[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 14, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49528-49529]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19685]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0842]

Consolidation of Wound Care Products Containing Live Cells

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is transferring
oversight responsibilities for certain wound care products containing
live cells from the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH)
to the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). This
consolidation initiative provides the opportunity to further develop
and coordinate scientific and regulatory activities between CDRH and
CBER. FDA believes that as more wound care products containing live
cells are developed such consolidation is necessary for both efficient
and consistent Agency action.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Barlow Weiner, Office of
Combination Products, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 32, rm. 5130, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Consolidation of Approved Wound Care Products Containing Live Cells
in CBER

    On August 14, 2013, primary responsibility for regulating the
following approved products: P950032, P960007, P000036, P010016, (all
with product code MGR); H990013 (product code PBD); and H990002
(product code OCE), and all supplements included therein, was
transferred from the Office of Device Evaluation, CDRH, to the Office
of Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies, CBER. The jurisdictional
assignment of these products to CBER is

in accordance with section 503(g) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 353(g)) and 21 CFR 3.4. This will consolidate
primary responsibility for regulating wound care products containing
live cells in CBER.

II. Web page Listing CDRH Applications Transferred to CBER and Contact
Information

    FDA has created a Web page listing the premarket approval
applications and humanitarian device exemptions in CDRH that are being
transferred to CBER. Sponsors of these products are encouraged to
consult the Web page to find new contact information. The Web page
address is: http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/CellularGeneTherapyProducts/ucm356173.htm.
    Commencing immediately, submitters should send submissions to:
Document Control Center, HFM-99, Center for Biologics Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite
200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Contact for questions on submissions:
Patrick Riggins, Office of Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapy, Center
for Biologics Evaluation and Research, WOC1, Rm. 234N (HFM-705), 1401
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 8, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-19685 Filed 8-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


OMB June 29 Comments on Transport Rule

A.  Pathway from 2010 to 2012
-        Generally further discussion is needed in the preamble explaining how sources will meet the 2012 caps given the 2010 known emissions  -  EPA has generated additional analysis on this point and it be helpful to explain this in the preamble.
Response:  Please see attached redline to section VII.C.2 of preamble for the new language that EPA proposes to add in regards to this issue.

B.  Texas FIP Clarification for the PM NAAQS
-        Please explain the following on pages 29 and 20 of the redline  -  if Texas doesn't contribute to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in another state for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, why is EPA making a statement that the FIP for Texas satisfies its contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the 2006 24-hr PM 2.5 in another state? :
With respect to the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS, the analysis EPA conducted for the proposal did not identify Texas as a state that significantly contributes to nonattainment or interferes with maintenance of 24-hour PM2.5 in another state.  However, the analysis conducted for the final rule shows that emissions from Texas do significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another state.  EPA is not issuing a FIP for Texas with respect to the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in this rule.  However, EPA believes that the FIP for Texas with respect to the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS also addresses the emissions in Texas that significantly contribute to nonattainment and interference with maintenance of the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another state.
Response:  As explained in this section of the preamble, the Transport Rule's air quality analysis does show that Texas significantly contributes to nonattainment or interferes with maintenance for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.  However, EPA is not issuing a FIP for Texas with respect to the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS because EPA requested comment on Texas inclusion in the proposal only with respect to the annual PM2.5 NAAQS.  However, we continue to believe that inclusion of Texas in the Transport Rule annual NOx and annual SO2 programs will address their significant contribution with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.  Also, while we have proposed to disapprove the 2006 PM2.5 SIP for Texas, final action has not yet been taken on that proposal and thus we do not have an outstanding FIP obligation like we do with respect to the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.  For these reasons, we are not including a FIP for Texas with respect to the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS even though our analysis shows it does significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in another state.

