[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29081-29085]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13439]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 110

[Docket Number USCG-2015-1118]
RIN 1625-AA01

Anchorage Grounds; Lower Chesapeake Bay, Cape Charles, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; notice of public meetings.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the regulations for Hampton
Roads, Virginia and adjacent water anchorage grounds by establishing a
new, deep-water anchorage ground and relocating an existing anchorage
ground near Cape Charles, VA on the Lower Chesapeake Bay. Maritime
infrastructure improvements and growth in both size and volume of
vessel traffic entering the port, including large and deep-draft
vessels have prompted this proposed rulemaking to ensure that the
Hampton Roads Anchorage Grounds continue to safely and effectively
support current and future deep-draft vessel anchorage demands. We
moved the proposed locations of the anchorage grounds in this notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) further offshore than the potential
locations we identified in an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
(ANPRM) we published in 2016. We did so based on our review and
analysis of public comments on the ANPRM and the results of an
environmental study referenced in our preliminary Record of
Environmental Consideration for this NPRM. We propose to establish an
Anchorage R that is further offshore of Cape Charles, VA, and to
relocate the existing Anchorage Q (Quarantine Anchorage) south of its
current location to a more secluded location on the southern Chesapeake
Bay. The intended effect of this proposed rulemaking is to protect the
environment, facilitate the safe navigation of maritime commerce and
national defense assets, and more safely and effectively support
commercial vessel anchoring requirements on the Lower Chesapeake Bay.
We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 17, 2018. Additionally, the Coast Guard will
hold several public meetings to allow the public the opportunity to
provide comment. The first public meeting will be held on

Monday, June 25, 2018, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. at Slover Public Library
Meeting Room, 235 E Plume Street, Norfolk, VA 23510. Two public
meetings will be held on Tuesday, July 10, 2018, at Cape Charles Civic
Center, 500 Tazwell Avenue, Cape Charles, VA; the first meeting will be
held from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. and the second meeting will be held from 6
p.m. to 8 p.m.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2015-1118 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email CDR Ken Kostecki, Sector Hampton
Roads Prevention Chief,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

AIS Automated Information System
ANPRM Advance notice of proposed rulemaking
COTP Captain of the Port
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DOD Department of Defense
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
MD Maryland
NM Nautical Miles
Sec.  Section
NPRM Notice of proposed rule-making
PWSA Port and Waterways Safety Act
U.S.C. United States Code
VA Virginia

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On April 19, 2016, the Coast Guard published an advance notice of
proposed rule-making (ANPRM) in the Federal Register (81 FR 22939) to
solicit public comments on amending certain anchorage regulations in
Hampton Roads for the possible creation of a new anchorage in the lower
Chesapeake Bay near Cape Charles, VA. We received 35 comment letters in
response to the ANPRM. On June 27, 2016, we published a 45-day
extension and announced two public meetings (81 FR 41487). On August
16, 2016, we announced one additional meeting and reopened the comment
period (81 FR 54531). We scheduled the meetings to receive comments on
the ANRPM to allow for greater public involvement. The meetings were
held in--
     Norfolk, VA, on July 19, 2016;
     Melfa, VA, on July 20, 2016; and
     Cape Charles, VA, on August 17, 2016.
    At the three public meetings, we heard from 20 speakers and we
received a total of 35 individual comment letters. On December 16,
2016, the Coast Guard issued a news release to inform the public that a
review of comments and the environmental study would be conducted. In
November 2017, the Coast Guard completed its environmental review. In
January 2018, the Center for Disease Control, the U.S. Navy Fleet
Forces Command, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Atlantic
provided comments identifying and addressing adverse impacts from the
proposed anchorage establishment.
    The purpose of this NPRM is to solicit comments on proposed
rulemaking for establishing a federal commercial anchorage ground,
Anchorage R, 3 nautical miles (NM) west of Cape Charles, VA and
relocating the existing quarantine anchorage ground currently off Cape
Charles, VA to a more secluded location in the lower Chesapeake Bay
that is 6 NM southwest of Fishermans Island, VA. With the increasing
trend of larger and deeper-draft ships calling within Virginia and
Maryland, our efforts to improve navigation safety of both national
defense and commercial vessels and to protect the environment can be
accomplished by providing an anchorage of adequate size, depth and
capacity.
    The legal basis and authorities for this notice of proposed
rulemaking are found in 33 U.S.C. 471, 33 CFR 1.05-1, DHS Delegation
No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to propose,
establish, and define regulatory anchorage grounds.

III. Discussion of Comments on ANRPM

    This section provides a detailed discussion of the public comments
received during the ANPRM's comment period and public meeting. We
received 35 comment letters in response to the ANPRM. In addition, we
hosted three public meetings to provide another forum for obtaining
public feedback on the ANRPM.
    Twenty-three comments were received from the public meetings.
Comments submitted to the online docket and received at the public
meeting aligned into five categories: Environmental concerns, local
economy and tourism, safety and security compliance concerns, view shed
concerns, and anchorage proponent. Copies of the public meeting sign-in
sheets and written comments received are available for viewing in the
public docket for this rulemaking. Commenters represented a wide range
of individuals and entities, including State and local government
officials, port authorities, representatives of affected industries,
such as maritime, port, and other facilities, and private citizens. The
comments received from these parties helped to inform the proposal in
this NPRM.

