[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 76 (Tuesday, April 21, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22140-22142]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08995]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-1130; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-04-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW4164-1D, PW4168-1D, PW4168A-1D and PW4170
engines, and certain PW4164, PW4168, and PW4168A turbofan engines. This
proposed AD was prompted by fuel nozzle-to-fuel supply manifold
interface fuel leaks. This proposed AD would require inspecting fuel
nozzles for signs of leakage, replacing hardware as required, and
torqueing to specified requirement. We are proposing this AD to prevent
fuel leaks which could result in engine fire and damage to the
airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 22, 2015.

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 proposed AD, contact
Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108; phone: 860-565-
8770; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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-2014-
1130; 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: Katheryn Malatek, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-1130;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-04-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM 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 NPRM.

Discussion

    We received reports of four fuel nozzle leaks in service and an
additional six fuel nozzle leaks found during shop visits. The root
cause is inadequate torque of the fuel nozzle-to-fuel supply manifold
B-nuts for the temperatures that the fuel nozzles experience. This
condition, if not corrected, could result in engine fire and damage to
the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. PW4G-100-A73-44,
dated October 10, 2014. This service information contains information
regarding fuel nozzle manifold inspection and fuel nozzle-to-fuel
supply manifold B-nut torque requirements. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or see ADDRESSES for other ways
to access this service information.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this NPRM 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 NPRM would require inspecting the fuel nozzle-to-fuel supply
manifold interface for evidence of leaks and replacing hardware in
cases where fuel leaks are identified. This NPRM also requires
torqueing certain B-nuts to the specified requirement.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    PW ASB No. PW4G-100-A73-44 uses calendar dates for compliance time.
This NPRM uses cycles. Using cycles from the effective date of the AD
supports the intent of the ASB and ensures adequate compliance time
after the effective date of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 72 engines
installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. The average labor rate is $85
per hour. We estimate that parts replacement will cost about $1,356 per
engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $391,392.

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 to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, 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):

Pratt & Whitney: Docket No. FAA-2014-1130; Directorate Identifier
2015-NE-04-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 22, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Pratt & Whitney (PW) PW4164-1D, PW4168-
1D, PW4168A-1D and PW4170 engines; and all PW4164, PW4168, and
PW4168A turbofan engines that have incorporated either PW Service
Bulletin (SB) No. PW4G-100-72-214, dated December 15, 2011 or PW SB
No. PW4G-100-72-219, Revision 1, dated October 5, 2011.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by fuel nozzle-to-fuel supply manifold
interface fuel leaks. We are issuing this AD to prevent fuel leaks
which could result in engine fire and damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) Within 800 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
and within every 800 hours since last inspection thereafter, inspect
all fuel nozzle-to-fuel supply manifold interfaces for evidence of
fuel leaks, soot, and coke formation. Use the Accomplishment
Instructions, Part A, of PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. PW4G-
100-A73-44, dated October 10, 2014 to do the inspections.
    (2) Replace hardware that fails an inspection. Use the
Accomplishment Instructions, Part A, of PW ASB No. PW4G-100-A73-44,
dated October 10, 2014 to do the replacement.

(f) Mandatory Terminating Action

    (1) Inspect all fuel nozzle-to-fuel supply manifold interfaces
for fuel leaks, soot, and coke formation, replace hardware that
fails inspection, and re-torque all fuel nozzle-to-fuel supply
manifold B-nuts as follows:
    (i) For engines with fewer than 1,500 cycles on the effective
date of this AD, before accumulating another 650 cycles, not to
exceed 1,900 cycles.
    (ii) For engines with 1,500 cycles or more, but fewer than 2,500
cycles on the effective date of this AD, before accumulating another
400 cycles, not to exceed 2,700 cycles.
    (iii) For engines with 2,500 cycles or more on the effective
date of this AD, before accumulating another 200 cycles.
    (2) Use the Accomplishment Instructions, Parts B through E, of
PW ASB No. PW4G-100-A73-44, dated October 10, 2014 to do the
inspection, replacement, and retorqueing.