C.  Cost-Benefit Table Adjustment
-        Page 35 and 435  -  Reorganize and label the CBA table for clarity as follows (Table III-4, and Table VIII.C-3)  -  further, shouldn't the net benefits be 1 billion lower based on rounding conventions?:

   Summary of Annual Benefits, Costs, and Net Benefits of the Final Transport Rule in 2014[a]
                                  Description
                   Transport Rule Remedy (Billions of 2007$)

3% discount rate
7% discount rate
Total social costs
$0.81
$0.81
Total monetized benefits[b]
$120 to $280

$110 to $250
Net benefits
(benefits minus costs)
$120 to $280
$100 to $250
Response:  EPA rounds benefits and net benefits to two significant figures, consistent with review from the National Academies of Science.  Given the magnitude of the benefits as compared to the costs of this rule, the net benefits, when rounded based on these scientifically-reviewed conventions, remain the same as the gross benefits in these tables.  EPA appreciates the improvements offered by the proposed restructuring of the tables and has implemented this recommended change  -  please see the attached " Benefit Tables_Table Table III-4 and VIII.C-3" showing redline revisions to these tables for the preamble.

D.  SNCR Clarifications
-        Page 77  - Footnote 77 is referenced in support of the supposition that some plant owners might choose to achieve NOx reductions using options other than LNB/OFA, such as a selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) system.  Please note that the SNCR NOx reduction potential is significantly below the LNB/OFA level for pulverized-coal boilers, as shown in EPA's IPM documents.  Therefore, an SNCR system may not be a substitute for LNB/OFA if such units are intended to reduce NOx to the levels expected from LNB/OFA.  In addition, the document in the above footnote contains information on only the time it takes to install the SNCR equipment on the boiler.  For total installation timing, EPA should be referencing another document that contains such information.  One such document, "Typical Installation Timelines for NOx Emissions Control Technologies on Industrial Boilers," by ICAC, December 4, 2006, show a total installation time of close to one year, which does not include any planning or pre-engineering by the owner.  Furthermore, the installation time may be longer for a larger utility boiler.  Therefore, considering the 6-month time the affected sources have for compliance, SNCR may not be a viable option.  It may be helpful for EPA to make note of that and point to a sensitivity analysis of this assumption.
Response:  EPA's suggestion in this section of the preamble that individual unit owners may consider SNCR does not convey that universal replacement in a state of LNB/OFA by SNCR would deliver adequate emission reductions for the state to meet its emission reduction requirements under the Transport Rule.  Rather, this reference appears in the context of the section describing the flexibilities that individual unit owners have under the Transport Rule to consider multiple NOX emission reduction strategies in response to the economic signal created by the programs.  There is no specific unit-level requirement for NOX rate control under the Transport Rule programs.  Regarding the sensitivity of NOX reductions to the timing of control installation (whether LNB or SNCR), table VII.C.2-2 in the preamble explains why the Transport Rule 2012 budgets are robust to the precise timing of the installation of these controls, even as EPA believes that there is adequate time to compete these retrofits by the beginning of the program.

E.  Capital Investments for CAIR Clarifications
-        Page 79, please explain/clarify the meaning of "correctly" in the following statement; additionally, please change the phrase "ignore that capital investments have already been made to meet the requirements of CAIR" to state "assume that capital investments have not already been made to meet the requirements of CAIR":
Similarly, if EPA were to ignore that capital investments have already been made to meet the requirements of CAIR and that these investments comprise "sunk" capital costs and not new costs, EPA's analysis would not correctly reflect the cost of emission reductions required by the Transport Rule.
Response: Please see attached redline to section V.B of the preamble for edits that EPA proposed to address this issue.

F.  Canada and Mexico Emissions
-        Page 80  -  can EPA add text explain how additional information or suspected trends for Canada and Mexico's emissions would impact the modeled air quality?  How does EPA know that the 2006 Canada inventory and 1999 Mexico inventory lead to a conservative estimate of emissions?
Response:  EPA lacks sufficiently detailed information to determine "trends" in Canadian or Mexican emissions beyond the inventory data used in the Transport Rule air quality analyses.  EPA agrees that it is unnecessary to characterize the analysis as "conservative."  Please see attached redline to section V.C.1 with EPA's proposed clarifications.