1. Environmental Concerns

    We received 22 comments opposing the anchorage location due to
environmental concerns, such as light and noise pollution and potential
vessel discharge. In the ANPRM, we inquired about the possible
establishment of a deep-water anchorage ground west of Cape Charles, VA
on the Chesapeake Bay. These comments on the ANPRM combined with the
results of our environmental study caused us to move the anchorages we
are proposing in this NPRM further offshore. The Coast Guard has
prepared a preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration (REC) for
this NPRM and has made a preliminary determination that the proposed
Anchorage R and new Quarantine Anchorage do not cumulatively or
individually have a significant effect on the human environment.
    Also, we noted that there are existing laws and regulations in
place to govern behavior of mariners and vessels related to these
concerns about the release of pollutants. In terms of the discharge of
pollutants, our regulations in 33 CFR part 151 and the Act to Prevent
Pollution from Ships implement provisions of the International
Convention for Prevention of Pollution from Ships and subject violators
to penalties. Also, the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) of 1972,
(33 U.S.C. 1221, 1223, 1228, 1232 et seq.) and PWSA-implementing
regulations help us ensure vessel compliance with all applicable
standards, vessel operating requirements, vessel conditions for entry
into port and enforcement provisions. In addition, 46 U.S.C. subtitle
II, part B, specifically 3305, 3307, and 3714, authorize and call for
merchant vessel inspections and examinations. Foreign-flagged vessels
are subject to Port State Control examinations to ensure compliance
with applicable marine pollution, sewage, waste, and safety and
security laws and regulations. Additionally, under current COTP
procedures, Sector Hampton Roads has instituted a random and
unannounced spot check program for any vessel, foreign or U.S. flagged,
anchored off of Cape Charles to ensure regulatory compliance.
    Under 33 CFR 110.168(c)(8) and (9), the COTP may prescribe specific

conditions for vessels preventing them from being in a dead ship
status, (that is, control unavailable for normal operations) while in
an anchorage ground, without prior approval of the COTP. Under Sec.
160.216 of this chapter, vessels experiencing casualties, such as main
propulsion, main steering or anchoring equipment malfunction, or which
are planning to perform main propulsion engine repairs or maintenance,
must immediately notify the Coast Guard COTP. Under Sec.  160.111 of
this chapter, the Coast Guard COTP may direct a vessel to depart the
anchorage during periods of severe weather or at other times as deemed
necessary in the interest of port safety. During these adverse weather
conditions, under Sec.  110.168(c)(8) and (9) of this chapter the
vessel operator in an anchorage ground must comply with all severe
weather precautionary measures directed by the COTP to include but not
limited to having additional anchors ready for letting go and standing
a continuous and live anchor watch.
    To further enhance the safety of the waters of the Chesapeake Bay,
the Quarantine Anchorage was relocated to a more secluded location to
provide an additional layer of protection should a hazardous condition
exist onboard the vessel.

2. Local Economy and Tourism

    Sixteen comments received were opposed to the anchorage due to the
proximity to the shore and its impact to the commercial and
recreational boaters that use the Cape Charles City Channel, also known
as the Cherrystone Inlet Channel. In this NPRM, the Coast Guard shifted
the anchorage 3 NM from the coastline and into deeper water keeping
Cherry Stone Channel Inlet, connected to Cape Charles, VA, open to
workboats, fishing vessels, and recreational boats transiting this
inlet to support the local economy and tourism. Also, by moving the
anchorage north of an existing regulated navigation area, 33 CFR
165.501, this will direct vessels to no longer routinely anchor
offshore Bulters Bluff, Kiptopeke State Park Beach, Jackspot at the
Sunset Beach and Chesapeake Bay Resort and Beach Club but instead to
use a dedicated anchorage ground. This will move the lights from ships
anchored there further offshore.
    Although boaters would be allowed to fish in the proposed anchorage
ground, we would strongly discourage crab pot fishing as we would
around any places vessels anchor because lines may get caught or cut by
the anchors and propellers of vessels anchoring. Mariners deciding to
fish in the anchorage ground would do so at the risk of their lines or
other fishing gear getting snagged or cut by anchor lines or
propellers. Fishing vessels would also need to comply with the
provisions outlined in the Navigation Rules of the Road (see 33 CFR
part 83).
    An additional commenter opposed the anchorage contemplated in the
ANPRM requesting that if the ships could not anchor closer to Norfolk
than they should anchor at sea until they are called to port. The Coast
Guard cannot direct vessels to anchor greater than 12 NM offshore or to
stay at sea where they could become exposed to unsafe environmental
weather conditions. However, in this NPRM, the proposed anchorage is
being shifted further west from Cape Charles, VA and will now be
regulated, enhancing the overall safety and security of both vessels
and the public.

3. Safety and Security Compliance Concerns

    Ten comments were received regarding vessel safety and crewmember
security. Under 33 CFR part 160, subpart C, in general, U.S. vessels in
commercial service and foreign vessels entering port must provide a
Notice of Arrival to the Coast Guard. The vessel's Notice of Arrival is
vetted by numerous federal agencies to ensure compliance with
applicable safety and security laws prior to the vessel and its crews
entering U.S. waters. Speaking specifically to foreign crewmembers,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) screen and provide escort
protocol for those individuals who are seeking to go ashore. All
crewmembers must remain onboard the vessel unless clearance from CBP
has been obtained prior to going ashore.

4. View From Shore Concerns

    A total of six comments were received opposing the anchorage due to
the negative impact anchored vessels could have on the view from shore
and diminished property values. The Coast Guard considered these
comments to find an alternate anchorage area. Based on exposure to
weather, tug and barge traffic density, and navigational safety
concerns for areas west of Chesapeake Channel due to drafts between 25
feet and 35 feet with numerous shoals, the proposed alternative areas
were considered unsafe for deep draft vessels to anchor. To mitigate
the issues associated with the view shed, the Coast Guard moved the
anchorage to 3 NM offshore vice the original 1.5 NM and as far west as
500 yards from the Chesapeake Channel. Directly east of Cape Charles
heading north towards the Cherry Stone Camp Grounds, the anchorage gets
progressively narrower to reduce the overall number of vessels offshore
that would be viewed on the horizon.

