[Federal Register: February 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 29)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6854-6857]
[DOCID:fr12fe10-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0994; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-108-AD;
Amendment 39-16194; AD 2010-04-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault-Aviation Model Falcon 900EX
Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    A quality control performed during completion of one Falcon
900EX aeroplane has shown that the crew and passenger Right-Hand
(RH) oxygen lines may both interfere with the frame 8 of the
aeroplane structure. A subsequent design review of the oxygen lines
routing has confirmed that, on certain aeroplanes, equipped in RH
mid-cabin with a 115 cu-ft oxygen cylinder, the installation of the
line support assembly at frame 8 needs to be accomplished with
precaution; otherwise, the oxygen lines might interfere with the
structure, and this condition could lead to an oxygen leak.
* * * * *
The unsafe condition is an oxygen leak, which would result in
insufficient oxygen flow to passenger oxygen masks during a
depressurization event. We are issuing this AD to require actions to
correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 19, 2010.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 19,
2010.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 28, 2009 (74
FR 55488). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    A quality control performed during completion of one Falcon
900EX aeroplane has shown that the crew and passenger Right-Hand
(RH) oxygen lines may both interfere with the frame 8 of the
aeroplane structure. A subsequent design review of the oxygen lines
routing has confirmed that, on certain aeroplanes, equipped in RH
mid-cabin with a 115 cu-ft oxygen cylinder, the installation of the
line support assembly at frame 8 needs to be accomplished with
precaution; otherwise, the oxygen lines might interfere with the
structure, and this condition could lead to an oxygen leak.
    As a result, [EASA] Airworthiness Directive 2009-0104 was issued
to require inspection of the oxygen lines [for signs of interference
or chafing damage], replacement of any damaged lines and
modification of their support assembly. Since then, it has been
found that the applicability of the AD had not been correctly
defined.
    This [new EASA] AD retains the requirements of AD 2009-0104
which is superseded and corrects the applicability.

The unsafe condition is an oxygen leak, which would result in
insufficient oxygen flow to passenger oxygen masks during a
depressurization event. Modifying the support assembly of the oxygen
lines includes drilling holes to install improved support bracket
assemblies at frame 8, stringers 11 and 13, and installing the improved
assemblies. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in
the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Explanation of Change Made to This AD

    We have revised this AD to identify the legal name of the
manufacturer as published in the most recent type certificate data
sheet for the affected airplane models.

Explanation of Change to Costs of Compliance

    Since issuance of the NPRM, we have increased the labor rate used
in the Costs of Compliance from $80 per work-hour to $85 per work-hour.
The Costs of Compliance information, below, reflects this increase in
the specified hourly labor rate.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described
previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a Note within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 23 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $0 per
product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that
are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no
charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for
affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated
here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD to the
U.S. operators to be $7,820, or $340 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 AD:
    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 AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 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 AD:

2010-04-01 Dassault-Aviation: Amendment 39-16194. Docket No. FAA-
2009-0994; Directorate Identifier 2009-NM-108-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective March
19, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Dassault-Aviation Model Falcon 900EX
airplanes, certificated in any category, with serial numbers 120
through 123 inclusive, 125 through 127 inclusive, 129, 132, 134
through 145 inclusive, 147, 151, 153, 155, 157 through 159
inclusive, 163, 165, 168 through 170 inclusive, 172, 174, 178, 182,
183, 194, 196, 197, 199, and 206.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35: Oxygen.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    A quality control performed during completion of one Falcon
900EX aeroplane has shown that the crew and passenger Right-Hand
(RH) oxygen lines may both interfere with the frame 8 of the
aeroplane structure. A subsequent design review of the oxygen lines
routing has confirmed that, on certain aeroplanes, equipped in RH
mid-cabin with a 115 cu-ft oxygen cylinder, the installation of the
line support assembly at frame 8 needs to be accomplished with
precaution; otherwise, the oxygen lines might interfere with the
structure, and this condition could lead to an oxygen leak.
    As a result, [European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)]
Airworthiness Directive 2009-0104 was issued to require inspection
of the oxygen lines [for signs of interference and chafing damage],
replacement of any damaged lines and modification of their support
assembly. Since then, it has been found that the applicability of
the AD had not been correctly defined.
    This [EASA] AD retains the requirements of AD 2009-0104 which is
superseded and corrects the applicability.
    The unsafe condition is an oxygen leak, which would result in
insufficient oxygen flow to passenger oxygen masks during a
depressurization event. Modifying the support assembly of the oxygen
lines includes drilling holes to install improved support bracket
assemblies at frame 8, stringers 11 and 13, and installing the
improved assemblies.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Within 2 months after the effective date of this AD, inspect
the oxygen lines in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F900EX-347,
Revision 1, dated May 18, 2009. If any interference or damage is
found, before further flight, replace the oxygen lines and install
improved brackets, in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F900EX-347,
Revision 1, dated May 18, 2009.
    (2) If no interference and no damage are found during the
inspection required by paragraph (f)(1) of this AD: Within 72 months
after the effective date of this AD, replace the oxygen line support
assemblies, in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F900EX-347,
Revision 1, dated May 18, 2009.
    (3) Actions accomplished before the effective date of this AD in
accordance with Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F900EX-347,
dated March 19, 2009, are acceptable for compliance with
corresponding actions specified in this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 1:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector (PMI) or
principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or lacking a
principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District Office.
The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2009-0126, dated
June 18, 2009; and Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F900EX-347,
Revision 1, dated May 18, 2009; for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F900EX-347,
Revision 1, dated May 18, 2009, to do the actions required by this
AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, New Jersey
07606;

telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 29, 2010.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-2609 Filed 2-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 220 (Thursday, November 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53488-53489]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24798]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL18-28-000; QF12-252-004]

Elk Hills Power, LLC; Notice of Request for Waiver

    Take notice that on November 8, 2017, pursuant to section
292.205(c) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
implementing the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, as
amended 18 CFR 292.205(c) (2017), Elk Hills Power, LLC (EHP) submitted
a request for limited waiver of the operating standard set forth in
section 292.205(a)(1) for the topping-cycle cogeneration facility owned
and

operated by EHP, as more fully explained in its request.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the
Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please email [email protected], or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on November 29, 2017.