G.  NOx Variability
-        For clarity, can you further explain the following statement on page 247  -  the  explanation that follows the sentence explains why downwind air quality (AQ) is not heavily impacted by NOx, but it is not explained why the variation in SO2 emissions up to 20% does not have an impact:
This analysis shows that year-to-year fluctuations of up to 20 percent in SO2 emissions from upwind states linked to a given downwind receptor do not undermine the ability of the Transport Rule programs to resolve nonattainment or maintenance concerns at that receptor.
-        Furthermore, this explanation on page 247 seems to imply that only SO2 variability was analyzed, yet there is discussion of NOx emissions and their relationship to downwind AQ.  Can you clarify in the preamble if the sensitivity analysis was done for both?
Response:  Please see the attached "NOx variability in preamble" showing edits in redline that EPA proposes to this preamble section to clarify the relationship of SO2 and NOx and why EPA's analysis of SO2 variability is relevant to both pollutants.  These clarifications also note that the SO2 analysis is found in the variability TSD.

H.  Permitting
-        Page 399: EPA has discussed the CO2 increases associated with the use of limestone-based scrubbers and with increased parasitic loads as two separate issues.  Shouldn't these two be combined, since an application of wet FGD would automatically result in an increased parasitic load?  Also, since NOx and SO2 controls were added for CAIR, is there any data available on whether NSR was triggered on any of the affected units?  Could this discussion be added to this section to support the response to comments on this.
Response:  EPA believes the preamble clearly identifies the permitting issues and makes it clear that all identified issues would need to be considered for future retrofits.  EPA also notes that commenters did not provide the agency with any specific instances of CAIR retrofits triggering NSR, and that it would take several days to conduct a detailed review of historic permitting that is not feasible in the time remaining.  EPA believes the preamble section accurately captures the permitting issues relevant to Transport Rule compliance.
I.  Texas Sensitivity Analysis
-        Suggest that the following language be added:
"Also, coal-switching is only one of many ways by which Texas can comply; [EPA estimates] 75% of Texas coal capacity will be scrubbed by 2012 and analysis shows that those units can increase their generation. Finally, natural gas-fired units benefiting from substantially expanding Texas natural gas supplies and low near-term prices can also increase their generation to help Texas cost-effectively meet its 2012 SO2 budget."
Response:  EPA agrees with this addition and has included it in redline in the "Texas sensitivity analysis findings in response to comments" document attached.  Please also see the last paragraphs of the attached redline of section VII.C.2 for EPA's proposed preamble reference to this more detailed discussion in the record.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 209 (Wednesday, October 29, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 64383]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25626]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No.14638-000]

Las Vegas Wash Hydro, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On October 2, 2014, the Las Vegas Wash Hydro, LLC, filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Las
Vegas Wash Hydroelectric Project to be located on Las Vegas Wash, in
the city of Lake Las Vegas, Clark County, Nevada. The sole purpose of a
preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority
to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary
permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would use the existing Las Vegas Wash and
associated diversion and penstocks. The source of water through the
project is waste streams from the metropolitan area of Las Vegas, NV.
Flows would return to the Las Vegas Wash at or near the existing point
of return. The proposed project would be on privately owned lands and
prescriptive easement right-of-ways. The existing Las Vegas Wash
pipelines are owned by the City of Henderson, NV, and located on
private lands by easement. The project would consist of the following:
(1) An existing concrete diversion/inlet structure with two gates; (2)
two existing 10,204-foot-long, 84-inch-diameter, side-by-side penstocks
that pass beneath Lake Las Vegas; (3) a new connection to the existing
penstocks; (4) a new powerhouse located adjacent to the existing
outfall structure for the Las Vegas Wash, containing one 2.1-megawatt
Francis turbine; (5) a switchyard; and (6) a 900-foot-long, 15-kV
transmission line, which would interconnect into the utility
distribution system owned by NV Energy. Existing roads would access the
project. The project would operate in a run-of-river mode using flows
of the Las Vegas Wash consistent with historical operations. One of the
two penstocks would be used for bypass flows. The estimated annual
generation of the Las Vegas Wash Hydroelectric Project would be 16.5
gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Ted Sorenson, P.E., Sorenson Engineering,
5203 S. 11th East, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83404; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Claire McGrath; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14638-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14638) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: October 22, 2014.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-25626 Filed 10-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 139 (Thursday, July 19, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42464-42465]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17578]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0156]
RIN 1625--AA08

Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Potomac River,
National Harbor Access Channel, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is withdrawing its proposed rule concerning
amendments to the regattas and marine parades regulations. The
rulemaking was initiated to establish special local regulations during
the swim segment of the ``Ironman 70.3 National Harbor'' triathlon, a
marine event to be held on the waters of the Potomac River in Prince
George's County, Maryland on August 5, 2012. The Coast Guard was
notified on May 22, 2012 that the event had been cancelled.