(g) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD ``cycles'' is defined as cycles since
new or cycles since the incorporation of PW SB No. PW4G-100-72-214,
dated December 15, 2011 or SB No. PW4G-100-72-219, Revision 1, dated
October 5, 2011.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request. You may email your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Katheryn
Malatek, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) PW ASB No. PW4G-100-A73-44, dated October 10, 2014, which is
not incorporated by reference, can be obtained from Pratt & Whitney
using the contact information in paragraph (j)(3) of this proposed
rule.
    (3) For service information identified in this proposed rule,
contact Pratt & Whitney, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 10, 2015.
Ann C. Mollica,
Acting Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-08995 Filed 4-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 151)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 47521-47522]
[DOCID:fr06au10-25]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2000-0006; FRL-9185-5]

National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Intent To Delete the Peter Cooper Corporation
(Markhams) Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 2 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete the Peter Cooper Corporation (Markhams)
Superfund Site (Markhams Site) located in the Town of Dayton,
Cattaraugus County, New York from the National Priorities List (NPL)
and requests public comments on this notice of intent. The NPL,
promulgated pursuant to section

105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is an appendix of the
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP).
The EPA and the State of New York, through the Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), have determined that all
appropriate response actions under CERCLA, other than operation and
maintenance and five-year reviews, have been completed. However, this
deletion does not preclude future actions under Superfund.

DATES: Comments concerning this Site must be received by September 7,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to Michael Basile,
Community Involvement Coordinator, USEPA, Western NY Public Information
Office, 186 Exchange Place, Buffalo, New York 14204-2026,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sherrel D. Henry, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. EPA, 290 Broadway, 20th Floor, New York, New York 10007-
1866,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' Section of
today's Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final notice of
deletion of the Peter Cooper Corporation (Markhams) Superfund Site
without prior notice of intent to delete because we view this as a
noncontroversial revision and anticipate no adverse comment. We have
explained our reasons for this deletion in the preamble to the direct
final deletion. If we receive no adverse comment(s) on this notice of
intent to delete or the direct final notice of deletion, we will not
take further action on this notice of intent to delete. If we receive
adverse comment(s), we will withdraw the direct final notice of
deletion and it will not take effect. We will, as appropriate, address
all public comments in a subsequent final deletion notice based on this
notice of intent to delete. We will not institute a second comment
period on this notice of intent to delete. Any parties interested in
commenting must do so at this time. For additional information, see the
direct final notice of deletion, which is located in the Rules section
of this Federal Register. For additional information, see Direct Final
Notice of Deletion which is located in the Rules section of the Federal
Register.
    Information Repositories: Repositories have been established to
provide detailed information concerning this decision at the following
addresses:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, Superfund Records
Center, 290 Broadway, Room 1828, New York, NY 10007-1866. (212) 637-
4308. Monday through Friday: 9 a.m. through 5 p.m.
 or
Town of Dayton, Town Building, 9100 Route 62, South Dayton, New York
14138.<PHONE_NUMBER>. Monday through Friday: 9 a.m. through 5 p.m.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: July 25, 2010.
Judith A. Enck,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2010-19420 Filed 8-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 25, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 142)]
[Notices]
[Page 40844-40845]
[DOCID:fr25jy07-47]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-523-000]

Dominion Transmission, Inc.; Notice of Report of Overrun Charge/
Penalty Revenue Distribution

July 17, 2007.
    Take notice that on July 11, 2007, Dominion Transmission, Inc.
(DTI) filed its annual report of overrun charge/penalty revenue
distributions. Section 41 of the General Terms and Conditions of DTI's
FERC Gas Tariff, Crediting of Unauthorized Overrun Charge and Penalty
Revenues, requires distribution of such charges and revenues to non-
offending customers on June 30 of each year, and filing of the related
report within 30 days of the distribution. DTI distributed the penalty
revenues to customers on June 29, 2007. Included in the distribution
was overrun penalty revenue DTI received from offending customers for
the twelve-month period ending March 31, 2007, with interest calculated
through June 30, 2007.
    DTI states that copies of the transmittal letter and summary
workpapers are being mailed to DTI's customers and to all interested
state commissions.
    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 and 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 date as indicated
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

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

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

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Intervention and Protest Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time July 24, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-14300 Filed 7-24-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 10, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71545-71546]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24863]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0655]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Fleet Week Demonstration Area, San Diego Bay, San
Diego, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Homeland Security Department (DHS).

