[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 9842]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04146]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-552-000]

Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review of the Gaines County Crossover Compressor Station
Project

    On September 9, 2015, Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) filed
an application in Docket No. CP15-552-000 requesting a Certificate of
Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section 7(c) of the
Natural Gas Act to construct and operate a new compressor station in
Gaines County, Texas. The proposed project is known as the Gaines
County Crossover Compressor Station Project (Project), and would
deliver an additional 210 million standard cubic feet of natural gas
per day to supply natural gas for electrical power plants.
    On September 22, 2015, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project.
Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal
authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and
to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice
identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the
EA for the Project.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of EA--May 9, 2016
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--August 7, 2016

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be
provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
Project's progress.

Project Description

    The Project would include installation of two compressor units with
a combined horsepower of 18,089. The suction side of the compressor
station would be connected to Northern's existing 30-inch-diameter
Spraberry to Plains Pipeline. The station would discharge to Northern's
existing 30-inch-diameter Kermit to Beaver Pipeline. The proposed
Project would also include the installation of two compressor
buildings, a control building, an auxiliary building, associated above-
grade and below-grade piping, and valves and instrumentation.

Background

    On October 22, 2015, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Gaines County
Crossover Compressor Station and Request for Comments on Environmental
Issues (NOI). The NOI was sent to affected landowners; federal, state,
and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and
public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested
parties; and local libraries and newspapers. In response to the NOI,
the Commission received one comment from the Bureau of Indian Affairs
recommending consultation with four different tribes with historic
traditions in the area. No issues of environmental concern were raised
by the commentor.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with notification of these filings,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). Using the ``eLibrary'' link, select
``General Search'' from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date
range and ``Docket Number'' excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP15-552), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to
eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY (202) 502-
8659, or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The eLibrary link on the FERC
Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued
by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: February 19, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-04146 Filed 2-25-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 89)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 25601-25606]
[DOCID:fr07my08-27]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0043; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-058-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-
100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747SR, and
747SP Series Airplanes

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

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is revising an earlier NPRM for an airworthiness
directive (AD) that applies to certain Boeing Model 747 series
airplanes. The original NPRM would have superseded an existing AD that
currently requires inspecting to detect cracking in certain lower lobe
fuselage skin lap joints, doing repetitive inspections for cracking at
certain fastener locations having countersunk fasteners, and replacing
countersunk fasteners with protruding head fasteners at certain
fastener locations. The original NPRM proposed to replace a previous
high-frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection method with a new HFEC
inspection method, add a one-time inspection for cracking of certain
airplanes, and terminate the adjustment factor for the inspection
compliance times based on cabin differential pressure. The original
NPRM also included an inspection at an additional lap joint. The
original NPRM resulted from reports of fuselage skin cracks found at
certain countersunk fastener locations in the upper row of lap joints
near the wing-to-body fairings, and from a report that the presence of
Alodine-coated rivets could cause faulty results during the required
inspections using the optional sliding probe HFEC inspection method
specified in the existing AD. This new action revises the original NPRM
by including inspections at additional lap joint locations and by
removing inspections at certain other lap joint locations. We are
proposing this supplemental NPRM to prevent reduced structural
integrity of the fuselage.

DATES: We must receive comments on this supplemental NPRM by June 2,
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ivan Li, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe
Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2007-0043;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-058-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We proposed to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(14 CFR part 39) with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for an AD
(the ``original NPRM'') to supersede AD 94-15-06, amendment 39-8977 (59
FR 37659, July 25, 1994). The original NPRM applied to certain Boeing
Model 747 series airplanes. The original NPRM was published in the
Federal Register on October 17, 2007 (72 FR 58777). The original NPRM
proposed to retain certain requirements of AD 94-15-06. The original
NPRM also proposed to replace a previous high-frequency eddy current
(HFEC) inspection method with a new HFEC inspection method, add a one-
time inspection for cracking of certain airplanes, and terminate the
adjustment factor for the inspection compliance times based on cabin
differential pressure. The original NPRM also proposed to require an
inspection at an additional lap joint.

Actions Since Original NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the original NPRM, we have determined that the
requirements of AD 94-15-06 included additional errors in lap joint
locations that would require a general visual inspection for
countersunk fasteners for certain Boeing Model 747SP airplanes. The
errors are as follows:
     The requirements of AD 94-15-06 included body station (BS)
520 to 1000 at stringer (S)-34L, S-34R, S-39L, S-39R, S-44L, and S-44R,
but should have included only BS 560 to 800 at those stringer
locations. (See paragraph (j)(2) of this supplemental NPRM.)
     The requirements of AD 94-15-06 included BS 1480 to 1741
at S-34L, S-34R, S-40L, and S-40R, but should have included only BS
1640 to 1741 at those stringer locations. (See paragraph (j)(2) of this
supplemental NPRM.)
     The requirements of AD 94-15-06 did not include BS 1741 to
1901 at S-34L, S-34R, S-40L, and S-40R. (See paragraph (q)(1) of this
supplemental NPRM.)
     The requirements of AD 94-15-06 did not include the lap
joint at stringer location S-46L in the list of lap joints requiring
inspection for Model 747SP airplanes. We included BS 520 to 1000 at
that stringer location in the original NPRM, but should instead have
included BS 1640 to 1901. (See paragraph (q)(1) of this supplemental
NPRM.)
    Therefore, we have revised paragraphs (j)(2) and (q)(1) of this
supplemental NPRM to correct the body station and stringer locations.