    Dated: November 9, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-24798 Filed 11-15-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8643-8645]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03300]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9922-97-OSWER]

The Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System Advisory Board:
Request for Nominations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Request for nominations.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites
nominations of qualified candidates to be considered for a three-year
appointment to the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System Advisory
Board (the Board). Pursuant to the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest
Establishment Act (e-Manifest Act), the EPA is establishing the nine
member Advisory Board to provide practical and independent advice,
consultation, and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on the
activities, functions, policies and regulations associated with the
Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest (e-Manifest) System. The EPA
Administrator or designee will serve as chair of the Board. This notice
solicits nominations to fill the remaining eight positions of the
Board, which will be active upon establishment. The Board is considered
established once a Board Charter is filed with Congress, which is
anticipated no later than October 5, 2015.

    To maintain the representation required by statute, nominees will
be selected to represent: state agencies overseeing the intrastate and/
or interstate cradle-to-grave tracking of hazardous waste from the
original generation to its ultimate disposal (three positions);
stakeholders from the hazardous waste management and transportation
sectors who are affected by state and federal hazardous waste manifest
programs (three positions); and the information technology sector (two
positions).

DATES: Nominations should be received on or before March 20, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Nominations should be submitted via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and identified with ``BOARD NOMINATION'' in the
subject line of the email.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Raia, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, (MC:
5303P), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC, 20460, Phone:
703-308-8577; or by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The e-Manifest Act was signed into law on
October 5, 2012 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s710enr/pdf/BILLS-112s710enr.pdf). Under the terms of the e-Manifest Act, the EPA
is required to establish a national electronic Information Technology
(IT) manifest system. This system is to enable users of the uniform
hazardous waste manifest forms (EPA Form 8700-22 and Continuation Sheet
8700-22A) to have the option to more efficiently track their hazardous
waste shipments electronically, in lieu of the paper manifest, from the
point of generation, during transportation, and to the point of receipt
by an off-site facility that is permitted to treat, store, recycle, or
dispose of the hazardous waste. Electronic manifests obtained from the
national system will augment or replace the paper forms that are
currently used for this purpose, and which result in substantial
paperwork costs and other inefficiencies. Congress intended that the
EPA develop a system that, among other things, meets the needs of the
user community and decreases the administrative burden associated with
the current paper-based manifest system on the user community. The
agency anticipates that utilizing electronic manifests will reduce
burden by reporting facilities by 300,000 to 700,000 hours annually,
and will save approximately $75 million dollars. To ensure that these
goals are met, the Act directs the EPA to establish the Hazardous Waste
Electronic Manifest System Advisory Board (the Board) by October 5,
2015 to assess the effectiveness of the electronic manifest system and
make recommendations to the EPA Administrator for improving the system.
    In addition, the e-Manifest Act directs the EPA to develop a system
that attracts sufficient user participation and service revenues to
ensure the viability of the system. As a result, the Act provides the
EPA broad discretion to establish reasonable user fees, as the
Administrator determines are necessary, to pay costs incurred in
developing, operating, maintaining, and upgrading the system, including
any costs incurred in collecting and processing data from any paper
manifest submitted to the system after the date on which the system
enters operation. The Board will also meet to assess the adequacy and
reasonableness of the service fees and, if necessary, make
recommendations to the EPA Administrator to adjust the fees
accordingly.
    Prior to system deployment the Board will be asked to provide
recommendations on important system development matters, as well as on
user fee regulatory proposals under consideration. Substantial system
development planning work is under completion and the agency is
currently conducting additional system development procurement
activities. Upon completion of those activities the agency will launch
into extensive system design, development, and testing, and anticipates
the initial system deployment to occur no later than spring 2018.
    The system will provide the functionality of the current paper
manifest process, in a more efficient, electronic workflow, and will
meet all requirements specified in the e-Manifest Act and e-Manifest
Final Rule, which was published on February 7, 2014 (http://www.epa.gov/osw/laws-regs/state/revision/frs/fr231.pdf). The initial
system is envisioned to be a national, electronic system (internet-
based) that will enable current users of the manifest form to sign,
transmit, archive, and retrieve manifests electronically. The e-
Manifest system is further envisioned to allow a fully electronic
mobile workflow. The mobile workflow will provide both on-line and off-
line capabilities which could enable users to complete an electronic
manifest even when internet access is unavailable. The EPA envisions
that the system will provide all data processing (paper and electronic
formats), data storage, and data reporting back out to industry and
state users, as well as appropriate public accessibility of data.
Finally, e-Manifest aligns with the agency's E-Enterprise business
strategy. E-Enterprise for the Environment is a transformative 21st
century strategy--jointly governed by states and EPA--for modernizing
government agencies' delivery of environmental protection. Under this
strategy, the agency will streamline its business processes and systems
to reduce reporting burden on states and regulated facilities, and
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of regulatory programs for the
EPA, states and tribes.
    Although the system has not been completed, the Board is
established in accordance with the provisions of the Hazardous Waste
Electronic Manifest Establishment Act, 42 U.S.C. 6939(g), and the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App.2. The Board is in
the public interest and supports the EPA in performing its duties and
responsibilities. Pursuant to the e-Manifest Act, the Board will be
comprised of nine members, of which one (1) member is the Administrator
(or a designee), who will serve as Chairperson of the Board, and eight
(8) members will be individuals appointed by the EPA Administrator:
    --At least two (2) of whom have expertise in information
technology; (IT);
    --At least three (3) of whom have experience in using, or represent
users of, the manifest system to track the transportation of hazardous
waste under federal and state manifest programs; and
    --At least three (3) state representatives responsible for
processing those manifests.
    The Board will meet at least annually as required by the e-Manifest
Act. However, additional meetings by teleconference may occur
approximately once every six (6) months or as needed and approved by
the Designated Federal Officer (DFO).
    Member Nominations: Pursuant to the e-Manifest Act, the Board will
assist the agency in evaluating the effectiveness of the e-Manifest IT
system and associated user fees; identifying key issues associated with
the system, including the need (and timing) for user fee adjustments;
system enhancements; and providing independent advice on matters and
policies related to the e-Manifest program. The e-Manifest Board will
provide recommendations on matters related to the operational
activities, functions, policies, and regulations of the EPA under the
e-Manifest Act, including proposing actions to encourage the use of the
electronic (paperless) system, and actions related to the E-Enterprise