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary 900-foot radius
security zone on the navigable waters of the U.S. off of Broadway Pier
in San Diego Bay, San Diego, CA, in support of Fleet Week San Diego on
November 11, 2020. This action is necessary to provide for the safety
and security of U.S. Coast Guard surface and aerial assets, crews and
support personnel who will be performing mission search and rescue
demonstrations. This rulemaking prohibits persons and vessels from
entering, transiting, or anchoring in the security zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port San Diego or his designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 10 a.m. through 2 p.m. on November
11, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2020-0655 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant John Santorum, Waterways Management, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard
did not receive final details for this event until October 21, 2020.
The Coast Guard must establish this security zone by November 11, 2020
and lacks sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and
consider those comments before issuing the rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying implementation of this
rulemaking is contrary to public interest and is needed to ensure the
safety and security of military personnel and assets on November 11,
2020.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port San Diego
(COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with military
demonstrations on November 11, 2020 will be a security concern for
military assets in the vicinity of the Broadway pier in San Diego Bay,
San Diego, CA. This rule is needed to protect military personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment on the navigable waters within the
security zone during the San Diego Fleet Week event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary security zone from 10 a.m. until
2 p.m. on November 11, 2020. The security zone will encompass the
waters within a 900-foot radius centered at position: 32[deg]42'56'' N,
117[deg]10'46'' W off the Broadway Pier in the San Diego Bay. The
purpose of the security zone is to protect the U.S. Coast Guard surface
and aerial assets, crews, and support personnel who will be performing
search and rescue demonstrations in San Diego, CA. No vessel or person
will be permitted to enter the security zone without obtaining
permission from the COTP or his designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the security zone. Vessel
traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which
will impact a small designated area of the San Diego Bay. The Coast
Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine
channel 16 about the zone, and the rule will allow vessels to seek
permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a security zone lasting only 5 days
that will prohibit entry within a 900-foot feet radius of a designated
coordinate west of Broadway Pier in San Diego Bay. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) in Table 3-1 of
U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures. A
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-042 to read as follows:

Sec. 165.T11-042  Security Zone; San Diego Bay; San Diego, CA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone, including all
navigable waters of San Diego Bay, from surface to sea floor, within a
900-foot radius centered at the following coordinate: 32[deg]42'56'' N,
117[deg]10'46'' W.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means a
Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty
officer, and other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel, or a
Federal, State, or local officer designated by or assisting the Captain
of the Port San Diego in the enforcement of the regulated area.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general security zone regulations in
subpart D of this part, all persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
security zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector San
Diego (COTP) or his designated representative.
    (2) The security zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as
may be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the
security zone must contact the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given
permission to enter or operate in the security zone must comply with
all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's
designated representative. Persons and vessels may request permission
to enter the security zone on VHF channel 16 or through the 24-hour
Command Center at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 10 a.m.
through 2 p.m. on November 11, 2020.

    Dated: November 3, 2020.
T. J. Barelli,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. 2020-24863 Filed 11-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 79 (Wednesday, April 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24301-24302]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09690]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0106]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption, request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 10 individuals
for an exemption from the prohibition against persons with a clinical
diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause a
loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to operate a commercial
motor vehicle (CMV) from operating CMVs in interstate commerce. The
regulation and the associated advisory criteria published in the Code
of Federal Regulations as the ``Instructions for Performing and
Recording Physical Examinations'' have resulted in numerous drivers
being prohibited from operating CMVs in interstate commerce based on
the fact that they have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-
seizure medication, rather than an individual analysis of their
circumstances by a qualified medical examiner. If granted, the
exemptions would enable these individuals who have had one or more
seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to operate CMVs for 2
years in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 24, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket ID FMCSA-2013-0106- using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket ID for
this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without change
to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316; January 17, 2008).
This information is also available at http://Docketinfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine Papp, Chief, Medical Programs
Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by
letter FMCSA, Room W64-113, Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-

year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be
achieved absent such exemption.'' The statutes also allow the Agency to
renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 10 individuals
listed in this notice have recently requested an exemption from the
epilepsy prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), which applies to drivers
who operate CMVs as defined in 49 CFR 390.5, in interstate commerce.
Section 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to
drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established
medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other
condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any
loss of ability to control a CMV.
    FMCSA provides medical advisory criteria for use by medical
examiners in determining whether drivers with certain medical
conditions should be certified to operate CMVs in intrastate commerce.
The advisory criteria indicate that if an individual has had a sudden
episode of a non-epileptic seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown
cause which did not require anti-seizure medication, the decision
whether that person's condition is likely to cause the loss of
consciousness or loss of ability to control a CMV should be made on an
individual basis by the medical examiner in consultation with the
treating physician. Before certification is considered, it is suggested
that a 6-month waiting period elapse from the time of the episode.
Following the waiting period, it is suggested that the individual have
a complete neurological examination. If the results of the examination
are negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the
driver may be qualified.
    In those individual cases where a driver had a seizure or an
episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical
condition (e.g., drug reaction, high temperature, acute infectious
disease, dehydration, or acute metabolic disturbance), certification
should be deferred until the driver has fully recovered from that
condition, has no existing residual complications, and is not taking
anti-seizure medication. Drivers who have a history of epilepsy/
seizures, off anti-seizure medication and seizure-free for 10 years,
may be qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Interstate
drivers with a history of a single unprovoked seizure may be qualified
to drive a CMV in interstate commerce if seizure-free and off anti-
seizure medication for a 5-year period or more.