5. Anchorage Proponent

    Three responses were received in support of a new, deep-water
anchorage due to the growing maritime infrastructure in the
Commonwealth of Virginia. With the support of the anchorage, there were
also recommendations to review the existing anchorages within the lower
Chesapeake Bay, to maintain the original anchorage proposal, and to
expand the boundaries of the anchorage proposal. The existing
anchorages will not be reviewed for this rulemaking. The need to adjust
the anchorage to include deep water to the north of the proposed area
was suggested and incorporated into this adjusted proposal. Various
mariner subject matter experts were consulted to ensure navigation
safety of both anchored vessels and vessels transiting near the
proposed Anchorage R and the proposed Quarantine Anchorage. With
limited availability of a deep draft anchorage in the existing naval
anchorages, this anchorage proposal is anticipated to enhance the
navigation safety of the port and more safely and effectively support
commercial vessel anchoring requirements on the Lower Chesapeake Bay.

IV. Discussion of the Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a new Anchorage R and
relocate the existing Quarantine Anchorage. This proposal reflects our
consideration of all comments received from the ANPRM and the Record of
Environmental Consideration. We believe this will more effectively
establish a new deep-water anchorage ground for commercial vessels to
support the new and projected growth in maritime commerce vessel
traffic throughout the Port of Virginia. The approximate depths of the
proposed new Anchorage R will be located in naturally deep water with
charted depths between 25 and 101 feet. The average depth of the
northern half of the anchorage is between 45 and 101 feet. The average
depth of the southern half of the anchorage is between 25 and 45 feet.
    The 7.9 NM long eastern boundary of the proposed Anchorage R is
located 3 NM to the west of landside Cape Charles, VA on the Lower
Chesapeake Bay. The southernmost boundary is 3.9 NM, and runs parallel
with, and 500 yards north of the existing Regulated Navigation Area (33
CFR 165.501) connected along the SE to S coordinates

listed in the proposed regulatory language below. The western boundary
of the anchorage grounds runs parallel along, and no less than 500
yards east of York Spit Channel for 13.9 NM to include the 11.2 NM
between lighted buoy 24 and lighted buoy 38 and then continues to the
northeast for 2.7 NM north of lighted buoy 38, connected along the
listed S, SW and NW coordinates. The final northern most boundary is
0.6 NM connected by the listed NW and NE coordinates.
    The Coast Guard proposes moving the existing Quarantine Anchorage
(Anchorage Q), from the current location 3.5 NM to the west of landside
of Cape Charles, VA, and east of York Spit Channel between lighted
buoys 36 to 38, relocating it 6 NM southwest of Fishermans Point, VA.
The new location runs 625 yards west of York Spit Channel between buoys
16 and 18. The eastern boundary of proposed Anchorage Q runs parallel
to York Spit Channel for 2.2 NM, connected by the NE and SE coordinates
as outlined in the proposed regulatory language. The southernmost
boundary is 1.3 NM from the emergency restricted area outside the
Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, connected by the listed SE and SW
coordinates. The westernmost boundary is 2.2 NM, connected by the
listed SW and NW coordinates. The northernmost boundary is 450 yards
southwest of York River Entrance Channel and runs for 1.3 NM, connected
by the listed NW and NE coordinates.
    The regulatory text we are proposing, including the coordinates
mention above, appears at the end of this document. You may find a
drawing of the proposed anchorage grounds in the docket. Look for
Illustration of Contemplated Anchorage ``R'' and ``Quarantine''
Anchorage.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed 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 NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM 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, and historical vessel traffic data pertaining to the proposed
anchorage locations. The regulation would ensure approximately 18
square miles of anchorage grounds are designated to provide a necessary
commercial deep draft anchorage and enhance the navigational safety of
large naval and commercial vessels transiting within the lower
Chesapeake Bay. In reviewing historical Automated Information System
(AIS) track line data of vessel transits, the proposed Anchorages
Quarantine and R areas are safe locations for vessels to anchor in a
minimally trafficked section of the Chesapeake Bay while maintaining a
more appropriate safe distance from shore.

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
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to use the
anchorage may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A
above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact
on any vessel owner or operator. The towns and communities along the
western coast of Eastern Shore of Virginia have an economy based on
tourism and numerous small entities and businesses. The anchorage will
regulate and move vessels who are currently anchoring in the general
vicinity away from the shore and beaches, lessening impacts these small
entities may currently experience.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment explaining
why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would
economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would 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 proposed 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 proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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 proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the

effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.1 (series)
OM, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves amending
the regulations for Hampton Roads and adjacent water anchorages by
establishing an anchorage, Anchorage R, 3 NM west of Cape Charles, VA
and relocating the existing Quarantine Anchorage, Anchorage Q, to a
more secluded position that is 6 NM southwest of Fishermans Point, VA.
Normally, such actions are categorically excluded from further review
under paragraphs L59(a) and L59(b) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

VI. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy/docket,
visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.
    We plan to hold three public meetings to receive oral comments on
this NPRM, one in Norfolk, VA and two in Cape Charles, VA. The first
public meeting will be held on Monday, June 25, 2018, from 5 p.m. to 7
p.m. at Slover Public Library Meeting Room, 235 E. Plume Street,
Norfolk, VA 23510. Two public meetings will be held on July 10, 2018 at
Cape Charles Civic Center, 500 Tazwell Avenue, Cape Charles, VA; the
first meeting will be held from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. and the second meeting
will be held from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. For information on facilities or
services for individuals with disabilities or to request special
assistance at the public meeting, contact the person named in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, above.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

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

PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  110.168, add introductory text in paragraph (a), revise
paragraph (a)(6), and add paragraph (a)(7) to read as follows:

Sec.  110.168   Hampton Roads, Virginia and adjacent waters.