strategy that intersect with e-Manifest. These intersections may
include issues such as business to business communications, performance
standards for mobile devices, and Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule
(CROMERR) compliant e-signatures.
    Any interested person and/or organization may nominate qualified
individuals for membership. The EPA values and welcomes diversity. In
an effort to obtain nominations of diverse candidates, the agency
encourages nominations of women and men of all racial and ethnic
groups. All nominations will be considered. However, applicants need to
be aware of the specific representation required by the e-Manifest Act.
    Further, state and industry nominees should have a comprehensive
knowledge of hazardous waste generation, transportation, treatment,
storage, and disposal under RCRA Subtitle C at the federal, state, and
local levels. Nominees who represent the states, should have
comprehensive knowledge of state programs that currently collect
manifests from generators and treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities (TSDFs), and track manifest data in state tracking systems/
databases. Nominees who represent industry should have strong knowledge
of existing industry systems/devices/approaches and business operations
in order to provide valuable input on e-Manifest integration into
current industry data systems. IT nominees should have core
competencies and experience in large scale systems and application
development and integration, deployment and maintenance, user help desk
and support, and expertise relevant to support the complexity of an e-
Manifest system. Examples of this expertise may include but are not
limited to: Expertise with web-based and mobile technologies,
particularly that support large scale operations for geographically
diverse users; expertise in IT security, including perspective on
federal IT security requirements; expertise in electronic signature and
user management approaches; expertise with scalable hosting solutions
such as cloud-based hosting; and expertise in user experience. Existing
knowledge of, or willingness to gain an understanding of EPA shared
services and enterprise architecture is a plus. Another plus for any
nominee is experience in setting and/or managing fee based systems in
general. Additional criteria used to evaluate nominees will include:
     Excellent interpersonal, oral and written communication
skills;
     Demonstrated experience developing group recommendations;
     Willingness to commit time to the Board and demonstrated
ability to work constructively on committees;
     Absence of financial conflicts of interest;
     Impartiality (including the appearance of impartiality);
and
     Background and experiences that would help members
contribute to the diversity of perspectives on the Board, e.g.,
geographic, economic, social, cultural, educational backgrounds,
professional affiliations and other considerations.
    Nominations must include a resume, which provides the nominee's
background, experience and educational qualifications, as well as a
brief statement (one page or less) describing the nominee's interest in
serving on the Board and addressing the other criteria previously
described. Nominees are encouraged to provide any additional
information that they feel would be useful for consideration, such as:
Availability to participate as a member of the Board; how the nominee's
background, skills and experience would contribute to the diversity of
the Board; and any concerns the nominee has regarding membership.
Nominees should be identified by name, occupation, position, current
business address, email, and telephone number. Interested candidates
may self-nominate. The agency will acknowledge receipt of nominations.
    Persons selected for membership will receive compensation for
travel and a nominal daily compensation (if appropriate) while
attending meetings. Additionally, selected candidates will be
designated as Special Government Employees (SGEs) or consultants.
Candidates designated as SGEs will be required to fill out the
``Confidential Financial Disclosure Form for Environmental Protection
Agency Special Government Employees'' (EPA Form 3310-48). This
confidential form provides information to the EPA ethics officials to
determine whether there is a conflict between the SGE's public duties
and their private interests, including an appearance of a loss of
impartiality as defined by federal laws and regulations. One example of
a potential conflict of interest may be for IT professional(s) serving
in an organization which is awarded any related e-Manifest system
development contract(s).

    Dated: February 6, 2015.
Barnes Johnson,
Director, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 2015-03300 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 174 (Monday, September 11, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42581-42586]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19039]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-7270; Product Identifier 2015-NM-116-AD; Amendment
39-19025; AD 2017-18-16]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 737-700 and -700C series airplanes. This AD
was prompted by a report that, for certain airplanes, the nose-up pitch
trim limit and associated warning will allow the horizontal stabilizer
position to be set outside acceptable limits for a mis-trimmed takeoff
condition. This AD requires, depending on airplane configuration,
replacing certain pitch trim light plates, relocating certain position
warning horn switches, revising certain software, removing a certain
placard, and doing related investigative and corrective actions if
necessary. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 16, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of October 16,
2017.