Comments

    We have considered the following comments on the original NPRM.

Request To Revise Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs) Paragraph

    Boeing requests that we revise paragraph (v)(4) of the original
NPRM to read: ``AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 94-15-
06 for airplane line numbers 630 through 814 inclusive, are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD if the AMOC does not
involve using the existing sliding probe HFEC or alternate skin
inspection method specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2312,
Revision 2, dated October 8, 1992, or an earlier version. AMOCs
approved previously in accordance with AD 94-15-06 for airplane line
numbers 201 through 629 inclusive are approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding provisions of this AD regardless if the AMOC involves
using the existing sliding probe HFEC or alternate skin inspection
method specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2312, Revision 2,
dated October 8, 1992, or an earlier version.'' Boeing explains that
for airplane line numbers 630 through 814, the sliding probe HFEC
inspection method can produce incorrect results due to the possibility
that Alodine rivets are installed. However, airplanes with line numbers
in the range 201 through 629 did not have Alodine rivets installed in
production, and therefore the sliding probe HFEC inspection method is a
valid inspection.
    We agree with the commenter for the reasons stated. We have
included the requested information in a revised paragraph (v)(4) and a
new paragraph (v)(5) in this supplemental NPRM.

Request To Specify Use of Only Revision 3 of Service Bulletin

    Boeing requests that we specify in paragraph (q) of the original
NPRM that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2312, Revision 3, dated
February 8, 2007 (the appropriate source of service information for
certain actions proposed in the NPRM), must be used after the effective
date of the AD. Boeing explains that this change would ensure that the
most recent revision of the service bulletin is followed.
    We agree with Boeing's request. The procedures in Revision 2 of the
service bulletin specify to inspect a smaller area than that specified
in Revision 3. Therefore, we have changed paragraph (q) of this
supplemental NPRM to include only Revision 3 of the service bulletin as
the appropriate source of service information for doing the proposed
actions.

Request To Revise ``Actions Since Existing AD Was Issued'' Section of
NPRM

    Boeing asks that we revise the ``Actions Since Existing AD Was
Issued'' paragraph of the original NPRM to add the words ``for certain
airplanes'' to the end of the following sentence: ``The sliding probe
HFEC (high frequency eddy current) inspection specified in the previous
revisions of the service bulletin would no longer be allowed in this
proposed AD.'' Boeing explains that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
53A2312, Revision 3, allows using the sliding probe procedure as an
alternative HFEC inspection procedure for Group 1 airplanes only, as
specified in Note 2 of Figure 5 of the service bulletin. Those
airplanes were not delivered with Alodine rivets.
    We partially agree. We agree that the sliding probe HFEC inspection

procedure is an acceptable inspection procedure for Group 1 airplanes,
as the commenter explained. However the ``Actions Since Existing AD Was
Issued'' section of the preamble of the original NPRM is not repeated
in this supplemental NPRM. Therefore, we have not changed this
supplemental NPRM in this regard.

Request To Revise ``Relevant Service Information'' Section of NPRM

    Boeing asks that we delete the words ``and repair if necessary''
from the end of the following sentence in the ``Relevant Service
Information'' section of the original NPRM: ``However, Revision 3 * * *
gives instructions for a special (one-time) inspection for cracking of
airplanes * * * and on which the sliding probe HFEC inspection method
was used during the last skin inspection, and repair if necessary.''
Boeing states that this change would eliminate potential confusion
because the sliding probe inspection does not apply to modifications or
repairs.
    We disagree with the requested change. The phrase ``repair if
necessary'' is intended to state that the repair is necessary if a
crack is found during the special (one-time) inspection. Furthermore,
the ``Relevant Service Information'' section is not repeated in this
supplemental NPRM. Therefore, we have not changed this supplemental
NPRM in this regard.

Request To Capitalize ``Alodine''

    Boeing points out that the term ``Alodine'' in the original NPRM
should be capitalized because ``Alodine'' is a trademarked name.
    We agree. We have revised several sections of this supplemental
NPRM to reflect this change.

Explanation of Clarification

    We have clarified paragraph (p), ``Post-modification Inspections
for all Airplanes,'' of this supplemental NPRM to specify that the
post-modification inspection is done at all fastener locations where a
countersunk fastener was found during the inspection required by
paragraph (j) or (q)(1) of the proposed AD.