    (a) Anchorage Grounds. All coordinates in this section for
anchorage grounds are based on North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
* * * * *
    (6) Anchorage Q. Quarantine Anchorage. The waters bound by a line
connecting the following points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Latitude                            Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
37[deg]05'40'' N                     076[deg]08'12'' W
37[deg]05'40'' N                     076[deg]07'19'' W
37[deg]03'46'' N                     076[deg]05'58'' W
37[deg]03'46'' N                     076[deg]06'51'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (7) Anchorage R. The waters all within the Chesapeake Bay, bound by
a line connecting the following points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Latitude                            Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
37[deg]19'10'' N                     076[deg]05'00'' W
37[deg]12'00'' N                     076[deg]05'00'' W
37[deg]09'08'' N                     076[deg]08'19'' W
37[deg]11'23'' N                     076[deg]08'49'' W
37[deg]19'10'' N                     076[deg]05'46'' W
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

    Dated: June 8, 2018.
Meredith Austin,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-13439 Filed 6-19-18; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 2 (Wednesday, January 4, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 737-739]
[FR Doc No: 2016-31362]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9522; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-144-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2009-17-
01, which applies to certain Gulfstream Model G-IV, GIV-X, GV-SP
airplanes and Model GV airplanes. AD 2009-17-01 currently requires, an
inspection for sealant applied to the exterior of the auxiliary power
unit (APU) enclosure (firewall), and a revision of the airplane flight
manual (AFM), as applicable. Since we issued AD 2009-17-01, we received
a report indicating that the type design sealant applied to the APU
enclosure is flammable and failed certain tests. This proposed AD would
require revising the AFM, and revising the applicability to include
additional airplanes. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 21,
2017.

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 Gulfstream
Aerospace Corporation, Technical Publications Dept., P.O. Box 2206,
Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.gulfstream.com/product_support/technical_pubs/pubs/index.htm. You may view this
referenced 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>.

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-
9522; 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: Ky Phan, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion and Services Branch, ACE-118A, FAA, Atlanta Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO) 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA
30337; 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 proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-9522;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-144-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

    On July 31, 2009, we issued AD 2009-17-01, Amendment 39-15991 (74
FR 40061, August 11, 2009) (``AD 2009-17-01''), for certain Gulfstream
Model G-IV, GIV-X, GV-SP airplanes, and Model GV airplanes. AD 2009-17-
01 requires, for certain airplanes, a one-time inspection for sealant
applied to the exterior of the APU enclosure, and for airplanes with
the subject sealant and certain other airplanes, a revision of the AFM
to prohibit operation of the APU during certain ground and flight
operations. AD 2009-17-01 resulted from notification by the airplane
manufacturer that an improper, flammable sealant was used on the
interior and exterior of the APU enclosure. We issued AD 2009-17-01 to
prevent this flammable sealant from igniting the exterior surfaces of
the APU enclosure under certain anomalous conditions, such as an APU
failure/APU compartment fire, which could result in propagation of an
uncontained fire to other critical areas of the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2009-17-01 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2009-17-01, the manufacturer has notified us
that the type design sealant (AMS 3374) applied to the APU enclosure is
flammable and failed a certification test and a company

test. Paragraph (g) of AD 2009-17-01 required an inspection to
determine if GMS 4107 sealant (i.e., not type design sealant) or AMS
3374 sealant was applied to the APU enclosure. If the inspections
revealed the application of GMS 4107 sealant, operators were required
by paragraph (h) of AD 2009-17-01 to revise the applicable AFM to
include the applicable AFM supplement (AFMS). The AFMS provided
limitations that prohibited operation of the APU during certain ground
and flight operations. At the time AD 2009-17-01 was issued, the type
design sealant was AMS 3374 sealant, which was thought to be fireproof.
If the inspection required by paragraph (g) of AD 2009-17-01 revealed
that AMS 3374 sealant was used, the applicable AFM did not have to be
revised. With the discovery that AMS 3374 sealant is flammable, we have
determined that AD 2009-17-01 does not address the identified unsafe
condition.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the Gulfstream AFM supplements (AFMSs) identified
below. The AFMSs provide operating limitations on the use of the APU
during certain ground and flight operations. These documents are
distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
    (1) Gulfstream Aerospace GIV/G300/G400 AFM Supplement GIV-2016-01,
dated July 27, 2016, to the GIV AFM, dated April 22, 1987; the G300
AFM, dated January 15, 2003; and the G400 AFM, dated November 18, 2002.
    (2) Gulfstream G450/G350 AFM Supplement G450-2016-01, dated July
27, 2016, to the G450 AFM, dated August 12, 2004; and the G350 AFM,
dated October 28, 2004.
    (3) Gulfstream GV AFM Supplement GV-2016-01, dated July 27, 2016,
to the GV AFM, dated April 11, 1997.
    (4) Gulfstream G550/G500 AFM Supplement G550-2016-01, dated July
27, 2016, to the G550 AFM, dated August 14, 2003; and the G500 AFM,
dated December 5, 2003.
    (5) Gulfstream GVI (G650) AFM Supplement G650-2016-01, dated July
27, 2016, to the GVI (G650) AFM dated, September 7, 2012.
    (6) Gulfstream GVI (G650ER) AFM Supplement G650ER-2016-03, dated
July 27, 2016, to the GVI (G650ER) AFM, dated October 2, 2014.
    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 these same type
designs.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require a revision of the AFM to prohibit
operation of the APU during certain ground and flight operation and
would add additional airplanes to the applicability.

Interim Action

    We consider this proposed AD interim action. If final action is
later identified, we might consider further rulemaking then.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,220 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFM revision........................  1 work-hour x $85 per                $0              $85         $103,700
                                       hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2009-17-01, Amendment 39-15991 (74 FR 40061, August 11, 2009), and
adding the following new AD:

Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation: Docket No. FAA-2016-9522;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-144-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by February 21,
2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2009-17-01, Amendment 39 15991 (74 FR 40061,
August 11, 2009) (``AD 2009-17-01'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation
airplanes, certificated in any category, identified in paragraphs
(c)(1) through (c)(5) of this AD.
    (1) Model G-IV airplanes, having serial numbers (S/Ns) 1000 and
subsequent.
    (2) Model GIV-X airplanes, having S/Ns 4001 and subsequent.
    (3) Model GV airplanes, having S/Ns 501 and subsequent.
    (4) Model GV-SP airplanes, having S/Ns 5001 and subsequent.
    (5) Model GVI airplanes, having S/Ns 6001 and subsequent.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 49, Airborne
Auxiliary Power; and 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that the type design
sealant is flammable and failed a certification test and a company
test. We are issuing this AD to provide the flight crew with
operating procedures for airplanes that have flammable sealant
compound applied to the auxiliary power unit (APU) enclosure
(firewall). Under certain anomalous conditions such as an APU
failure/APU compartment fire, flammable sealant could ignite the
exterior surfaces of the APU enclosure and result in propagation of
an uncontained fire to other critical areas of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
Limitations Section of the applicable Gulfstream AFM specified in
paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(6) of this AD to include the
information in the applicable Gulfstream AFM supplement (AFMS)
specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(6) of this AD. These AFM
supplements (AFMSs) introduce operating limitations on the use of
the APU during certain ground and flight operations.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD: This AFM revision may be
done by inserting a copy of the applicable AFMS into the applicable
AFM specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(6) of this AD. When
the AFMS has been included in the general revision of the AFM, the
general revision may be inserted into the AFM, provided the relevant
information in the general revision is identical to that in the
applicable AFMS specified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(6) of
this AD.

(h) AFMSs

    For the AFM revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
insert the applicable AFMS into the applicable Gulfstream AFM
identified in paragraphs (h)(1) through (h)(6) of this AD.
    (1) Gulfstream GIV/G300/G400 AFM Supplement GIV-2016-01, dated
July 27, 2016, to the GIV AFM, dated April 22, 1987; the G300 AFM,
dated January 15, 2003; and the G400 AFM, dated November 18, 2002.
    (2) Gulfstream G450/G350 AFM Supplement G450-2016-01, dated July
27, 2016, to the G450 AFM, dated August 12, 2004; and the G350 AFM,
dated October 28, 2004.
    (3) Gulfstream GV AFM Supplement GV-2016-01, dated July 27,
2016, to the GV AFM, dated April 11, 1997.
    (4) Gulfstream G550/G500 AFM Supplement G550-2016-01, dated July
27, 2016, to the G550 AFM, dated August 14, 2003; and the G500 AFM,
dated December 5, 2003.
    (5) Gulfstream GVI (G650) AFM Supplement G650-2016-01, dated
July 27, 2016, to the GVI (G650) AFM dated, September 7, 2012.
    (6) Gulfstream GVI (G650ER) AFM Supplement G650ER-2016-03, dated
July 27, 2016, to the GVI (G650ER) AFM, dated October 2, 2014.

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the action required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if that action was performed before the
effective date of this AD using the applicable service information
specified in paragraphs (i)(1) through (i)(4) of this AD. This
service information was incorporated by reference in AD 2009-17-01.
    (1) Gulfstream G-IV/G300/G400 AFM Supplement G-IV-2009-02,
Revision 1, dated June 25, 2009.
    (2) Gulfstream G450/G350 AFM Supplement G450-2009-03, Revision
1, dated June 25, 2009.
    (3) Gulfstream GV AFM Supplement GV-2009-03, Revision 1, dated
June 25, 2009.
    (4) Gulfstream G550/G500 AFM Supplement G550-2009-03, Revision
1, dated June 25, 2009.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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 (k)(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) AMOCs approved previously for paragraph (h) of AD 2009-17-01
are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph
(g) of this AD.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Ky Phan,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion and Services Branch, ACE-118A, FAA,
Atlanta ACO 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; phone:
404-474-5536; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, Technical Publications Dept., P.O.
Box 2206, Savannah, GA 31402-2206; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 912-
965-3520; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.gulfstream.com/product_support/technical_pubs/pubs/index.htm.
You may view this referenced 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 December 16, 2016.
Ross Landes,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-31362 Filed 1-3-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 214)]
[Notices]
[Page 57540]
[DOCID:fr06no09-103]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 17Ad-13; SEC File No. 270-263; OMB Control No. 3235-0275.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 17Ad-13 (17 CFR
240.17Ad-13) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
et seq.) (``Exchange Act''). The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Rule 17Ad-13 requires approximately 150 registered transfer agents
to obtain an annual report on the adequacy of internal accounting
controls. In addition, transfer agents must maintain copies of any
reports prepared pursuant to Rule 17Ad-13 plus any documents prepared
to notify the Commission and appropriate regulatory agencies in the
event that the transfer agent is required to take any corrective
action. The retention period for the report is three years following
the date of the report. These recordkeeping requirements assist the
Commission and other regulatory agencies with monitoring transfer
agents and ensuring compliance with the rule. Small transfer agents are
exempt from Rule 17Ad-13.
    The staff estimates that the average number of hours necessary for
each transfer agent to comply with Rule 17Ad-13 is one-hundred fifty
hours annually. The total burden is 18,000 hours annually for transfer
agents, based upon past submissions. The staff estimates that the
average cost per hour is approximately $60. Therefore, the total cost
of compliance for transfer agents is $1,080,000.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Comments should be directed to Charles Boucher, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-
mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: October 23, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-26753 Filed 11-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 236 (Monday, December 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63549-63552]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26593]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84714; File No. SR-IEX-2018-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Conform
IEX Rule 5.160 to FinCEN's Final Rule on Customer Due Diligence
Requirements for Financial Institutions