ADDRESSES: For Aviation Partners Boeing service information identified
in this final rule, contact Aviation Partners Boeing, 2811 South 102nd
Street, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98168; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 206-
767-3355; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com.
    For Boeing service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    You may view this referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-
227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
7270.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
7270; 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fnu Winarto, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 425-917-
6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company
Model 737-700 and -700C series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on June 28, 2016 (81 FR 41894). The NPRM was prompted
by a report that, for airplanes with blended winglets, the nose-up
pitch trim limit and associated warning for the horizontal stabilizer
control system will allow the stabilizer position to be set outside
acceptable limits for a mis-trimmed takeoff condition. The NPRM
proposed to require, depending on airplane configuration, replacing the
pitch trim light plates on the flight deck control stand, relocating
the position warning horn switches of the horizontal stabilizer,
revising the software, removing the placard, and doing related
investigative and corrective actions if necessary. We are issuing this
AD to prevent a stabilizer position set outside acceptable limits for a
mis-trimmed takeoff condition. Settings outside of the appropriate
pitch trim limits could result in loss of controllability of the
airplane during takeoff.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) stated its
support for the NPRM. United Airlines stated that it has no technical
objections with the NPRM.

Request To Use the Latest Service Information

    Aviation Partners Boeing requested that the NPRM be updated to
include the latest service information, which is Aviation Partners
Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002, Revision 3, dated July 19, 2016.
    We agree with the commenter's request. Since the NPRM was issued,
we have reviewed Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-
002, Revision 4, dated April 24, 2017, which provides minor changes. We
have updated this AD to refer to Aviation Partners Boeing Service
Bulletin AP737-27-002, Revision 4, dated April 24, 2017. We have also
added credit for Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-
002, Revision 3, dated July 19, 2016.

Request To Revise Boeing Service Information

    Southwest Airlines (SWA) requested that Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-27A1306, dated September 10, 2015, be revised to reference
revised Aviation Partners Boeing service information. SWA stated that
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1306, dated September 10, 2015,
specifies concurrent accomplishment of Aviation Partners Boeing Service
Bulletin AP737-27-002, March 31, 2015. SWA stated that this concurrent
requirement should call for the use of Aviation Partners Boeing Service
Bulletin AP737-27-002, Revision 2, dated March 1, 2016, as stated
throughout the NPRM.
    We acknowledge the commenter's request. After we issued the NPRM,
Boeing published Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1306, Revision 1,
dated December 14, 2016, which identifies Aviation Partners Boeing
Service Bulletins ``AP737-27-002, Original Issue, Revision 1, Revision
2, or Revision 3,'' as concurrent requirements. Aviation Partners
Boeing has since published Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin
AP737-27-002, Revision 4, dated April 24, 2017. We have revised
paragraph (g)(2) of this AD to refer to Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-27A1306, dated September 10, 2015, as revised by Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-27A1306, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2016. As
we stated previously, Aviation Partners Boeing has published Aviation
Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002, Revision 4, dated April
24, 2017. Paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD also refer to
Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002, Revision 4,
dated April 24, 2017.

Request To Make Service Information Available or Revise the
Applicability

    Delta Air Lines (DAL) requested that we either make Aviation
Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-34-005, dated July 17, 2015,
available to all operators or revise paragraph (c)(3) of the
applicability in the proposed AD to identify specifically affected
airplanes. DAL stated that, during its review of the NPRM, it was not
able to obtain a copy of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin
AP737-34-005, dated July 17, 2015. DAL commented that it requested
Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-34-005, dated July 17,
2015, from Boeing and was advised that the Aviation Partners Boeing
service information was not applicable to DAL airplanes, and,
therefore, the service information would not be made available to DAL.
DAL stated that, as a result, it was unable to independently verify
that there are no DAL airplanes identified in Aviation Partners Boeing
Service Bulletin AP737-34-005, dated July 17, 2015. DAL commented that
paragraph 1.A.1., ``Aircraft Affected,'' of Aviation Partners Boeing
Service Bulletin AP737-27-002, Revision 2, dated March 1, 2016, does
identify airplanes having line numbers 384 and 3128 as affected by
Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-34-005, dated July 17,
2015. DAL stated that, however, paragraph (c)(3) of the proposed AD
does not mention Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-
002, Revision 2, dated March 1, 2016, as a method to identify
airplanes.
    DAL commented that it would prefer that Aviation Partners Boeing
Service Bulletin AP737-34-005, dated July 17, 2015, be available to all
operators so that each operator can determine whether or not their
airplanes are affected. DAL also stated that if the manufacturer cannot
support this, DAL suggested that paragraph (c)(3) in the AD should
indicate that Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-34-005,
dated July 17, 2015, is only applicable to airplanes having line
numbers 384 and 3128.
    We partially agree with the commenter's request. We disagree with
revising the applicability of this AD. However, the service information
specified in paragraphs (c), (g), and (h) of this AD is incorporated by
reference in this AD, and it should be available to all operators, as
well as the general public, after the AD is published. We have provided
availability information for the required service information in both
the preamble and regulatory text of this AD.
    We have also clarified the actions for the airplane having line
number 3128. Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1306, dated September
10, 2015, as specified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD, also references
line number 3128. Paragraph (g)(2) of this AD refers to Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-27A1306, dated September 10, 2015, for
accomplishing actions. Paragraph (h) of this AD refers to Aviation
Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-34-005, dated July 17, 2015, for
accomplishing actions. For line number 3128, the actions in paragraph
(h) of this AD should be done instead of paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
We have revised paragraph (g)(2) of this AD to exclude line number
3128.
    In addition, we have clarified the actions for airplanes identified
in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD by excluding those airplanes from
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD. Paragraph (g)(1) of this AD specifies
actions for airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD, which
includes airplanes that are identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD.
However, for airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD, the
actions specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD must be done.