FAA's Determination and Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM

    The changes to the body station and stringer locations and the
change to the service information specified in paragraph (q) discussed
above expand the scope of the original NPRM; therefore, we have
determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide
additional opportunity for public comment on this supplemental NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 348 airplanes in the worldwide fleet. We estimate
that this proposed AD would affect 90 airplanes of U.S. registry. The
issue associated with Alodine-coated aluminum rivets occurs on 162
airplanes in the worldwide fleet and affects 24 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S.
operators to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is
$80 per work hour.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Number of
             Action                Work hours      Parts       affected     Cost per airplane      Fleet cost
                                                               airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections (required by AD 94-              14         $0              90  $1,120, per        $100,800, per
 15-06 and retained in this AD).                                             inspection cycle.  inspection
                                                                                cycle.
Inspections (required by AD 94-              82          0              90  $6,560, per        $590,400, per
 15-06 and retained in this AD).                                             inspection cycle.  inspection
                                                                                cycle.
Modification (required by AD 94-            124      (\1\)              90  $9,920...........  $892,800.
 15-06 and retained in this
 proposed AD).
One-time inspection (new                      4          0              24  $320.............  $7,680.
 proposed action).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Minimal.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have 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 that the 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); 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this supplemental NPRM and placed it in the AD docket. See
the ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory
evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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

    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]

    2. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) amends Sec.  39.13 by
removing amendment 39-8977 (59 FR 37659, July 25, 1994) and by adding
the following new airworthiness directive (AD):

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2007-0043; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
058-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by June 2,
2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 94-15-06.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B
SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747SR, and
747SP series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified
in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2312, Revision 3, dated
February 8, 2007.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from reports of fuselage skin cracks found
at certain countersunk fastener locations in the upper row of lap
joints near the wing-to-body fairings, and from a report that the
presence of Alodine-coated rivets could cause faulty results during
the required inspections using the optional sliding probe HFEC
inspection method specified in AD 94-15-06. We are issuing this AD
to prevent reduced structural integrity of the fuselage.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Requirements of AD 94-15-06 With Revised Body Station and Stringer
Locations

Inspections for Airplanes Having Line Numbers 201 through 765 Inclusive

    (f) For airplanes having line numbers 201 through 765 inclusive:
Conduct a high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection to detect
cracking of the lower lobe lap joints in the vicinity of the wing-
to-body fairings, in accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-53A2312, dated June 12, 1989; Revision 1, dated March 29, 1990;
Revision 2, dated October 8, 1992; or Revision 3, dated February 8,
2007; except as provided by paragraph (u) of this AD; at the time
specified in paragraph (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(3), or (f)(4) of this AD,
as applicable. As of the effective date of this AD, only Revision 3
shall be used. Repeat this inspection thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 4,000 landings until the inspection required by paragraph (j)
of this AD is accomplished.
    (1) For airplanes that have accumulated less than 11,200 total
landings as of February 5, 1990 (the effective date of AD 90-01-07,
amendment 39-6440, which was superseded by AD 94-15-06): Prior to
the accumulation of 11,000 total landings, or within the next 1,000
landings after February 5, 1990, whichever occurs later.
    (2) For airplanes that have accumulated 11,200 or more total
landings but less than 15,201 total landings as of February 5, 1990:
Within the next 1,000 landings after February 5, 1990, or prior to
the accumulation of 15,500 total landings, whichever occurs earlier.
    (3) For airplanes that have accumulated 15,201 or more total
landings but less than 18,200 total landings as of February 5, 1990:
Within the next 300 landings after February 5, 1990, or prior to the
accumulation of 18,250 total landings, whichever occurs earlier.
    (4) For airplanes that have accumulated 18,200 or more landings
as of February 5, 1990: Within the next 50 landings after February
5, 1990.

Repair and Modification for Airplanes Having Line Numbers 201 Through
765 Inclusive

    (g) For airplanes having line numbers 201 through 765 inclusive:
Accomplish the requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this
AD.
    (1) If any cracking is detected during the inspections required
by paragraph (f) of this AD, prior to further flight, repair in
accordance with Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2312, dated
June 12, 1989; Revision 1, dated March 29, 1990; Revision 2, dated
October 8, 1992; or Revision 3, dated February 8, 2007; except as
provided by paragraph (u) of this AD. As of the effective date of
this AD, only Revision 3 shall be used.
    (2) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total landings, or
within the next 3,000 landings after February 5, 1990 (the effective
date of AD 90-01-07), whichever occurs later, modify the airplane by
replacing countersunk fasteners in the upper row of the lower lobe
lap joints in the vicinity of the wing-to-body fairings with
protruding head fasteners, in accordance with the procedures
described in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2312, dated June
12, 1989; Revision 1, dated March 29, 1990; Revision 2, dated
October 8, 1992; or Revision 3, dated February 8, 2007; except as
provided by paragraph (u) of this AD. As of the effective date of
this AD, only Revision 3 shall be used.

