pass Transmission LLC.
    Description: Northern Pass Transmission LLC submits Application for
Short-Term and Long-Term Debt Authority under ES13-8.
    Filed Date: 11/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20121105-5092.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/12.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 6, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-27614 Filed 11-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 90)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 22151]
[DOCID:fr12my09-19]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket No. FEMA-B-7786]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On September 9, 2008, FEMA published in the Federal Register a
proposed rule that contained an erroneous table. This notice provides
corrections to that table, to be used in lieu of the information
published at 73 FR 52234. The table provided here represents the
flooding source, location of referenced elevation, effective and
modified elevation, and communities affected for Plymouth County,
Massachusetts (All Jurisdictions). Specifically, it addresses the
flooding source ``Atlantic Ocean.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton Jr., Chief,
Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646-3151 or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) publishes proposed determinations of Base (1% annual-chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs for communities participating
in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established
by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed
elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of
the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance
premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made
final, and for the contents in these buildings.

Correction

    In the proposed rule published at 73 FR 52234, in the September 9,
2008, issue of the Federal Register, FEMA published a table under the
authority of 44 CFR 67.4. The table, entitled ``Plymouth County,
Massachusetts (All Jurisdictions)'' addressed the flooding source
``Atlantic Ocean.'' That table contained inaccurate information as to
the location of referenced elevation, effective and modified elevation
in feet, or communities affected for this flooding source. In this
notice, FEMA is publishing a table containing the accurate information,
to address these prior errors. The information provided below should be
used in lieu of that previously published.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  *Elevation in feet
                                                                 (NGVD) +Elevation in
                                                                 feet (NAVD)
         Flooding source(s)            Location of referenced     Depth in feet above      Communities affected
                                             elevation                  ground
                                                              --------------------------
                                                                Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Plymouth County, Massachusetts (All Jurisdictions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Ocean......................  Approximately 150 feet           +17          +19  Town of Hingham, Town
                                       south of intersection                              of Hull, Town of
                                       of Brant Beach Avenue                              Marion, Town of
                                       and Ocean View Avenue.                             Mattapoisett, and Town
                                                                                of Wareham.
                                      Approximately 210 feet            +9          +22
                                       southeast of
                                       intersection of
                                       Highland Avenue and
                                       Mount Pleasant Way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: April 30, 2009.
Deborah S. Ingram,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-10988 Filed 5-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 13, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19157-19160]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07483]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0297; Project Identifier 2019-SW-062-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for Airbus Helicopters Model SA330J helicopters, all serial numbers.
This proposed AD was prompted by reports of the failure of the lower
bearing cage of the main rotor hub (MRH) flapping hinges and of the
presence of metallic particles at the bottom of a drag hinge. This
proposed AD would require repetitive inspections of the MRH chip
detectors, or for helicopters not equipped with chip detectors,
repetitive inspections of the oil for contamination by metallic
particles, and corrective actions if necessary, as specified in a
European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for
incorporation by reference (IBR). The FAA is proposing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 28,
2021.

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 https://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 material that is proposed for IBR in this AD, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999
000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: www.easa.europa.eu. You may
find this material on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
You may view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in the AD docket on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2021-0297.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0297; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mahmood G. Shah, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Fort Worth ACO Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth,
TX 76177; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0297; Project Identifier
2019-SW-062-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of

the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by
the closing date and may amend this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this proposal.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Mahmood G. Shah, Aviation Safety Engineer, Fort Worth ACO Branch, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Any commentary that the FAA receives that is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0157, dated July 3, 2019 (EASA
AD 2019-0157) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for Airbus Helicopters Model SA330J helicopters, all serial numbers.
    This proposed AD was prompted by reports of failure of the lower
bearing cage of the MRH flapping hinges and presence of metallic
particles at the bottom of a drag hinge. The FAA is proposing this AD
to address failure of the lower bearing cage of the MRH flapping hinges
and presence of metallic particles at the bottom of a drag hinge, which
could lead to loss of flapping hinge function, resulting in MRH
unbalance and loss of control of the helicopter. See the MCAI for
additional background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2019-0157 describes procedures for repetitive inspections
of the MRH chip detectors, or for helicopters not equipped with chip
detectors, repetitive inspections of the oil for contamination by
metallic particles, and corrective actions if necessary. Corrective
actions include replacement of the incidence hinge bearings,
replacement of the flapping bearing race and bearing or if there is no
degradation reinstallation of the bearing race and bearing 180[deg]
from the marked position during removal, and replacement of the drag
lower bearing race and bearing. This material 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 the bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA
has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD after evaluating all the
relevant information and determining the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same
type designs.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2019-0157, described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this proposed AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a
process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information
for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has
since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation
authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2019-0157
will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed
AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2019-0157 in its
entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular
section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only
with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to
``all required actions and compliance times,'' compliance with this AD
requirement is not limited to the section titled ``Required Action(s)
and Compliance Time(s)'' in the EASA AD. Service information specified
in EASA AD 2019-0157 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2019-
0157 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0297 after the FAA
final rule is published.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this proposed AD interim action. The
investigation to detect the root cause of the reported failures of the
lower bearing cage of the MRH flapping hinges and presence of metallic
particles at the bottom of the drag hinge is on-going.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 4 helicopters of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 work-hours x $85 per hour = $340...........................              $0             $340           $1,360
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition replacements that would be required based on the results of
any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of
helicopters that might need these on-condition replacements:

                                     Estimated Costs of On-Condition Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                                  Labor cost                                       Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24 work-hours x $85 per hour = $2,040.........................................      $53,025.29       $55,065.29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA 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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

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:

Airbus Helicopters: Docket No. FAA-2021-0297; Project Identifier
2019-SW-062-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments by May 28, 2021.

(b) Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs)

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Airbus Helicopters Model SA330J helicopters,
certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 6200, Main Rotor
System.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of the failure of the lower
bearing cage of the main rotor hub (MRH) flapping hinges and of the
presence of metallic particles at the bottom of a drag hinge. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address failure of the lower bearing cage
of the MRH flapping hinges and presence of metallic particles at the
bottom of a drag hinge, which could lead to loss of flapping hinge
function, resulting in MRH unbalance and loss of control of the
helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2019-0157, dated July 3, 2019 (EASA AD 2019-0157).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0157

    (1) Where EASA AD 2019-0157 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2019-0157 does not apply
to this AD.
    (3) Where EASA AD 2019-0157 refers to flight hours (FH), this AD
requires using hours time-in-service.
    (4) Although the service information referenced in EASA AD 2019-
0157 specifies to discard certain parts, this AD requires removing
those parts from service.

(i) Special Flight Permit

    Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR
21.197 and 21.199 to operate the helicopter to a location where the
helicopter can be modified (if the operator elects to do so),
provided the helicopter is operated during the day under visual
flight rules with no passengers are onboard.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation 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 International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(2) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) 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.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For EASA AD 2019-0157, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-
Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet: www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may
view this material at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX
76177. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be found in the AD docket
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0297.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Mahmood G. Shah,
Aviation Safety

Engineer, Fort Worth ACO Branch, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort
Worth, TX 76177; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued on April 7, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-07483 Filed 4-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P