DATES: The proposed rule published April 6, 2012, at 77 FR 20750, is
withdrawn as of July 19, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this withdrawn rulemaking is available for
inspection or copying at the 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, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find
this docket on the Internet by going to http://www.regulations.gov,
inserting USCG-2012-0156 in the ``Keyword'' box, and then clicking
``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice, call or email Mr. Ronald Houck, Waterways Management Division,
Sector Baltimore, MD, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing material in
the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On April 6, 2012, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
entitled ``Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Potomac River,
National Harbor Access Channel, MD'' in the Federal Register (77 FR
20750). The rulemaking

concerned the Coast Guard's proposal to establish temporary special
local regulations on specified waters of the Potomac River and National
Harbor Access Channel, in Prince George's County, MD, effective from 5
a.m. until 11 a.m. on August 5, 2012. The regulated area included all
waters of the Potomac River, National Harbor Access Channel, within an
area from the shoreline and then west to a line connecting the
following positions: from position latitude 38[deg]47[min]28[sec] N,
longitude 077[deg]01[min]20[sec] W; thence southerly to position
latitude 38[deg]46[min]49[sec] N, longitude 077[deg]01[min]28[sec] W.
The regulations were needed to temporarily restrict vessel traffic
during the event to provide for the safety of participants, spectators
and other transiting vessels.

Withdrawal

    The Coast Guard is withdrawing this rulemaking because the event
has been cancelled.

Authority

    We issue this notice of withdrawal under the authority of 33 U.S.C.
1233.

    Dated: June 18, 2012.
Mark P. O'Malley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Baltimore.
[FR Doc. 2012-17578 Filed 7-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: September 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 188)]
[Notices]
[Page 57010-57011]
[DOCID:fr28se06-97]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54478; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2006-016]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Order
Granting Approval of Proposed Rule Change To Eliminate Registration of
Foreign Associates Under Nasdaq Membership Rules

September 21, 2006.
    On July 21, 2006, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'')
submitted to 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
eliminate the requirement for foreign associates to register with
Nasdaq. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on August 15, 2006.\3\ The Commission received no
comments on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54284 (August 8, 2006),
71 FR 46954.46954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange.\4\ In
particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of the Exchange are designed to prevent
fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination
with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, 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.

Nasdaq proposes to eliminate the foreign associate registration
category under Nasdaq Rule 1100 and add an exemption to Nasdaq Rule
1060 for persons formerly covered by this registration category.
Pursuant to Nasdaq's definition of a foreign associate, these
associated persons would not be conducting any securities activities on
the Nasdaq market. The Commission notes that NASD Rule 1100 requires
foreign associates of NASD members to register with NASD. The
Commission believes that, because many Nasdaq members are also members
of NASD, requiring Nasdaq members to register its foreign associates
with both self-regulatory organizations is duplicative.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission notes
that it has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \6\ The Commission notes that Nasdaq stated in its proposal that
it has no reason to expect that the small number of non-NASD members
that become Nasdaq members would have associated persons categorized
as foreign associates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\7\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2006-016) be, and
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary. 2
 [FR Doc. E6-15897 Filed 9-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11687-11689]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04679]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-3992; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-075-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by a report that a captain's seat moved uncommanded during a
landing rollout due to a failure in the seat horizontal actuator. This
proposed AD would require repetitive tests of the captain and first
officer seat assemblies for proper operation, and corrective action if
necessary. This proposed AD would also require installing new captain
and first officer seat assemblies, which would terminate the repetitive
tests. We are proposing this AD to prevent a seat actuator clutch
failure, which could result in a loss of seat locking and uncommanded
motion of the captain's or first officer's seat; uncommanded seat
movement could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 21, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box
3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-3992.