Adjustments for Cabin Differential Pressure for Airplanes Having Line
Numbers 201 Through 765 Inclusive

    (h) For airplanes having line numbers 201 through 765 inclusive:
Before the effective date of this AD, for purposes of complying with
paragraphs (f) and (g) of this AD, the number of landings may be
determined to equal the number of pressurization cycles where the
cabin pressure differential was greater than 2.0 psi.
    (i) For airplanes having line numbers 201 through 765 inclusive:
Before the effective date of this AD, for Model 747SR series
airplanes only, based on continued mixed operation of lower cabin
differentials, the inspection and modification compliance times
specified in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this AD may be multiplied by
a 1.2 adjustment factor.

General Visual Inspection for Countersunk Fasteners for All Airplanes

    (j) For all airplanes: Prior to the accumulation of 11,000 total
landings, or within 1,000 landings after August 24, 1994 (the
effective date of AD 94-15-06), whichever occurs later, conduct a
general visual inspection, unless previously accomplished within the
last 3,000 landings prior to August 24, 1994, to determine if
countersunk fasteners have been installed in the lap joints listed
in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, as applicable, in
accordance with the procedures described in Boeing Service Bulletin
747-53A2312, Revision 2, dated October 8, 1992; or Revision 3, dated
February 8, 2007; except as provided by paragraph (u) of this AD. As
of the effective date of this AD, only Revision 3 shall be used.
Accomplishment of this inspection terminates the inspection
requirements of paragraph (f) of this AD.
    (1) For Model 747-100, -200, -300, -400, and 747SR series
airplanes: From body stations (BS) 741 to 1000 at stringers (S)-34L,
S-34R, S-39L, S-39R, S-44L, and S-44R, and from BS 1480 to 1741 at
S-34L, S-34R, S-40L, and S-40R.
    (2) For Model 747SP series airplanes: From BS 560 to 800 at S-
34L, S-34R, S-39L, S-39R, S-44L, and S-44R, and from BS 1640 to 1741
at S-34L, S-34R, S-40L, and S-40R.

Corrective Action for Countersunk Fasteners for All Airplanes

    (k) For all airplanes: If no countersunk fastener is found in
the upper row of a lap joint during the inspection required by
paragraph (j) of this AD, no further action is required by this AD
for that lap joint.
    (l) For all airplanes: If any countersunk fastener is found in
the upper row of a lap joint during the inspection required by
paragraph (j) of this AD, prior to further flight, perform a high
frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection to detect cracking at all
fastener locations in the lap joint where a countersunk fastener was
found during the inspection required by paragraph (j) of this AD, in
accordance with the procedures described in Boeing Service Bulletin
747-53A2312, Revision 2, dated October 8, 1992; or Revision 3, dated
February 8, 2007; except as provided by paragraph (u) of this AD. As
of the effective date of this AD, only Revision 3 shall be used.

Repetitive Inspections

    (m) If no cracking is detected during any inspection required by
paragraphs (l) and (q) of this AD, at any fastener location where a
countersunk fastener was found during the inspection required by
paragraph (j) or (q)(1) of this AD, repeat the HFEC inspection
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 4,000 landings, in accordance
with the procedures described in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
53A2312, Revision 2, dated October 8, 1992; or Revision 3, dated
February 8, 2007; except

as provided by paragraph (u) of this AD. As of the effective date of
this AD, only Revision 3 shall be used. As an alternative to the
HFEC inspection, operators may perform a detailed inspection to
detect cracking at any fastener location where a countersunk
fasteners was found, in accordance with the procedures described in
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2312, Revision 3, dated February 8,
2007; except as provided by paragraph (u) of this AD. Perform the
detailed inspection within the next 4,000 landings after the HFEC
inspection required by paragraph (l) of this AD, and repeat the
inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 500 landings. At
any of the subsequent inspection cycles, operators may use either
inspection method provided that the corresponding inspection
interval is used to determine the compliance time of the next
inspection.
    (n) If cracking is detected during any inspection required by
paragraph (l), (m), (p), or (q) of this AD, at any fastener location
where a countersunk fastener was found during the inspection
required by paragraph (j) or (q)(1) of this AD, prior to further
flight, repair and modify that lap joint in accordance with Boeing
Service Bulletin 747-53A2312, Revision 2, dated October 8, 1992; or
Revision 3, dated February 8, 2007; except as provided by paragraph
(u) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, only Revision 3
shall be used. Accomplishment of this repair and modification
terminates the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (m) of
this AD for that lap joint.