Request To Exclude Certain Airplanes From the Applicability

    SWA requested that any airplane modified per Supplemental Type
Certificate (STC) ST00830SE, Amendment dated April 21, 2015, dated
August 26, 2015, or subsequent be excluded from the applicability of
the proposed AD. SWA stated that it has recently incorporated STC
ST00830SE (Amendment dated April 21, 2015) on airplanes that have not
previously had blended winglets installed. SWA commented that the
Amendment dated April 21, 2015, of the STC incorporates the intent of
Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002. SWA stated that
it is currently incorporating STC ST00830SE, Amendment dated August 26,
2015, on airplanes that have not previously had blended winglets
installed.
    We partially agree with the commenter's request. We concur with the
assertion that installation of STC ST00830SE at Amendment dated April
21, 2015, fulfills the equivalent actions specified in Aviation
Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002, Revision 4, dated April
24, 2017. In

addition, there are later amendments that apply to Model 737-700 series
airplanes that fulfill the actions specified in Aviation Partners
Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002, Revision 4, dated April 24, 2017.
We have revised paragraph (c) of this AD to exclude airplanes on which
winglets are installed as specified in STC ST00830SE, Amendment dated
on or after April 21, 2015.

Request To Include Certain Line Numbers in the Applicability

    SWA requested that we include certain line numbers in the
applicability of the proposed AD. SWA stated that paragraph 1.A.1.,
``Aircraft Affected,'' of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin
AP737-27-002 defines the effectivity of Group 2 airplanes as ``. . .
manufacturing line number 3100 and on . . . .'' SWA commented that it
is unclear if this modification is being incorporated on the Boeing
production line. SWA stated that, if this modification is being
incorporated on the Boeing production line, then the manufacturing line
number should be identified as the upper end of the effectivity of
Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002 and in the upper
end of the proposed applicability.
    We agree that operators need to know which airplanes are affected.
However, we disagree with including line numbers in the applicability
of this AD, because the Aviation Partners Boeing kit configuration
identified in section 1.A.1., ``Aircraft Affected,'' of Aviation
Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002 clearly identifies the
airplanes that need the modification. Airplanes delivered from Boeing
with other kit configuration numbers are outside the effectivity, and
therefore, do not require the accomplishment of Aviation Partners
Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002. We have not changed this AD in
this regard.

Request To Revise the Description of the Unsafe Condition

    Boeing requested that we revise the unsafe condition statement
throughout the NPRM, so that it is more consistent with the description
specified in the service information. Boeing clarified that
accomplishing the proposed requirements will not prevent takeoffs with
incorrect trim settings, but rather allows for acceptable takeoff
limits at specific airplane configurations in which the stabilizer trim
has been set at a maximum mis-trim, as specified in 14 CFR part 25.
    We agree to revise the unsafe condition statement as suggested by
Boeing for the reason provided. We have revised this final rule
accordingly.

Request To Revise the Proposed Compliance Time

    ALPA requested that we reduce the proposed compliance time from
``72 months after the effective date of this AD'' to ``36 months after
the effective date of this AD.'' ALPA commented that it is of the
upmost importance to ensure the airplane is taking off in the correct
trim setting and the associated warning system has to work properly in
order to alert the flight crew of a possible misconfiguration before
takeoff.
    We do not agree to reduce the compliance time for the requirements
of this AD. We agree that it is important to have the correct
configuration of the airplane for takeoff, because of the potential
unsafe conditions that incorrect configurations might pose. However,
this AD does not address that safety concern. After considering the
available information, we have determined that the compliance time, as
proposed, represents an appropriate interval of time in which the
required actions can be performed in a timely manner within the
affected fleet, while still maintaining an adequate level of safety. In
developing an appropriate compliance time, we considered the safety
implications, parts availability, and normal maintenance schedules for
timely accomplishment of the modifications. Further, we arrived at the
proposed compliance time with the manufacturer's concurrence. To reduce
the proposed compliance time would necessitate (under the provisions of
the Administrative Procedure Act) reissuing the notice, reopening the
period for public comment, considering additional comments subsequently
received, and eventually issuing a final rule. In light of this, and in
consideration of the amount of time that has already elapsed since
issuance of the original notice, we have determined that further delay
of this final rule is not appropriate. However, if additional data are
presented that would justify a shorter compliance time, we may consider
further rulemaking on this issue. We have not changed this AD in this
regard.

Request To Clarify Certain Acceptable Operator-Supplied Parts

    DAL requested that we clarify the NPRM to specify whether certain
alternative lockwire part numbers (P/Ns) are acceptable alternatives to
those specified in Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-
002. DAL stated that table 3 of Aviation Partners Boeing Service
Bulletin AP737-27-002 calls for the use of lockwire having P/N
MS20995NC20 and P/N MS20995NC32. DAL stated that review of parts
available on MyBoeingFleet Part Page shows that those part numbers are
no longer available. DAL commented that the Part Page provides
substitute P/Ns M000200850 and P/N M000320850, respectively. DAL stated
that Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002 includes a
note in the Accomplishment Instructions, which refers operators to
chapter 51 of the Boeing 737 Structural Repair Manual (SRM) for use of
approved fastener and process material substitutions. DAL commented
that this SRM reference does not detail any substitutes for the
lockwire. DAL stated that, lacking an approval source other than the
Boeing Part Page, an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) would be
required to use lockwire having P/N M000200850 and P/N M000320850. DAL
commented that specifying these would facilitate operator procurement
efforts and minimize potential AMOC requests.
    We agree to clarify. Part Number M000200850 and P/N M000320850 are
the Boeing stock numbers, which meet the MS20995 lockwire
specifications in Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-
002. In addition, specific lockwire part numbers are not included in
the Required for Compliance (RC) steps of Aviation Partners Boeing
Service Bulletin AP737-27-002. Therefore, we find that it is not
necessary to revise this AD to address this issue, and we have not
changed this AD in this regard.