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-
3992; 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 (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brandon Lucero, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch, ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-3992;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-075-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

    This proposed AD was prompted by a report that a captain's seat
moved uncommanded during a landing rollout due to a failure in the seat
horizontal actuator. Investigation found press fit clutch pins in the
actuator could migrate loose when subjected to repeated dynamic impact
loading from clutch re-engagement when the manual horizontal control
lever is released with the seat still moving on the tracks. The clutch
pins can migrate loose, overturn, and force clutch plate separation,
resulting in degraded or failed seat locking.
    We are proposing this AD to prevent a seat actuator clutch failure,
which could result in a loss of seat locking and uncommanded motion of
the captain's or first officer's seat; uncommanded seat movement could
result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250054-00,
Issue 001, dated December 19, 2014. This service information provides
procedures for installation of new captain and first officer seat
assemblies, a test of the captain and first officer seat assemblies,
and corrective action if necessary. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously. For information on the
procedures and compliance times, see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
3992.
    The phrase ``corrective actions'' is used in this proposed AD.
``Corrective actions'' are actions that correct or address any
condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for
example, repairs.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 18 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost           Parts cost        Cost per product      operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational test.................  2 work-hours x $85   $0.................  $170 per test cycle           $3060
                                    per hour = $170
                                    per test cycle.
Seat assembly installation.......  3 work-hours x $85   $15,141 per seat x   30,537 to replace           549,666
                                    per hour = $255 to   2 seats = $30,282.   two seats.
                                    replace two seats.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of captain seat vertical actuator.  2 work-hours x $85 per hour =             $7,500          $7,670
                                                 $170.
Replacement of captain seat horizontal          2 work-hours x $85 per hour =              7,500           7,670
 actuator.                                       $170.
Replacement of first officer seat vertical      2 work-hours x $85 per hour =              7,500           7,670
 actuator.                                       $170.
Replacement of first officer seat horizontal    2 work-hours x $85 per hour =              7,500           7,670
 actuator.                                       $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2016-3992; Directorate Identifier
2015-NM-075-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 21, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 airplanes,
certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin B787-81205-SB250054-00, Issue 001, dated December 19, 2014.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 25, Equipment/
furnishings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report that a captain's seat moved
uncommanded during a landing rollout due to a failure in the seat
horizontal actuator. We are issuing this AD to prevent a seat
actuator clutch failure, which could result in a loss of seat
locking and uncommanded motion of the captain's or first officer's
seat; uncommanded seat motion could result in reduced
controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Tests of Captain and First Officer Seat Assembly
Operation

    Within 1,000 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
test the operation of the captain and first officer seat assemblies
and do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin B787-
81205-SB250054-00, Issue 001, dated December 19, 2014. Do all
applicable corrective actions before further flight. Repeat the
operational test thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight
hours until the installation required by paragraph (h) of this AD is
done.

(h) New Seat Installation

    Within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, do the
actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin B787-81205-SB250054-00, Issue 001, dated December
19, 2014. Installing the seat specified in paragraph (h)(1) or
(h)(2) of this AD is terminating action for the repetitive
operational tests required by paragraph (g) of this AD for that seat
only.
    (1) Install new captain seat assembly, part number (P/N) 3A380-
0007-01-7.
    (2) Install new first officer seat assembly, P/N 3A380-0008-01-
7.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, ANM-
150S, 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 ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
    (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 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, 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) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs
(i)(4)(i) and (i)(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.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Brandon Lucero,
Aerospace Engineer, Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Branch,
ANM-150S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
425-917-6590.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 23, 2016.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-04679 Filed 3-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 16, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 240)]
[Notices]
[Page 66628]
[DOCID:fr16de09-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13516-000]

Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XVIII, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