Modification of Countersunk Fasteners for All Airplanes

    (o) For all airplanes: Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total
landings or within 1,000 landings after August 24, 1994, whichever
occurs later, modify all fastener locations where a countersunk
fastener was found during the inspections required by paragraph (j)
of this AD, in accordance with the procedures described in Boeing
Service Bulletin 747-53A2312, Revision 2, dated October 8, 1992; or
Revision 3, dated February 8, 2007; except as provided by paragraph
(u) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, only Revision 3
shall be used. For purposes of complying with the requirements of
this paragraph, fastener locations that were previously modified in
accordance with paragraph (g) or (n) of this AD do not need to be
modified again. Accomplishment of this modification terminates the
repetitive inspections required by paragraph (m) of this AD for the
modified fastener locations.

Post-Modification Inspections for All Airplanes

    (p) For all airplanes: Prior to the accumulation of 10,000 total
landings following the modification required by paragraph (g), (n),
(o), (q) or (s) of this AD, perform an HFEC inspection to detect
cracking at all fastener locations where a countersunk fastener was
found during the inspection required by paragraph (j) or (q)(1) of
this AD, and repeat this inspection thereafter at intervals not to
exceed 4,000 landings, in accordance with the procedures described
in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2312, Revision 2, dated October 8,
1992; or Revision 3, dated February 8, 2007; except as provided by
paragraph (u) of this AD. As of the effective date of this AD, only
Revision 3 shall be used.

New Requirements of This AD

General Visual Inspection for Countersunk Fasteners and Modification
for Model 747SP Airplanes at Stringers S-34L, S-34R, S-40L, S-40R, and
S-46L

    (q) For Model 747SP series airplanes having line numbers 201
through 814 inclusive, do the actions in paragraphs (q)(1) and
(q)(2) of this AD at the times specified in those paragraphs.
    (1) Prior to the accumulation of 11,000 total landings, or
within 1,000 landings as of the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later, unless previously accomplished within the last 3,000
landings prior to the effective date of this AD, conduct a general
visual inspection of the lap joint from BS 1640 to 1901 at stringer
S-46L, and from BS 1741 to 1901 at S-34L, S-34R, S-40L, and S-40R,
to determine if countersunk fasteners have been installed in the
specified area, in accordance with the procedures described in
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2312, Revision 3, dated February 8,
2007; except as provided by paragraph (u) of this AD.
    (i) If no countersunk fastener is found in the upper row of the
lap joint during the inspection, no further action is required by
this AD for the lap joint.
    (ii) If any countersunk fastener is found in the upper row of
the lap joint, prior to further flight, perform an HFEC inspection
to detect cracking at all fastener locations where a countersunk
fastener was found, in accordance with the procedures described in
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2312, Revision 3, dated February 8,
2007; except as provided by paragraph (u) of this AD.
    A. If no cracking is found, repeat the inspection thereafter in
accordance with the requirements of paragraph (m) of this AD.
    B. If any cracking is found, prior to further flight, repair and
modify the lap joint as required by paragraph (n) of this AD.
    (2) Prior to the accumulation of 20,000 total landings, or
within 1,000 landings as of the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later, modify all fastener locations where a countersunk
fastener was found, during the inspection required by paragraph
(q)(1) of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2312, Revision 3,
dated February 8, 2007; except as provided by paragraph (u) of this
AD. For purposes of complying with the requirements of this AD,
fastener locations that were previously modified in accordance with
paragraph (n) of this AD do not need to be modified again.
Accomplishment of this modification terminates the repetitive
inspections required by paragraph (m) of this AD for the modified
fastener locations.

Adjustments to Compliance Time: Cabin Differential Pressure

    (r) For the purposes of calculating the compliance threshold and
repetitive intervals for actions required by paragraphs (f) and (g)
of this AD, as of the effective date of this AD: All flight cycles,
including the number of flight cycles in which cabin differential
pressure is at 2.0 psi or less, must be counted when determining the
number of flight cycles that have occurred on the airplane, and a
1.2 adjustment factor may not be used. However, for airplanes on
which the repetitive intervals for the actions required by paragraph
(f) of this AD have been calculated in accordance with paragraph (h)
and/or (i) of this AD by excluding the number of flight cycles in
which cabin differential pressure is at 2.0 pounds psi or less, and/
or by using a 1.2 adjustment factor: Continue to adjust the
repetitive intervals in accordance with paragraph (h) and/or (i) of
this AD until the next inspection required by paragraph (f) of this
AD is accomplished. Thereafter, no adjustment to compliance times
based on paragraph (h) and/or (i) of this AD is allowed.