December 3, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given that, on
November 20, 2018, the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\4\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\5\ IEX is
filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend IEX Rule
5.160 (Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Program) to reflect the
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network's (``FinCEN'') adoption of a final
rule on Customer Due Diligence Requirements for Financial Institutions
(``CDD Rule''). Specifically, the proposed amendments would conform IEX
Rule 5.160 to the CDD Rule's amendments to the minimum regulatory
requirements for Member' anti-money laundering (``AML'') compliance
programs by requiring such programs to include risk-based procedures
for conducting ongoing customer due diligence. This ongoing customer
due diligence element for AML programs includes: (1) Understanding the
nature and purpose

of customer relationships for the purpose of developing a customer risk
profile; and (2) conducting ongoing monitoring to identify and report
suspicious transactions and, on a risk basis, to maintain and update
customer information. The Exchange has designated this rule change as
``non-controversial'' under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \6\ and
provided the Commission with the notice required by Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\7\ The text of the proposed rule change is available at the
Exchange's website at www.iextrading.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \5\ 17 CRF 240.19b-4.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
I. Background
    The Bank Secrecy Act \8\ (``BSA''), among other things, requires
financial institutions,\9\ including broker-dealers, to develop and
implement AML programs that, at a minimum, meet the statutorily
enumerated ``four pillars.'' \10\ These four pillars currently require
broker-dealers to have written AML programs that include, at a minimum:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 31 U.S.C. 5311 et seq.
    \9\ See 31 U.S.C. 5312(a)(2) (defining ``financial
institution'').
    \10\ 31 U.S.C. 5318(h)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The establishment and implementation of policies,
procedures and internal controls reasonably designed to achieve
compliance with the applicable provisions of the BSA and implementing
regulations;
     independent testing for compliance by broker-dealer
personnel or a qualified outside party;
     designation of an individual or individuals responsible
for implementing and monitoring the operations and internal controls of
the AML program; and
     ongoing training for appropriate persons.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 31 CFR 1023.210(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to meeting the BSA's requirements with respect to AML
programs, Exchange Members \12\ must also comply with IEX Rule 5.160,
which incorporates the BSA's four pillars, as well as requiring
Members' AML programs to establish and implement policies and
procedures that can be reasonably expected to detect and cause the
reporting of suspicious transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See IEX Rule 1.160(s).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act,\13\ the Exchange and the
Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') entered into
an agreement to allocate regulatory responsibility for common rules
(the ``17d-2 Agreement'').\14\ The 17d-2 Agreement covers common
members of the Exchange and FINRA, and allocates to FINRA regulatory
responsibility, with respect to common members for Exchange rules and
certain federal securities laws, rules and regulation that the Exchange
certifies are identical or substantially similar to FINRA rules.\15\
IEX Rule 5.160 is substantially similar to FINRA Rule 3310, and
therefore among the common rules included in the 17d-2 Agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 240.17d-2.
    \14\ See, Securities Exchange Act Release No. 78434 (July 28,
2016), 81 FR 51256 (August 3, 2016) (File No. 4-700).
    \15\ Pursuant to the 17d-2 Agreement, the Exchange allocated to
FINRA the following: (i) Examination of common members of the
Exchange and FINRA for compliance with certain federal securities
laws, rules and regulations and rules of the Exchange that the
Exchange certifies are identical or substantially similar to FINRA
rules; (ii) investigation of common members of the Exchange and
FINRA for violations of certain federal securities laws, rules and
regulations, or Exchange rules that the Exchange certifies as
identical or substantially identical to a FINRA rule; and (iii)
enforcement of compliance by common members with certain federal
securities laws, rules and regulations, and the rules of the
Exchange that the Exchange certifies as identical or substantially
similar to FINRA rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 11, 2016, FinCEN, the bureau of the Department of the
Treasury responsible for administering the BSA and its implementing
regulations, issued the CDD Rule \16\ to clarify and strengthen
customer due diligence for covered financial institutions,\17\
including broker-dealers. In its CDD Rule, FinCEN identifies four
components of customer due diligence: (1) Customer identification and
verification; (2) beneficial ownership identification and verification;
(3) understanding the nature and purpose of customer relationships; and
(4) ongoing monitoring for reporting suspicious transactions and, on a
risk basis, maintaining and updating customer information.\18\ As the
first component is already required to be part of a broker-dealer's AML
program under the BSA, the CDD Rule focuses on the other three
components.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ FinCEN Customer Due Diligence Requirements for Financial
Institutions; CDD Rule, 81 FR 29397 (May 11, 2016) (CDD Rule
Release); 82 FR 45182 (September 28, 2017) (making technical
correcting amendments to the final CDD Rule published on May 11,
2016). FinCEN is authorized to impose AML program requirements on
financial institutions and to require financial institutions to
maintain procedures to ensure compliance with the BSA and associated
regulations. 31 U.S.C. 5318(h)(2) and (a)(2). The CDD Rule is the
result of the rulemaking process FinCEN initiated in March 2012. See
77 FR 13046 (March 5, 2012) (Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking)
and 79 FR 45151 (Aug. 4, 2014) (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking).
    \17\ See 31 CFR 1010.230(f) (defining ``covered financial
institution'').
    \18\ See CDD Rule Release at 29398.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, the CDD Rule focuses particularly on the second
component by adding a new requirement that covered financial
institutions identify and verify the identity of the beneficial owners
of all legal entity customers at the time a new account is opened,
subject to certain exclusions and exemptions.\19\ The CDD Rule also
addresses the third and fourth components, which FinCEN states ``are
already implicitly required for covered financial institutions to
comply with their suspicious activity reporting requirements,'' by
amending the existing AML program rules for covered financial
institutions to explicitly require these components to be included in
AML programs as a new ``fifth pillar.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See 31 CFR 1010.230(d) (defining ``beneficial owner'') and
31 CFR 1010.230(e) (defining ``legal entity customer'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 21, 2017, FINRA published Regulatory Notice 17-40 to
provide guidance to member firms regarding their obligations under
FINRA Rule 3310 in light of the adoption of FinCEN's CDD Rule.\20\ In
addition, the Notice summarized the CDD Rule's impact on member firms,
including the addition of the new fifth pillar required for member
firms' AML programs. FINRA also recently amended FINRA Rule 3310 to
explicitly incorporate the fifth pillar.\21\ This proposed rule change
amends IEX Rule 5.160 to harmonize