December 10, 2009.
    On July 16, 2009, Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XVIII, LLC filed an
application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the
Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the Project
Terrible Towel, which would be located at the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineer's William O. Huske Lock and Dam on the Cape fear River near
the town of Tolar Landing, Bladen County, NC. The sole purpose of a
preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority
to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary
permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following:
    (1) Two lock frame modules consisting of eighteen 525 kilowatt
turbines placed in a concrete-lined conduit of unknown dimensions. The
module would be located adjacent to and east of the Corps dam; and (2)
a proposed 69 kV transmission line approximately 1.1 miles long
extending from the turbine units, crossing the Cape fear River, to an
existing distribution line located west of the dam. The 9.45 megawatt
project would have an estimated annual generation of 74 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Wayne F. Krouse; Hydro Green Energy, LLC; 5090
Richmond Avenue 390; Houston, TX 77056; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
x709.
    FERC Contact: Monte TerHaar at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or phone 202-
502-6035.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp) under the ``eFiling''
link. For a simpler method of submitting text only comments, click on
``Quick Comment.'' For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or,
for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly
encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To
paper-file, mail an original and eight copies to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13516) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-29919 Filed 12-15-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 11, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1629-1632]
[FR Doc No: 2012-356]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 135

[Docket No.: FAA-2012-0007; Amdt. No. 135-126]
RIN 2120-AK02

Authorization To Use Lower Than Standard Takeoff, Approach and
Landing Minimums at Military and Foreign Airports

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This rulemaking would allow qualified operators to conduct
lower than standard instrument flight rules (IFR) airport operations at
military airports or outside the United States when authorized to do so
by their operations specifications. This action is necessary because
the current regulatory section limits certain operators to a takeoff
minimum visibility of 1 mile, and a landing minimum visibility of \1/2\
mile when conducting IFR operations at those airports, even when the
operator has demonstrated the ability to safely conduct operations in
lower visibility. The intended effect of this final rule is to bring
the identified regulatory section into alignment with other sections of
the regulations that currently permit lower than standard IFR
operations at domestic civilian, foreign, and military airports when
authorized to do so.

DATES: Effective: February 27, 2012.
    Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before February 10, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Commenting on this Direct Final Rule. You may send comments
identified by docket number FAA-2012-0007 using any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://www.Regulations.gov.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Gregory French, Air Transportation Division, 135
Air Carrier Operations Branch, AFS-250, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For legal questions concerning this action, contact Robert Frenzel,
Office of the Chief Counsel, Operations Law Branch, (AGC-220), Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble under the Additional
Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this direct
final rule and how we will handle your comments. Included in this
discussion is related information about the docket. We also discuss how
you can get a copy of this direct final rule and any related rulemaking
documents.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. This rulemaking is promulgated
under the authority described in 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires
the Administrator to promulgate regulations and minimum standards for
other practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air
commerce and national security. This amendment to the regulation is
within the scope of that authority because it prescribes an accepted
method for ensuring the safe operation of aircraft at foreign and
military airports when weather conditions are below standard minimums.

The Direct Final Rule Procedure

    The FAA is adopting this final rule without prior notice and prior
public comment as a direct final rule with comments. The FAA does not
believe prior notice and prior public comment is necessary in this rule
change because it is relieving to all concerned parties. In addition,
the FAA recently published a Petition for Exemption from Sec.
135.225(f) for public comment (76 FR 22445) and received only three
comments, all in favor of the petition.
    The Regulatory Policies and Procedures of the Department of
Transportation (DOT) provide that to the maximum extent possible,
operating administrations of the DOT should provide an opportunity for
public comment on regulations issued without prior notice (44 FR 1134).
Accordingly, the FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy,
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting this final rule.
    Unless a written adverse or negative comment or a written notice of
intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the
comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date
specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will
publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse
or negative comments were received and confirming the date on which the
final rule will become effective. If the FAA does receive an adverse or
negative comment within the comment period, or written notice of intent
to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct final rule
will be published in the Federal Register, and a notice of proposed
rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.
    See the ``Additional Information'' section for information on how
to comment on this direct final rule and how the FAA will handle
comments received. The ``Additional Information'' section also contains
related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of
proprietary or confidential business information. In addition, there is
information on obtaining copies of related rulemaking documents.