Summary of Applications

 Steven L. Gordon

    Mr. Gordon is a 57 year-old CMV driver in Montana. He has a history
of seizures as a result of a head injury in 1986 and his last seizure
was in 2005. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and
frequency remaining the same for over 7 years. If granted the
exemption, he would like to drive a tractor trailer. His physician
states he is supportive of Mr. Gordon receiving an exemption to operate
a CMV.

Kevin A. Jandreau

    Mr. Jandreau is a 46 year-old Class A CMV driver in Maine. He has a
diagnosis of seizure disorder. He has remained seizure free for at
least 15 years. He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and
frequency remaining the same for 15 years. If granted the exemption, he
would like to drive a tractor trailer.

Jason C. Kirkham

    Mr. Kirkham is a 39 year-old CMV driver in Wisconsin. He has a
history of seizures and has remained seizure free for 17 years. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same for 17 years. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive
straight trucks, cranes, or heavy equipment. His physician states he is
supportive of Mr. Kirkham receiving an exemption.

James M. Kivett, Jr.

    Mr. Kivett is a 49 year-old CMV driver in Ohio. He has a history of
seizures due to a brain tumor, which was removed in 2005. He has
remained seizure free for more than 1 year. He takes anti-seizure
medication. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a tractor
trailer. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Kivett returning
to work as a commercial driver after 3 months.

William P. Lago

    Mr. Lago is a 26 year-old driver in Massachusetts. He has a
diagnosis of epilepsy and has remained seizure free for 8 years. He
takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining
the same since June 2010. If granted the exemption, he would like to
drive a dump truck.

Michael K. Lail

    Mr. Lail is a 54 year-old CMV driver in North Carolina. He had a
single post-traumatic seizure 46 years ago and has remained seizure
free since that time. Mr. Lail has not taken anti-seizure medication
since July 2012. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a
tractor trailer. His physician states he is supportive of Mr. Lail
receiving an exemption.

Verbon T. Latta

    Mr. Latta is a 43 year-old driver in Alabama. He has had 2
seizures, both in May of 2007, 13 days apart while on a new medication
following back surgery. He has remained seizure free since that time.
He takes anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency
remaining the same for 6 years. If granted the exemption, he would like
to drive a tractor trailer.

Jeffrey P. Moore

    Mr. Moore is a 36 year-old driver in New York. He has a diagnosis
of seizure disorder and his last seizure was in July of 1999. He has
remained seizure free since that time. He takes anti-seizure medication
with the dosage and frequency remaining the same for over 12 years. If
granted the exemption, he would like to drive a box truck or van.

Michael E. Righter

    Mr. Righter is a 38 year-old driver in Pennsylvania. Mr. Righter
has a diagnosis of seizure disorder and his last seizure was in March
of 1987. He has remained seizure free since that time. He takes anti-
seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same for
over 20 years. If granted the exemption, he would like to drive a Class
B truck with air brakes.

Douglas S. Slagel

    Mr. Slagel is a 48 year-old CMV driver in Ohio. Mr. Slagel has a
diagnosis of seizure disorder and his last seizure was in 1977. He has
remained seizure free since that time. He takes anti-seizure medication
with the dosage and frequency remaining the same for over 20 years. If
granted the exemption, he would like to a Class B truck with air
brakes. His physician is supportive of Mr. Slagel receiving his
exemption.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315 and 31136(e), FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption
applications described in this notice. We will consider all comments
received before the close of business on the closing date indicated
earlier in the notice.