with the FINRA rule change and incorporate the fifth pillar.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ As noted above, the Exchange allocated regulatory
responsibility for IEX Rule 5.160 to FINRA pursuant the 17d-2
Agreement. Thus, FINRA's Regulatory Notice 17-40 was applicable to
IEX Members.
    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 83154 (May 2,
2018), 83 FR 20906 (May 8, 2018) (File No. SR-FINRA-2018-016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. IEX Rule 5.160 and Amendment to Minimum Requirements for Members'
AML Programs
    Section 352 of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 \22\ amended the BSA to
require broker-dealers to develop and implement AML programs that
include the four pillars mentioned above. Consistent with Section 352
of the PATRIOT Act, and incorporating the four pillars, IEX Rule 5.160
requires each Member to develop and implement a written AML program
reasonably designed to achieve and monitor the Member's compliance with
the BSA and implementing regulations. Among other requirements, IEX
Rule 5.160 requires that each member firm, at a minimum: (1) Establish
and implement policies and procedures that can be reasonably expected
to detect and cause the reporting of suspicious transactions; (2)
establish and implement policies, procedures, and internal controls
reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the BSA and implementing
regulations; (3) provide for annual (on a calendar-year basis)
independent testing for compliance to be conducted by Member personnel
or a qualified outside party; \23\ (4) designate and identify to IEX an
individual or individuals (i.e., AML compliance person(s)) who will be
responsible for implementing and monitoring the day-to-day operations
and internal controls of the AML program and provide prompt
notification to IEX of any changes to the designation; and (5) provide
ongoing training for appropriate persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate
Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001,
Public Law 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001).
    \23\ If a Member does not execute transactions for customers or
otherwise hold customer accounts or act as an introducing broker
with respect to customer accounts (e.g., engages solely in
proprietary trading or conducts business only with other broker-
dealers), then ``independent testing'' is required every two years.
See IEX Rule 5.160(c). However, a Member should conduct more
frequent testing than required if circumstances warrant. See
Supplementary Material .01(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FinCEN's CDD Rule does not change the requirements of IEX Rule
5.160 and Members must continue to comply with its requirements.\24\
However, FinCEN's CDD Rule amends the minimum regulatory requirements
for broker-dealers' AML programs by explicitly requiring such programs
to include risk-based procedures for conducting ongoing customer due
diligence.\25\ Accordingly, IEX is proposing to amend IEX Rule 5.160 to
incorporate this ongoing customer due diligence element, or ``fifth
pillar'' required for AML programs. Thus, proposed Rule 5.160(f) would
provide that the AML programs required by this Rule shall, at a minimum
include appropriate risk-based procedures for conducting ongoing
customer due diligence, to include, but not be limited to: (1)
Understanding the nature and purpose of customer relationships for the
purpose of developing a customer risk profile; and (2) conducting
ongoing monitoring to identify and report suspicious transactions and,
on a risk basis, to maintain and update customer information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ FinCEN notes that broker-dealers must continue to comply
with FINRA Rules, notwithstanding differences between the CDD Rule
and FINRA Rule 3310, which is substantially identical to IEX Rule
5.160. See CDD Rule Release 29421, n. 85.
    \25\ See CDD Rule Release at 29420; 31 CFR 1023.210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated in the CDD Rule, these provisions are not new and merely
codify existing expectations for Members to adequately identify and
report suspicious transactions as required under the BSA and
encapsulate practices generally already undertaken by securities firms
to know and understand their customers.\26\ The proposed rule change
simply incorporates into IEX Rule 5.160 the ongoing customer due
diligence element, or ``fifth pillar,'' required for AML programs by
the CDD Rule to aid Members in complying with the CDD Rule's
requirements. However, to the extent that these elements, which are
briefly summarized below, are not already included in Members' AML
programs, the CDD Rule requires Members to update their AML programs to
explicitly incorporate them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See id. at 29419.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Summary of Fifth Pillar's Requirements
Understanding the Nature and Purpose of Customer Relationships
    FinCEN states in the CDD Rule that firms must necessarily have an
understanding of the nature and purpose of the customer relationship in
order to determine whether a transaction is potentially suspicious and,
in turn, to fulfill their SAR obligations.\27\ To that end, the CDD
Rule requires that firms understand the nature and purpose of the
customer relationship in order to develop a customer risk profile. The
customer risk profile refers to information gathered about a customer
to form the baseline against which customer activity is assessed for
suspicious transaction reporting.\28\ Information relevant to
understanding the nature and purpose of the customer relationship may
be self-evident and, depending on the facts and circumstances, may
include such information as the type of customer, account or service
offered, and the customer's income, net worth, domicile, or principal
occupation or business, as well as, in the case of existing customers,
the customer's history of activity.\29\ The CDD Rule also does not
prescribe a particular form of the customer risk profile.\30\ Instead,
the CDD Rule states that depending on the firm and the nature of its
business, a customer risk profile may consist of individualized risk
scoring, placement of customers into risk categories or another means
of assessing customer risk that allows firms to understand the risk
posed by the customer and to demonstrate that understanding.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See id. at 29421.
    \28\ See id. at 29422.
    \29\ See id.
    \30\ See id.
    \31\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CDD Rule also addresses the interplay of understanding the
nature and purpose of customer relationships with the ongoing
monitoring obligation discussed below. The CDD Rule explains that firms
are not necessarily required or expected to integrate customer
information or the customer risk profile into existing transaction
monitoring systems (for example, to serve as the baseline for
identifying and assessing suspicious transactions on a contemporaneous
basis).\32\ Rather, FinCEN expects firms to use the customer
information and customer risk profile as appropriate during the course
of complying with their obligations under the BSA in order to determine
whether a particular flagged transaction is suspicious.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See id.
    \33\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conduct Ongoing Monitoring
    As with the requirement to understand the nature and purpose of the
customer relationship, the requirement to conduct ongoing monitoring to
identify and report suspicious transactions and, on a risk basis, to
maintain and update customer information, merely adopts existing
supervisory and regulatory expectations as explicit minimum standards
of customer due diligence required for firms' AML programs.\34\ If, in
the course of its normal monitoring for suspicious activity, the Member
detects information that is relevant to assessing