Request To Clarify Recordkeeping Requirements

    DAL requested that we exclude the explicit instruction in Note 3 of
the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service
Bulletin AP737-27-002, Revision 2, dated March 1, 2016, that specifies
making a recordkeeping entry in the airplane records once the service
information is completed. DAL requested that, if the exclusion of Note
3 cannot be granted in the AD, the final rule provide an allowance for
operators to use their existing recordkeeping procedures to record
completion of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002,
Revision 2, dated March 1, 2016.
    DAL commented that its recordkeeping process would track compliance
with a specific engineering document number used to embody a specified
service bulletin on the airplane. DAL stated that it would not
typically record service bulletin accomplishment using a phrase similar

to that given in Note 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Aviation
Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002, Revision 2, dated March
1, 2016. DAL commented that the requirement to show compliance with the
subject service information does not require such explicit
requirements. DAL stated that recording the service information exactly
as detailed in the note does not improve airplane safety, and
therefore, latitude should be given to operators regarding their method
for recording compliance with Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin
AP737-27-002, Revision 2, dated March 1, 2016. DAL stated that this
will prevent the need for future AMOC requests.
    We agree that operators may use their existing recordkeeping
processes to document maintenance actions performed using Aviation
Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002. For this AD,
recordkeeping is not a critical step that addresses the unsafe
condition. As DAL pointed out, the actions specified in Note 3 are not
called out in an RC step in the Accomplishment Instructions. We have
added paragraph (j)(2) to this AD to clarify that recordkeeping is not
required by this AD.

Request To Clarify the Requirements for the Onboard Performance Tool
(OPT)

    DAL requested that we clarify the requirements for incorporating
the OPT. DAL stated that Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin
AP737-27-002 specifies concurrent actions recommending that users of
the OPT contact Boeing for an updated database and instructions on how
to incorporate this database into the OPT. DAL commented that it does
not use the OPT and that the proposed AD does not give any guidance
with respect to this concurrent requirement. DAL commented that the
concurrent requirement is actually written as a recommendation, which
would imply that it is not a mandatory action and that compliance is
optional.
    We agree to provide clarification regarding the OPT. We infer that
DAL meant to refer to Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-
34-005, as there are no concurrent actions specified in Aviation
Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002. The usage of the OPT, as
specified in the concurrent requirements section of Aviation Partners
Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-34-005, dated July 17, 2015, is optional
and is not a requirement of this AD. We have not changed this AD in
this regard.

Request To Use Later-Approved Software Versions

    SWA requested that the proposed AD allow for the installation of
later-approved versions of the Flight Management Computer (FMC) Model
Engine Database (MEDB) and/or FMC Operational Program Software (OPS).
SWA stated that Part 4 of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin
AP737-27-002, Revision 2, dated March 1, 2016, specifies the
installation of FMC MEDB software having P/N BCG-01T-A0 with compatible
FMC OPS Versions U10.8A, U11, or U12. SWA commented that if any later
versions of FMC MEDB or FMC OPS are installed at a future date an AMOC
would be needed to stay in compliance with the AD.
    We disagree with the commenter's request. This AD requires, for
certain airplanes, the actions specified in Aviation Partners Boeing
Service Bulletin AP737-27-002, Revision 4, dated April 24, 2017, which
identifies specific software that must be installed. That software must
be installed to address the identified unsafe condition. However, under
the provisions of paragraph (k) of this AD, we will consider requests
for approval of new software if sufficient data are submitted to
substantiate that the new software would provide an acceptable level of
safety. We have not changed the final rule in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following Aviation Partners Boeing service
information.
     Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002,
Revision 4, dated April 24, 2017. This service information describes
procedures for replacing the pitch trim light plates on the flight deck
control stand, relocating the horizontal stabilizer position warning
horn switches, and updating the software for the MEDB of the FMC.
     Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-34-005,
dated July 17, 2015. This service information describes procedures for
updating the software in the MEDB for the FMC and removing a certain
placard on the control stand.
    We also reviewed the following Boeing service information.
     Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1306, dated September
10, 2015. This service information describes procedures for replacing
the pitch trim light plates on the flight deck control stand,
relocating the position warning horn switches of the horizontal
stabilizer, and installing new software for the MEDB for the FMC.
     Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1306, Revision 1,
dated December 14, 2016. This service information is a short form
revision that specifies changes to the concurrent requirements and the
affected publications identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
27A1306, dated September 10, 2015.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 569 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Action                             Labor cost            Parts cost           Cost per product             Cost on U.S. operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relocation.................................  Up to 4 work[dash]hours x                $0  Up to $340....................  Up to $193,460.
                                              $85 per hour = $340.
Replacement................................  Up to 3 work[dash]hours x             1,973  Up to $2,228..................  Up to $1,267,732.
                                              $85 per hour = $255.
Software installation......................  2 work-hours x $85 per hour               0  $170..........................  $96,730.
                                              = $170.

Placard removal (2 airplanes)..............  1 work-hour x $85 per hour                0  $85...........................  $170.
                                              = $85.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this AD.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will 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 this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2017-18-16 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19025; Docket No. FAA-
2016-7270; Product Identifier 2015-NM-116-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective October 16, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-700 and -700C
series airplanes identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3)
of this AD, certificated in any category, except for airplanes on
which winglets are installed as specified in Supplemental Type
Certificate (STC) ST00830SE, Amendment dated on or after April 21,
2015.
    (1) Airplanes having STC ST00830SE installed (Aviation Partners
Boeing blended winglets), as identified in Aviation Partners Boeing
Service Bulletin AP737-27-002, Revision 4, dated April 24, 2017.
    (2) Airplanes identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
27A1306, dated September 10, 2015, as revised by Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-27A1306, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2016.
    (3) Airplanes identified in Aviation Partners Boeing Service
Bulletin AP737-34-005, dated July 17, 2015.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
controls; Code 34, Navigation.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that for airplanes with blended
winglets, the nose-up pitch trim limit and associated warning for
the horizontal stabilizer control system will allow the stabilizer
position to be set outside acceptable limits for a mis-trimmed
takeoff condition. We are issuing this AD to prevent takeoff with a
stabilizer position set outside acceptable limits for a mis-trimmed
takeoff condition. Settings outside of the appropriate pitch trim
limits could result in loss of controllability of the airplane
during takeoff.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Replacement, Relocation, and Applicable Related Investigative and
Corrective Actions