    Issued on: April 9, 2013.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-09690 Filed 4-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: July 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 140)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 36414-36417]
[DOCID:fr23jy09-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 21, 119, 121, 125, 135, 141, 142, and 145

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0671; Notice No. 09-06]
RIN 2120-AJ15

Safety Management System

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

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM), request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: This ANPRM solicits public comments on a potential rulemaking

requiring certain 14 CFR part 21, 119, 121, 125, 135, 141, 142, and 145
certificate holders, product manufacturers, applicants, and employers
(hereafter ``product/service providers'') to develop a Safety
Management System (SMS). SMS is a comprehensive, process-oriented
approach to managing safety throughout an organization. An SMS includes
an organization-wide safety policy, formal methods of identifying
hazards, mitigating and continually assessing risk, and promotion of a
safety culture. SMS stresses not only compliance with technical
standards but increased emphasis on the organizational aspects and
processes that ensure risk management and safety assurance.

DATES: Send your comments on or before October 21, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2009-
0671 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Hand Delivery: Bring 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.

For more information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.

    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or 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: Scott Van Buren, SMS Chief System
Engineer, Office of Aviation Safety Analytical Services (ASA), Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal questions, contact Anne Bechdolt,
Regulations Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this request
for comments by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also
invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or
federalism impacts that might result if an SMS rule is established. The
most helpful comments will reference a specific question in the notice,
and provide detailed explanations of any recommendations, including
supporting data when applicable. We ask that you send us only one copy
of written comments, or if you are filing comments electronically,
please submit your comments only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this notice.

Proprietary or Confidential Business Information

    Do not submit information that you consider to be proprietary or
confidential business information. Send or deliver this information
directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the information that
you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send the information
on a disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM and also
identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific
information that is proprietary or confidential.
    When we are aware of proprietary information submitted with a
comment, we will not place it in the docket. See 14 CFR 11.35(b). We
will keep proprietary information in a separate file to which the
public does not have access, and place a note in the docket that we
have received it. If we receive a request to examine or copy this
information, we treat it as any other request under the Freedom of
Information Act. See 5 U.S.C. 552. We process such a request under the
DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of the rulemaking documents using
the Internet by:
    (1) Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 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.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy 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>. Make
sure to identify the docket number, notice number, or amendment number
of this rulemaking.

Purpose

    This ANPRM requests written comments in response to the questions
presented. We also welcome any additional information that may be
helpful in considering an SMS regulatory framework for providers of
aviation products/services under 14 CFR parts 21, 119, 121, 125, 135,
141, 142, and 145. The FAA is not proposing any specific regulatory
changes in this ANPRM. The FAA intends to establish an Aviation
Rulemaking Committee (ARC) to assess comments resulting from this ANPRM
and to provide recommendations for any SMS rulemaking effort. After
review of all of the comments submitted in response to this ANPRM, and
review of the ARC recommendations, the FAA may issue a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing specific regulations or regulatory
amendments to create an SMS rule. Interested persons will have the
opportunity to comment on proposed changes prior to the adoption of any
final rule regarding SMS.

What Is a Safety Management System?

    A Safety Management System (SMS) is a structured, risk-based
approach to managing safety. The International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) has defined SMS as a ``systematic approach to
managing safety, including the necessary organizational structures,