Special One-Time Inspection for Cracking of Certain Airplanes

    (s) For airplanes with line numbers 630 through 814 inclusive
that meet the conditions specified in paragraphs (s)(1) and (s)(2)
of this AD: Within 300 flight cycles after the effective date of
this AD, or within 500 flight cycles after the most recent sliding
probe inspection done in accordance with Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 747-53A2312, Revision 1, dated March 29, 1990; or Revision
2, dated October 8, 1992; whichever occurs later, do a special one-
time HFEC inspection or a special one-time detailed inspection for
cracking, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2312, Revision 3, dated
February 8, 2007. If any cracking is found in a lap joint, before
further flight, repair and modify that lap joint in accordance with
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2312, Revision 3, dated February 8,
2007; except as provided by paragraph (u) of this AD. Accomplishment
of this repair and modification terminates the repetitive
inspections required by paragraph (m) of this AD for that lap joint.
This special one-time inspection is not required for lap joints that
have been modified in accordance with paragraph (g), (n), (o), or
(q) of this AD.
    (1) Airplanes that have not been modified in accordance with
paragraph (g) or (o) of this AD.
    (2) Airplanes on which the sliding probe HFEC inspection method
specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2312, Revision 1, dated
March 29, 1990; or Revision 2, dated October 8, 1992; was used
during the last skin inspection required by paragraph (f), (l), or
(m) of this AD.

Actions After the Special One-Time Inspection if No Cracking Is Found

    (t) For airplanes specified in paragraph (s) of this AD on which
no cracking is found during the special one-time inspection, do the
applicable repetitive inspections specified in paragraph (t)(1) or
(t)(2) of this AD.
    (1) If the special one-time inspection was done using the HFEC
inspection method in accordance with paragraph (s) of this AD,
perform the next inspection required by paragraph (m) of this AD
within the next 4,000 flight cycles after doing the inspection

required by paragraph (s) of this AD, and repeat the inspection
thereafter in accordance with paragraph (m) of this AD.
    (2) If the special one-time inspection was done using the
detailed inspection method in accordance with paragraph (s) of this
AD, perform the next inspection required by paragraph (m) of this AD
within the next 500 flight cycles after doing the inspection
required by paragraph (s) of this AD, and repeat the inspection
thereafter in accordance with paragraph (m) of this AD.

Contacting the Manufacturer

    (u) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-53A2312, Revision 3,
dated February 8, 2007, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate
action for a repair or inspection, before further flight, do the
applicable action in paragraph (u)(1) or (u)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Do the repair using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (v) of this AD.
    (2) Do the inspection using a method approved by the Manager,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA. For a repair
method to be approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO, as required by
this paragraph, the Manager's approval letter must specifically
refer to this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (v)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety shall be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this
AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 94-15-06 for
airplane line numbers 630 through 814 inclusive are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD if the AMOC does
not involve using the existing sliding probe HFEC skin inspection
method specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2312, Revision 2,
dated October 8, 1992, or an earlier version. In addition, the
provisions of paragraph (r) of this AD must be applied to AMOCs
approved previously in accordance with AD 94-15-06, amendment 39-
8977, where applicable.
    (5) AMOCs approved previously in accordance with AD 94-15-06 for
airplane line numbers 201 through 629 inclusive are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of this AD. In addition, the
provisions of paragraph (r) of this AD must be applied to AMOCs
approved previously in accordance with AD 94-15-06, where
applicable.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 30, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-10060 Filed 5-6-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 107)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 27000-27002]
[DOCID:fr05jn09-20]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0852]
RIN 1625-AA01

Disestablishing Special Anchorage Area 2; Ashley River,
Charleston, SC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to disestablish the Ashley River
Anchorage 2 in Charleston, South Carolina. The removal of the anchorage
would accommodate an expansion to the Ripley Light Yacht Club.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before August 4, 2009. Requests for public meetings must be
received by the Coast Guard on or before July 6, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2008-0852 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or e-mail Lieutenant Julie Miller, Sector Charleston Office
of Waterways Management, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2008-0852), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket
Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and a
mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert ``USCG-2008-0852'' in the Docket ID box, press Enter,
and then click on the balloon shape in the Actions column. If you
submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
select the Advanced Docket Search option on the right side of the
screen, insert USCG-2008-0852 in the Docket ID box, press Enter, and
then click on the item in the Docket ID column. You may also visit the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor

union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our public
dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register (73 FR
3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But, you may submit a
request for a public meeting on or before July 6, 2009, using one of
the four methods specified under ADDRESSES. Please explain why you
believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine that a
public meeting would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time
and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    Ashley River Properties and the Ripley Light Yacht Club submitted a
permit with the Army Corps of Engineers to construct additional boat
slips at the Ripley Light Yacht Club; however, the expansion would
extend into an area currently designated as the Ashley River Anchorage
2. Removal of the anchorage would allow for the expansion to continue.
The marina plans to add additional floating dock space to accommodate
approximately 200 additional pleasure craft. Ripley Light Yacht Club
intends to reserve a portion of the new boat slips for transient
recreational boaters. The remaining anchorage, currently designated
Ashley River Anchorage 1, remains a viable and convenient location for
recreational vessel anchorage.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule would disestablish the Ashley River Anchorage 2
set forth in 33 CFR 110.72d(b). The planned expansion of the Ripley
Light Yacht Club extends into Ashley River Anchorage 2. In order to
complete the expansion project, the anchorage must be disestablished.
    The proposed rule also would update the name of the marina used in
describing the remaining anchorage.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a
full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. The limited geographic area
impacted by this disestablishment will not restrict the movement or
routine operation of a large number of commercial or recreational
vessels in the Ashley River. Furthermore, a second and larger anchorage
already exists nearby.