    (1) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD,
except for airplanes also identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD:
Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, relocate the
position warning horn switches of the horizontal stabilizer, replace
the pitch trim light plates on the flight deck control stand, revise
the software, and do all applicable related investigative and
corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-
002, Revision 4, dated April 24, 2017, except as specified in
paragraph (j) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative
and corrective actions before further flight.
    (2) For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(2) of this AD,
except for the airplane having line number 3128: Within 72 months
after the effective date of this AD, relocate the position warning
horn switches of the horizontal stabilizer, replace the pitch trim
light plates on the flight deck control stand, revise the software,
and do all applicable related investigative and corrective actions,
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-27A1306, dated September 10, 2015, as revised
by Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1306, Revision 1, dated
December 14, 2016; and Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin
AP737-27-002, Revision 4, dated April 24, 2017; except as specified
in paragraph (j) of this AD. Do all applicable

related investigative and corrective actions before further flight.

(h) Software Revision and Placard Removal

    For airplanes identified in paragraph (c)(3) of this AD: Within
72 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the software
and remove the placard, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-34-
005, dated July 17, 2015.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    (1) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraphs (g)(1) and (g)(2) of this AD for Aviation Partners Boeing
Service Bulletin AP737-27-002, Revision 4, dated April 24, 2017, if
those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD
using the service information specified in paragraph (i)(1)(i),
(i)(1)(ii), (i)(1)(iii), or (i)(1)(iv) of this AD.
    (i) Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002,
dated March 31, 2015.
    (ii) Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002,
Revision 1, dated August 6, 2015.
    (iii) Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002,
Revision 2, dated March 1, 2016.
    (iv) Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002,
Revision 3, dated July 19, 2016.
    (2) This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraph (g)(2) of this AD for Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
27A1306, dated September 10, 2015, as revised by Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-27A1306, Revision 1, dated December 14, 2016,
if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD
using the service information specified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-27A1306, dated September 10, 2015.

(j) Exceptions to the Service Information

    (1) Where Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-
002, Revision 4, dated April 24, 2017, specifies to contact Boeing
for appropriate action, and specifies that action as Required for
Compliance (RC): Before further flight, repair using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(k) of this AD.
    (2) Although Note 3 of paragraph 3.A., ``General,'' Aviation
Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002, Revision 4, dated
April 24, 2017, specifies to make an entry into the airplane's
records, that action is not required by this AD.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (l)(1) 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.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair, modification deviation, or
alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Except as required by paragraph (j) of this AD: For service
information that contains steps that are labeled as RC, the
provisions of paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and (k)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps,
including substeps and identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Fnu Winarto,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Section, FAA, Seattle ACO
Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6659; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (m)(3), (m)(4), and (m)(5) of this AD.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-27-002,
Revision 4, dated April 24, 2017.
    (ii) Aviation Partners Boeing Service Bulletin AP737-34-005,
dated July 17, 2015.
    (iii) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1306, dated September
10, 2015.
    (iv) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-27A1306, Revision 1,
dated December 14, 2016.
    (3) For Aviation Partners Boeing service information identified
in this AD, contact Aviation Partners Boeing, 2811 South 102nd
Street, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98168; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 206-
767-3355; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com.
    (4) For Boeing service information identified in this AD,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (6) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 30, 2017.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-19039 Filed 9-8-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 28, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 45140]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18534]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2715-025]

Kaukauna Utilities; Notice of Intent To File License Application,
Filing of Pre-Application Document, Approving Use of the Traditional
Licensing Process

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent To File License Application and
Request To Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 2715-025.
    c. Date Filed: July 10, 2019.
    d. Submitted By: Kaukauna Utilities.
    e. Name of Project: Combined Locks Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Located on the Lower Fox River in the Village of
Combined Locks and the Village of Little Chute, Outagamie County,
Wisconsin. No federal lands are occupied by the project works or
located within the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Mike Pedersen, Director of
Operations, Kaukauna Utilities, 777 Island Street, P.O. Box 1777,
Kaukauna, WI 54130-7077, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Patrick Ely at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Kaukauna Utilities filed its request to use the Traditional
Licensing Process on July 10, 2019. Kaukauna Utilities provided public
notice of its request on July 17, 2019. In a letter dated August 22,
2019, the Director of the Division of Hydropower Licensing approved
Kaukauna Utilities' request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section
7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations
thereunder at 50 CFR part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating
consultation with the Wisconsin State Historic Preservation Officer, as
required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the
implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Kaukauna Utilities as the
Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; and
consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
    m. Kaukauna Utilities filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD);
including a proposed process plan and schedule with the Commission,
pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at
the address in paragraph h.
    o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an
application for a new license for Project No. 2715. Pursuant to 18 CFR
16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any
competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at
least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All
applications for license for this project must be filed by July 29,
2024.
    p. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: August 22, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-18534 Filed 8-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 13, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 8)]
[Notices]
[Page 1743-1744]
[DOCID:fr13ja09-99]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59203; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2008-084]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change to Require Limited Partnerships to
Obtain Shareholder Approval for the Use of Equity Compensation and Make
Other Clarifying Changes to the Listing Requirements for Limited
Partnerships

January 6, 2009.