accountabilities, policies, and procedures.'' See ICAO, Safety
Management Manual, at 1.4.2, ICAO Doc. 9859-AN/460 (1st ed. 2006). An
SMS provides a set of decision-making processes and procedures that a
product/service provider would use to plan, organize, direct, and
control its business activities in a manner that enhances safety and
ensures compliance with regulatory standards. An SMS incorporates these
procedures into normal, day-to-day business processes. SMS requires a
proactive approach to discovering and correcting problems before there
are safety consequences. An SMS also includes processes that seek to
identify potential organizational breakdowns and necessary process
improvements allowing management to address a safety issue before a
noncompliant or unsafe condition results. However, using an SMS is not
a substitute for compliance with FAA regulations or FAA oversight
activities. Rather, an SMS would ensure compliance with safety-related
statutory and regulatory requirements.
    The FAA, in continuing to develop a comprehensive and integrated
framework for safety management, is considering an SMS rule to provide
product/service providers with a standardized set of requirements for
an SMS. The FAA Aviation Safety Organization (AVS) describes an SMS as
containing four key components: Safety Policy, Safety Risk Management
(SRM), Safety Assurance (SA), and Safety Promotion.
    Safety Policy. Safety policy outlines the methods and processes the
organization's SMS will use to achieve the desired safety outcomes. The
policy establishes senior management's commitment on behalf of the
organization to incorporate and continually improve safety in all
aspects of its business. Senior management would develop measurable and
attainable company-wide safety objectives, procedures, and processes.
The safety policy establishes and promotes safety culture throughout
all levels of an organization.
    Safety Risk Management (SRM). SRM processes are used to assess
system design and verify that the system adequately controls risk. A
formal SRM process describes a system, identifies hazards, analyzes
those hazards to identify risk, and establishes controls to manage
those risks.
    Safety Assurance (SA). SA processes are used to ensure risk
controls developed under SRM achieve their intended objectives
throughout the life cycle of a system. The SA process may reveal
hazards not previously identified during the SRM process. The SA
process may also allow the product/service provider to identify or
assess the need for new risk controls, as well as the need to eliminate
or modify existing controls. These SA monitoring activities apply to an
SMS whether the operations are accomplished internally or outsourced.
The SA processes include: information acquisition, analysis, system
assessment, and development of preventive/corrective action for
nonconformance.
    Safety Promotion. Safety promotion requires creating an environment
where safety objectives can be achieved. Safety promotion encourages a
positive safety culture. A positive safety culture is characterized by
an adequate knowledge base, competency, implementation tools, effective
communications, ongoing training, and information sharing. Senior
management must provide the leadership to promote and ensure a positive
safety culture throughout an organization. A positive safety culture is
the product of individual and group values, attitudes, and behavior,
all committed to the organization's safety programs.
    In addition to the four components described above, another
important element of a product/service provider's SMS is the ability of
the SMS to interface with other product/service providers, as well as
the regulator. Such interfacing allows product/service providers to
address issues of mutual concern and allows the regulator to evaluate
the performance of the product/service provider's SMS.

International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and Safety Management
Systems

    In March 2006, ICAO amended Annex 6--which addresses requirements
for the operation of aircraft, commercial air transport operators, and
helicopter operators--requiring member states to mandate that their
Annex 6 operators establish an SMS. The March 2006 amendments require
member states to initiate compliance by January 1, 2009.
    On December 7, 2007, ICAO proposed incorporating Annex 6 SMS
requirements into Annex 1 (medical licensing) and Annex 8,
(airworthiness of aircraft), specifically aircraft and aircraft
component manufacturers, as well as maintenance facilities. These
proposals, if adopted, would extend the compliance date for Annex 6
amendments that were adopted in March 2006 to November 19, 2009, and
require all member states to initiate compliance with the Annex 1 and
Annex 8 amendments by November 18, 2010. Additional information
regarding these amendments, as well as ICAO's guidance on establishing
an SMS framework, may be found at http://www.icao.int/anb/
safetymanagement/.
    The United States has endorsed the December 7, 2007, ICAO proposal
to require product/service providers under Annex 1, 6, and 8 to develop
an SMS. Such a requirement would be consistent with recent National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommendations that the FAA
requires all part 121 operators to establish SMS programs. See NTSB
Recommendation A-07-10 (January 23, 2007).

FAA Policy and Guidance Materials

    In an effort to develop SMS policy and guidance material, the FAA
reviewed ICAO requirements and surveyed SMS programs and development
efforts around the world. The FAA followed SMS developments in Canada,
New Zealand, Australia, and Britain for program details, best
practices, and lessons learned. We also examined third-party systems
developed by user organizations including the International Air
Transport Association (IATA), the Medallion Foundation, and the
International Business Aviation Council (IBAC).
    As a result, the FAA has developed policy and guidance material for
establishing an SMS framework within the FAA, as well as
recommendations for industry product/service providers in developing
their own SMSs. Advisory Circular (AC) 120-92, Introduction to Safety
Management Systems for Air Operators, issued June 22, 2006, provides a
voluntary framework by which air operators may establish an SMS. Some
14 CFR part 91, 121, and 135 operators and some part 145 maintenance
organizations have used this AC for voluntary SMS development.
    The AC provides background and introductory material on SMS
processes and interfaces with the certificate holder's SMS and the FAA
oversight system. Compliance with the AC is voluntary because there are
not, at present, any SMS regulatory requirements in the United States.
In addition, in May 2008, the FAA's Aviation Safety organization issued
Order VS 8000.367, Aviation Safety (AVS) Safety Management System
Requirements, prescribing what criteria AVS services and offices must
follow in implementing an SMS within AVS. Appendix B of this order
provides specific guidance for product/service provider SMS
development. The FAA encourages the public to read these documents to
help build an

understanding of SMS principles before responding to the questions
below. Copies of these documents have been placed in the docket for
this notice.