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.
    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. This proposed rule would affect the following
entities, some of which might be small entities: the owners or
operators of recreational vessels intending to anchor in the Charleston
harbor. This rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because the current anchorage is small and
cannot accommodate many vessels, there is another nearby location in
which small vessels can anchor, and the marina expansion will
accommodate at least as many transient vessels as could fit in the
current anchorage.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 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
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant Julie Miller, listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 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.

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.).

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

    This 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.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This 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.

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.

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. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination under the Instruction that this
action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
proposed rule involves the disestablishment of a special anchorage
area, which is categorically excluded under section 2.B.2 Figure 2-1,
paragraph 34(f), of the Instruction. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 110 as follows:

PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071;
33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

    2. Revise section 110.72d to read as follows:

Sec.  110.72d  Ashley River Anchorage Area, SC.

    The following location is a special anchorage area: The waters
lying within an area across the Ashley River Channel from the
Charleston City Marina bounded by the southwest side of the channel
beginning at latitude 32[deg]46'42.7'' N, longitude 079[deg]57'19.3''
W; thence to latitude 32[deg]46'38.0'' N, longitude 079[deg]57'24.0''
W; thence to latitude 32[deg]46'32.0'' N, longitude 079[deg]57'15.5''
W; thence to latitude 32[deg]46'29.0'' N, longitude 079[deg]57'00.9''
W; thence back to the beginning following the southwest boundary of the
Ashley River Channel. All coordinates referenced use datum: NAD 1983.

    Dated: May 6, 2009.
R.S. Branham,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E9-13108 Filed 6-4-09; 8:45 am]


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 12 (Friday, January 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3104-3105]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00713]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Inflation Adjustments to Liability Limits Governed by the
Montreal Convention Effective December 28, 2019

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department is publishing a notice to inform U.S. and
certain foreign air carriers of inflation adjustments to liability
limits of air carriers and foreign air carriers under the Montreal
Convention.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maegan Johnson, Senior Trial Attorney,
Office of Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590,
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice informs U.S. and certain foreign
air carriers of inflation adjustments to liability limits of air
carriers and foreign air carriers under the Montreal

Convention (Convention).\1\ The adjustments affect limits on liability
for damages for passenger death or injury, delay in the carriage of
passengers, and the loss, delay or damage to baggage or cargo,
increasing those limits by nearly 14 percent. This increase became
effective on December 28, 2019. The U.S. and foreign air carriers
affected by these changes to the Convention include those providing
international carriage between countries that, like the United States,
are parties to the Convention, and that provide roundtrip foreign air
transportation that originates and terminates in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for
International Carriage by Air, done at Montreal on May 28, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The liability limits are set out in Articles 21 and 22 of the
Convention. Under Article 24 of the Convention, the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) reviews the liability limits in Articles
21 and 22 every five years in light of inflation that has occurred
during that period.\2\ In a June 28, 2019, notice, the Secretary
General of ICAO advised parties to the Convention of revisions required
pursuant to this review. The revised liability limits effective
December 28, 2019 (stated in Special Drawing Rights (SDRs)) are as
follows: \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Article 24 of the Convention provides that the limits of
liability shall be reviewed by ICAO at five-year intervals and
adjusted ``by reference to an inflation factor which corresponds to
the accumulated rate of inflation since the previous revision. . .
.'' During its second review in 2014, ICAO concluded that it was not
necessary to increase liability limits at the time. Thus, the
inflation adjustments to the liability limits in Articles 21 and 22
announced in this Notice are the most recent increases since 2009.
    \3\ The SDR, an international reserve asset, is a defined basket
of major currencies periodically reviewed by the International
Monetary Fund to reflect the relative importance of the constituent
currencies.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Strict liability                       Destruction, loss,
                                     for death or        Delay in the     damage or delay of  Destruction, loss,
                                   bodily injury to       carriage of         baggage per      damage, or delay
                                      passengers          passengers           passenger           of cargo
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limit as of Dec. 28, 2019.......  128 821 SDRs......  5 346 SDRs........  1 288 SDRs........  22 SDRs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the terms of Article 24 in the Convention, the
increased limits become effective six months following the June 28
notice referred to above, or December 28, 2019. Carriers should,
therefore, revise their contracts of carriage, tariffs, required
notices, and practices to conform to the Convention's requirements.
Failure to implement in a timely manner the revised liability limits
and required notices would, in the view of the Department's Office of
Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, constitute an unfair \4\ or
deceptive \5\ practice and unfair method of competition in violation of
49 U.S.C. 41712. This disclosure notice also extends to ticket agents
and indirect air carriers.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ We consider a practice to be unfair if it is likely to cause
substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by
consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits
to consumers or to competition.
    \5\ We consider a practice to be deceptive where: (1) A
representation, omission, or practice misleads or is likely to
mislead the consumer; (2) a consumer's interpretation of the
representation, omission, or practice is considered reasonable under
the circumstances; and (3) the misleading representation, omission,
or practice is material.
    \6\ Indirect air carrier and foreign indirect air carrier mean a
person or entity that, as a principal, holds out, sells, or arranges
air transportation and separately contracts with direct air carriers
and/or foreign direct air carriers. 14 CFR 295.5.