I. Background

    The airport weather minimums that eventually evolved into Sec.
135.225 started development prior to 1957 in Civil Air Regulation part
60, Air Traffic Rules. Section 60.46, ``Instrument Approach
Procedures,'' required the weather to be at least visual flight rules
(VFR). The 1 mile and \1/2\ mile visibility requirements that now
appear in Sec.  135.225 first appeared in the regulations in the early
1960s. As aircraft, flight crewmember and avionics capabilities
evolved, it became possible to safely conduct lower than standard
takeoffs, approaches and landings.
    Qualified part 135 operators are allowed to conduct lower than
standard IFR operations at domestic airports under Sec.  135.225(g),
135.225(h) and 135.225(i)(3) when authorized to do so through the
issuance of Operations Specification C079 (OpSpec C079). However, Sec.
135.225(f) limits a part 135 operator to the standard visibility of 1
mile for takeoffs and \1/2\ mile for approaches when conducting the
same type of operations at military airports or outside the United
States. There is no provision under Sec.  135.225(f) to allow lower
than standard IFR operations through operations specifications.

II. Discussion of the Direct Final Rule

    While many part 135 operators fly turbojet airplanes worldwide, we
realize that not all part 135 operators have met the requirements
necessary to conduct lower than standard IFR operations authorized by
OpSpec C079. Therefore, we are amending Sec.  135.225(f) to allow for
lower than standard IFR operations at military and foreign airports
only for those part 135 operators authorized through OpSpec C079. This
action will align Sec.  135.225(f) with Sec.  135.225(g), 135.225(h)
and 135.225(i)(3), which permit operators to conduct certain lower than
standard IFR operations when authorized to do so through the issuance
of operations specifications.
    By amending Sec.  135.225(f), the final rule would also align part
135 regulations with similar provisions found in part 121 and part 91.
For example, Sec.  121.651(f), uses the alternative language, ``Unless
otherwise authorized in the certificate holder's operations
specifications * * *'' to allow for the use of lower weather minimums
than those prescribed by the appropriate foreign airport authority.
    Similarly, Sec.  91.175 allows for lower than standard takeoff,
approach, and landing at foreign and military airports by specific
authorization. Section Sec.  91.175(a), which concerns approaches, and
Sec.  91.175(f)(1), which concerns takeoffs, include the language:
``Unless otherwise authorized by the FAA''. Section 91.175(g)
specifically concerns military airports and uses the language, ``Unless
otherwise prescribed by the Administrator.''

A. Current Practice

    Based on the fact that an increasing number of consumers are
relying on part 135 operators for their travel and shipping needs and
that OpSpec C079 provides an equivalent level of safety, the FAA
determined that it is in the public interest to grant exemptions from
Sec.  135.225(f) to certificate holders who operate at military and
foreign airports when those certificate holders have requested the
exemption and otherwise meet all other regulatory requirements. To
date, 22 grants of exemption from Sec.  135.225(f) have been issued
with thirteen of them granted in 2011.
    As new aircraft replace the current fleet, more part 135 operators
have the capability to perform at lower than standard takeoff,
approach, and landing minimums. Therefore we have determined that it is
unfair to continue to require the industry to bear the costs of the
exemption process when an operations specification already exists that
will allow the operations to be conducted safely.
    To allow the use of OpsSpec C079 for these operations, the FAA will
incorporate a minor rule language change in Sec.  135.225(f) to add the
phrase ``unless authorized by the certificate holder's operations
specifications'' immediately before the words ``no pilot may * * *.''
    The FAA will then make changes to OpSpec C079 as appropriate to
include authorized international airports with the listing of domestic
airports. The language currently in Sec.  135.225(f) referencing
military and foreign airports will otherwise remain unchanged since not
all part 135 operators will choose to apply for, nor be able to
demonstrate the requirements necessary for the issuance of OpSpec C079.
Part 91 and part 121 regulations do not exclude the opportunity for a
certificate holder to receive authorization to operate at lower than
standard takeoff, approach, and landing minimums at military or foreign
airports; therefore, they do not need to be changed.

III. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's
analysis of the economic impacts of this direct final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this direct final rule.
    The reasoning for this determination follows. 14 CFR 135.225(f),
IFR Takeoff, approach and landing minimums, provides guidance to pilots
making an IFR takeoff or approach and landing at a military or foreign
airport. Under Sec.  135.225(f), a part 135 operator may not conduct
takeoffs, approaches and landings lower than the standard visibility of
1 mile for takeoffs and \1/2\ mile for approaches. This direct final
rule improves the efficiency of the current regulation by relieving
operators of the burden of having to file repeated exemption requests
to conduct operations that FAA has previously approved for their or
other certificate holders' operations.
    Part 135 operators are authorized through Operations Specification
C079 to conduct lower than standard IFR operations at U.S. domestic
airports. Allowing these same operators to conduct similar operations
at military and foreign airports would be cost

beneficial. The net effect would be to eliminate the time, resources
and documents required to apply for and process exemptions. As a
result, the expected outcome will be a minimal impact with positive net
benefits, and a full regulatory evaluation was not prepared.
    The FAA has, therefore, determined that this direct final rule is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
    As noted above, the proposed changes to Sec.  135.225(f) are cost
relieving because this direct final rule removes the burden of having
to file exemptions for landings and takeoffs under low visibility.
Therefore, as FAA Administrator, I certify that this rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this direct final rule and determined
that it will have only a domestic impact and therefore creates no
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $143.1 million in lieu of $100
million. This direct final rule does not contain such a mandate;
therefore, the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there is no new requirement for information collection associated with
this direct final rule. Rather, the time and cost of preparing, filing
and waiting for a decision for an exemption request to perform the
operations is eliminated by the direct final rule.

F. International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
has identified no differences with these regulations. The direct final
rule does not make changes to those portions of the regulations that
require operators to follow international regulations where applicable.

G. Environmental Analysis

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

IV. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined
that this action, since it is directed at airport operations conducted
at airports outside the United States or at military airports, will not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the relationship
between the Federal Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
and, therefore, does not have Federalism implications.

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

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
is not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order and it
is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Rather, since this rule is relieving,
and increases potential takeoff and landing options to the operator,
the FAA believes that this rule may result in a net energy savings.

V. Additional Information

A. Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. The agency
also invites comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy,
or federalism impacts that might result from adopting the rulemaking
action in this document. The most helpful comments reference a

specific portion of the rulemaking action, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket
does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should send only one
copy of written comments, or if comments are filed electronically,
commenters should submit only one time.
    The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well
as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA
personnel concerning this rulemaking. Before acting on this rulemaking
action, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the
closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after
the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without
incurring expense or delay. The agency may change this rulemaking
action in light of the comments it receives.
    Proprietary or Confidential Business Information: Do not file
proprietary or confidential business information in the docket. Such
information must be sent or delivered directly to the person identified
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document, and
marked as proprietary or confidential. If submitting information on a
disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM, and identify
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that
is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is aware of proprietary
information filed with a comment, the agency does not place it in the
docket. It is held in a separate file to which the public does not have
access, and the FAA places a note in the docket that it has received
it. If the FAA receives a request to examine or copy this information,
it treats it as any other request under the Freedom of Information Act
(5 U.S.C. 552). The FAA processes such a request under Department of
Transportation procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 135

    Aircraft, Airmen, Approach minimums, Authorizations, Aviation
safety, Foreign airports, Landing minimums, Military airports,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Takeoff minimums.

The Amendment

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

PART 135--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: COMMUTER AND ON DEMAND OPERATIONS
AND RULES GOVERNING PERSONS ON BOARD SUCH AIRCRAFT

0
1. The authority citation for part 135 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 41706, 40113, 44701-44702, 44705,
44709, 44711-44713, 44715-44717, 44722, 45101-45105.

0
2. Amend Sec.  135.225 by revising paragraph (f) introductory text to
read as follows:

Sec.  135.225  IFR: Takeoff, approach and landing minimums.

* * * * *
    (f) Each pilot making an IFR takeoff or approach and landing at a
military or foreign airport shall comply with applicable instrument
approach procedures and weather minimums prescribed by the authority
having jurisdiction over that airport. In addition, unless authorized
by the certificate holder's operations specifications, no pilot may, at
that airport--
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 27, 2011.
Michael P. Huerta,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-356 Filed 1-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P