I. Introduction

    On November 18, 2008, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to require limited partnerships to obtain
shareholder approval for the use of equity compensation and to make
other clarifying changes to the listing requirements for limited
partnerships. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on December 2, 2008.\3\ The Commission received no
comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 59014 (November 25,
2008), 73 FR 73358.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Nasdaq's current listing requirements provide that issuers must
obtain shareholder approval for a variety of corporate actions,
including the issuance of equity compensation.\4\ However, these
requirements do not currently apply to Limited Partnerships
(``LPs'').\5\ Nasdaq is proposing to expand the requirement to obtain
shareholder approval for equity compensation to entities that are LPs.
As such, the proposed rule would provide that each issuer that is a
limited partnership must obtain shareholder approval when a stock
option or purchase plan is to be established or materially amended or
other equity compensation arrangement is to be made or materially
amended, pursuant to which stock may be acquired by officers,
directors, employees, or consultants, as would be required under Nasdaq
Rule 4350(i)(1)(A) and IM-43540-5.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Nasdaq Rule 4350(i)(1)(A).
    \5\ See Nasdaq Rules 4350(i)(1)(A) and 4360.
    \6\ See proposed Nasdaq Rule 4360(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, Nasdaq proposes to make two other changes to the
listing requirements for LPs. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
amend the rules applicable to LPs to require that: (1) the auditor of a
listed LP must be registered as a public accounting firm with the
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (``PCAOB''), as provided for
in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002; \7\ and (2) an LP must notify Nasdaq
of any material non-compliance with the qualitative listing
requirements for LPs in Rule 4360. Nasdaq states that when it adopted
these requirements for other companies in 2003 in response to
requirements imposed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Nasdaq inadvertently
excluded LPs from these requirements. The Exchange notes, however, that
these requirements are already applicable to LPs. Specifically, with
respect to the proposed auditor registration requirement, it is
unlawful for an auditor to participate in the preparation or issuance
of an audit report with respect to any listed company, including an LP,
unless it is registered with the PCAOB.\8\ With respect to the proposed
notification requirement, each listed company is required to sign a
listing agreement prior to listing on Nasdaq in which the company has
agreed to promptly notify Nasdaq in writing of any corporate action or
other event which will cause the company to cease to be in compliance
with Nasdaq listing requirements.\9\ As such, Nasdaq asserts that these
changes are simply clarifying changes designed to highlight the
requirements and facilitate understanding and compliance of the rules
by LPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Section 102 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act, 15 U.S.C. 7212.
    \8\ Id.
    \9\ See http://www.nasdaq.com/about/Listing_Agreement.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange
and, in particular, with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ which
requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities
exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market
and a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and
the public interest, and are not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between issuers.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes the importance of shareholder approval rules,
as such rules provide shareholders with a voice in transactions that
are material to, and may have an effect on, their respective
investments. With respect to equity compensation plans, shareholder
approval rules also help to protect investors against the potential
dilutive effect of such plans. The Commission acknowledges that
treating LPs differently with respect to certain limited types of
shareholder approval rules may be appropriate given the structure and
use of LPs and the expectations of investors in such entities.\12\
However, as the Commission has indicated previously, it believes that
the rationale for treating an LP differently from other types of
issuers with respect to shareholder input on equity compensation is
less compelling.\13\ Accordingly, the Commission believes that it is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest to
require LPs to obtain shareholder approval for the issuance of equity
compensation, as it will ensure that investors in LP securities have a
check on the potential dilution that may result from the issuance of
equity-based awards. Further, by requiring LPs to obtain shareholder
approval for stock

option or other equity compensation plans under the same terms and
conditions as other Nasdaq listed companies, the new rule will ensure
that shareholders of all Nasdaq companies will have the same
protections against the potential dilutive effects of such plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For a detailed discussion of the reasons that LPs differ
from other issuers and may be appropriately excluded from certain
shareholder approval rules, see Securities Exchange Act Release No.
55796 (May 22, 2007), 72 FR 29566 (SR-NYSE-2007-28) (approving
NYSE's proposal to exempt LPs from certain of its shareholder
approval rules, excluding its equity compensation requirement).
    \13\ See id., 72 FR at 29567.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission also believes that the proposed clarifying changes
specifying that an auditor of a listed LP must be registered with the
PCAOB and that an LP must notify Nasdaq of any material non-compliance
with the corporate governance rules should eliminate any confusion
regarding the requirements for LPs. As noted above, Nasdaq asserts that
LPs are already subject to these requirements, but these proposed
changes will ensure that such requirements are part of Nasdaq's
rulebook governing the listing requirements for LPs and thus are
transparent to issuers.\14\ Accordingly, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra notes 8 and 9 and accompanying text.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\15\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2008-084) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-437 Filed 1-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 48 (Thursday, March 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 13072]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05625]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B
(formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending January 17, 2015

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural
Regulations (See 14 CFR 302. 201 et. seq.). The due date for Answers,
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate
cases a final order without further proceedings.
    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2007-0066.
    Date Filed: January 14, 2015.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: Feburary 4, 2015.
    Description: Application of Hainan Airlines Co., Ltd. (``Hainan
Airlines'') requesting that the Department amend its foreign air
carrier permit to enable Hainan Airlines to engage in scheduled air
transportation of persons, property and mail between Shanghai, People's
Republic of China (PVG), on the one hand, and Boston, Massachusetts
(BOS), on the other hand. Hainan Airlines also requests exemption
authority to the extent necessary so that it may exercise the rights
requested in this application prior to the issuance of an amended
foreign air carrier permit.

Barbara J. Hairston,
Supervisory Dockets Officer, Docket Operations, Federal Register
Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2015-05625 Filed 3-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P