Request for Information

    The FAA seeks input from the public on the following questions. In
your comments please refer to the number of the specific question(s)
you are responding to. Please do not hesitate to provide additional
information regarding SMS not addressed by these questions if you
believe it would be helpful in understanding the implications of
imposing an SMS regulatory requirement. We do not expect that every
commenter will be able to answer every question. Please respond to
those questions you feel able to answer, or that address your
particular issue.
    1. Please tell us about your organization, including what products/
services are provided, what FAA certificates you hold, approximate
number of employees, and your approximate annual gross revenue.
    2. Has your organization implemented an SMS or components of an SMS
based on any of the guidance materials below? Please describe your
implementation experience.
    a. FAA Order VS8000.367, AVSSMS Requirements, Appendix B.
    b. AC-120-92, Introduction to Safety Management Systems for Air
Operators.
    c. FAA-sponsored regulatory or voluntary programs (e.g., Continuing
Analysis and Surveillance Systems (CASS), Internal Evaluation Programs
(IEP), Aviation Safety Action Programs (ASAP), etc.).
    d. Foreign civil aviation authorities' SMS development material
(e.g., Transport Canada, Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS),
Australia Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), U.K. Civil Aviation
Authority (CAA)--please specify).
    3. Please comment on the sufficiency of the following SMS guidance
material, and what, if any, additional information you would need to
implement an SMS.
    a. FAA Order 8000.367, AVSSMS Requirements, Appendix B.
    b. AC-120-92, Introduction to Safety Management Systems for Air
Operators.
    c. Foreign civil aviation authorities' SMS development material.
    d. Third party material (e.g., IATA Operational Safety Audit
(IOSA), International Standard for Business Aircraft Operations (IS-
BAO), Regional Air Cargo Carriers Association (RACCA), Air Cargo Safety
Foundation (ACSF)).
    e. Other (please specify).
    4. Do you currently have a quality management system (QMS) that
meets some accepted standard (e.g., ISO-9000, Six-Sigma, Baldridge)?
How would you envision your existing system operating in an SMS
framework?
    5. If you have voluntarily developed, or are in the process of
developing an SMS, what impact has SMS had on your organization in
terms of enhanced safety and compliance with existing CFRs?
    6. Which types of product/service providers should be required to
have an SMS and which, if any, should not? Please explain the reasoning
for your opinion.
    7. If you have implemented an SMS and conducted cost and benefits
analyses, please describe your findings.
    8. What are your main concerns and recommendations in making the
transition to an SMS regarding the following?
    a. Documentation requirements (e.g., developing or updating
manuals, policies, procedures, standard operating procedures).
    b. Recordkeeping requirements (e.g., hazard identification data,
risk assessment data, corrective actions).
    c. Collection, sharing, and management of safety information (e.g.,
protection of and access to personally identifiable information,
proprietary information).
    9. What are the initial and recurrent costs of establishing and
maintaining SMS processes (e.g., internal auditing and evaluation, data
collection, employee training, computer software, personnel hiring and
training)?
    10. What impact has SMS had on your organization in terms of the
resources necessary to implement and maintain the system?
    11. What new knowledge, skills, and abilities would your
organization need, if any, to operate successfully within an SMS?
    12. Please give us your thoughts about the current processes for
procuring and using voluntarily submitted safety data through FAA
programs such as Aviation Safety Action Program (ASAP) and how these
programs would fit within an SMS framework.
    13. What areas of the current regulations do you believe already
incorporate SMS principles (e.g., continuing analysis and surveillance
system (CASS) under 14 CFR 121.373; quality or inspection system
requirements under 14 CFR 21.143 and 21.303)? How would you suggest the
FAA avoid any duplicative requirements in any SMS rulemaking effort?
    14. What concerns and recommendations do you have about setting
objective standards for the evaluation of SMS processes (e.g.,
evaluating SMS effectiveness, defining scope of hazards, establishing
acceptable levels of risk)?
    15. What are practical ways a small business could apply the
elements of an SMS?
    16. What are your concerns and recommendations regarding the FAA
making the transition to requiring SMS of product/service providers
(e.g., schedule for implementation, FAA acceptance and approval
procedures, oversight)?
    17. Please provide any additional information you think is
pertinent.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 20, 2009.
John Hickey,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Aviation Safety.
[FR Doc. E9-17553 Filed 7-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P