    Issued this 10th day of January, 2020, in Washington, DC.
Blane A. Workie,
Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings,
U.S. Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 2020-00713 Filed 1-16-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 213 (Friday, November 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66209-66210]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26860]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68119; File No. SR-ICEEU-2012-08)]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Clear Western European Sovereign
CDS Contracts

October 29, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 15, 2012, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared primarily by ICE Clear Europe. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to provide for the
clearing of Western European Sovereign CDS contracts in connection with
Paragraph 13 of ICE Clear Europe's CDS Procedures on the following
sovereign reference entities: Republic of Ireland, Italian Republic,
Hellenic Republic, Portuguese Republic, and Kingdom of Spain (the ``New
Sovereign Contracts'').

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

    In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe included
statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule
change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule
change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places
specified in Item IV below. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of these statements.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Commission has modified the text of the summaries
prepared by ICE Clear Europe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    ICE Clear Europe has identified Western European Sovereign CDS

Contracts as a product that has become increasingly important for
market participants to manage risk and express views with respect to
the European sovereign credit markets. ICE Clear Europe believes
clearance of the New Sovereign Contracts will facilitate the prompt and
accurate settlement of swaps and contribute to the safeguarding of
securities and funds associated with swap transactions. The terms of
the New Sovereign Contracts will be governed by Paragraph 13 of the CDS
Procedures. Clearing of the New Sovereign Contracts will not require
any changes to ICE Clear Europe's existing Rules and Procedures.
    ICE Clear Europe's risk management framework has several features
designed to address particular risks of the New Sovereign Contracts. To
address so-called ``wrong way risk'' involving correlation between the
risk of default of an underlying sovereign and the risk of default of a
clearing member that has written credit protection on such a sovereign,
the New Sovereign Contracts are denominated in U.S. dollars, rather
than Euro (and related margin and guaranty fund requirements are
denominated in U.S. dollars). In addition, the rules contain
limitations on self-referencing trades (i.e., trades where the clearing
member is an affiliate of the underlying sovereign reference entity).
Such trades may not be submitted for clearing, and if a clearing member
subsequently becomes affiliated with the underlying reference entity,
the rules applicable to New Sovereign Contracts provide for the
termination of relevant positions.
    The margin model applicable to New Sovereign Contracts will use a
combination of ICE Clear Europe's spread risk margin calculation
methodology used for other CDS trades and a separate margin calculation
using a Monte Carlo simulation. The initial margin requirement will
reflect the higher of the two calculations.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ICE Clear Europe has performed a variety of empirical
analyses related to clearing of the New Sovereign Contracts under
its margin methodology, including back tests and stress tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed rule change to add New
Sovereign Contracts for clearing are consistent with the requirements
of Section 17A of the Act and the CDS procedures and regulations
thereunder applicable to it.

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

    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed rule change would
have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition.

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

    Written comments relating to the proposed rule change have not been
solicited or received. ICE Clear Europe will notify the Commission of
any written comments received by ICE Clear Europe.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. In addition, the Commission seeks
comment generally on the following issues.
    (1) What would be the effect on the promotion of efficiency,
competition, and capital formation of ICE Clear Europe clearing New
Sovereign Contracts?
    (2) Would the clearing of New Sovereign Contracts create incentives
among market participants to initiate trades that they otherwise would
not? If so, would this increase or create new risks to the financial
system or to the central counterparty that would offset the potential
benefits of centralized clearing of New Sovereign Contracts?
    (3) Would ICE Clear Europe's risk management framework, as
described above, appropriately address risks arising from ICE Clear
Europe's clearing of New Sovereign Contracts, including but not limited
to ``wrong-way risk''?
    (4) Is the information set forth in this notice or otherwise
available to the public sufficient to allow the public to provide
meaningful comment on the proposed rule change?
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ICEEU-2012-08 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2012-08. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filings will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Europe
and on ICE Clear Europe's Web site at https://www.theice.com/notices/Notices.shtml?regulatoryFilings.
    All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2012-08
and should be submitted on or before November 23, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-26860 Filed 11-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P