the customer's risk profile, the Member must update the customer
information, including the information regarding the beneficial owners
of legal entity customers.\35\ However, there is no expectation that
the Member update customer information, including beneficial ownership
information, on an ongoing or continuous basis.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See id. at 29402.
    \35\ See id. at 29420-21. See also FINRA Regulatory Notice 17-40
(discussing identifying and verifying the identity of beneficial
owners of legal entity customers).
    \36\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    IEX believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 6(b) \37\ of the Act in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \38\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule
change will aid Members in complying with the CDD Rule's requirement
that Members' AML programs include risk-based procedures for conducting
ongoing customer due diligence by also incorporating the requirement
into IEX Rule 5.160.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \38\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change simply
incorporates into IEX Rule 5.160 the ongoing customer due diligence
element, or ``fifth pillar,'' required for AML programs by the CDD
Rule. Regardless of the proposed rule change, to the extent that the
elements of the fifth pillar are not already included in Members' AML
programs, the CDD Rule requires Members to update their AML programs to
explicitly incorporate them. In addition, as stated in the CDD Rule,
these elements are already implicitly required for covered financial
institutions to comply with their suspicious activity reporting
requirements. Further, all IEX Members that have customers are required
to be members of FINRA pursuant to Rule 15b9-1 under the Exchange
Act,\39\ and are therefore already subject to the requirements of the
proposed rule change pursuant to FINRA Rule 3310. IEX is not imposing
any additional direct or indirect burdens on member firms or their
customers through this proposal, and as such the proposal imposes no
new burdens on competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 17 CFR 240.15b9-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial
under Section 19(b)(3)(A) \40\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \41\
thereunder. Because the proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19-
4(f)(6) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \41\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) \42\ of the Act to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-IEX-2018-22 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-IEX-2018-22. This file
number should be included in the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street NE, Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available for inspection
and copying at the IEX's principal office and on its internet website
at www.iextrading.com. All comments received will be posted without
change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact
or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-IEX-2018-22
and should be submitted on or before December 31, 2018. For the
Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to
delegated authority.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-26593 Filed 12-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: October 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 193)]
[Notices]
[Page 58852]
[DOCID:fr05oc06-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[CP06-462-000]

Honeoye Storage Corporation; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization

September 28, 2006.
    Take notice that on September 20, 2006, Honeoye Storage Corporation
(Honeoye), 4511 Egypt Road, Canandaigua, New York 14424, filed in
Docket No. CP06-462-000, a request pursuant to Sections 157.205 and
157.214 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18
CFR 157.205 and 157.216) for authorization to increase its cushion gas
capacity in its storage facility in Ontario County, New York, under
Honeoye's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP00-95-000 pursuant
to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in
the application which is on file with the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov
 using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number

excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,

(202) 502-8659.
    Honeoye seeks the authority to increase it cushion gas capacity by
469,206 MMcf. All other authorized conditions will remain the same
including the maximum reservoir pressure and maximum working gas
capacity. Honeoye does not propose to construct any new facilities.
Moreover, Honeoye does not require any activities that involve ground
disturbance or changes to operational air or noise requirements.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
David A. T. Donohue, Honeoye Storage Corporation, 535 Boylston Street,
12th Floor, Boston, Massachusetts 02116, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 45 days after the
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and, pursuant to Section 157.205 of
the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) (18 CFR
157.205) a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the
time allowed therefore, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as
an application for authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests, and interventions via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-16417 Filed 10-4-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Summary of EPA Teleconference with Safety-Kleen

May 8, 2007

On Friday, May 4, 2007, Definition of Solid Waste team members from the
Office of Solid Waste (OSW) participated in a conference call with
representatives from Safety-Kleen.   In response to questions from
Safety-Kleen, EPA clarified a number of issues.  EPA clarified that when
we proposed to not allow brokers to participate in the exclusion we were
not envisioning a transfer facility that is owned by the recycler.  EPA
urged Safety-Kleen to comment on this issue if they believe these
facilities should be allowed to participate in the exclusion.  In
response to questions about the legitimacy proposal and how it relates
to current guidance, EPA indicated that the original 2003 proposal was
the best source of information.  EPA also clarified that, as indicated
in the preamble, the storage conditions could take into account both the
physical container and the environmental setting.   In relation to the
proposed financial assurance requirement, EPA is interest in
alternatives specific to how this would be applied at recycling
facilities, but we did not intend to open up for comment the current
financial assurance program, which is being addressed in a separate
initiative.  Finally, in response to questions specifically related to
transportation and interstate commerce, EPA reiterated the preamble
discussion that explains that this rule is less stringent that the
current federal program and that States would not be required to adopt
it, although EPA will encourage them to do so.

Tracy Atagi		Environmental Protection Agency

	Betsy Devlin		Environmental Protection Agency

	Charlotte Mooney	Environmental Protection Agency

	Marybeth Sheridan	Environmental Protection Agency

	Mike Fusco		Safety-Kleen

	Lyn Longshore	Safety-Kleen


and public charter flights and shall adhere to this plan's terms.
    (b) Contents of plan. Each contingency plan for lengthy tarmac
delays shall include, at a minimum, the following:
    (1) Assurance of the maximum amount of time that the air carrier
will permit the aircraft to remain on the tarmac before proceeding to a
gate and allowing passengers to deplane,
    (2) Assurance of adequate food, water, and lavatory facilities, as
well as medical attention if needed, while the aircraft remains on the
tarmac,
    (3) The amount of time on the tarmac that triggers the provision of
the services enumerated in paragraph (b)(2) of this section,
    (4) Assurance of sufficient resources to implement the plan, and
    (5) Assurance that the plan has been coordinated with airport
authorities at all medium and large hub airports that the carrier
serves.
    (c) Amendment of plan. At any time, an air carrier may amend its
contingency plan for lengthy tarmac delays to decrease the time
intervals covered in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(3) of this section. An
air carrier may also amend its plan to increase these intervals, in
which case the amended plan shall apply only to those flights that are
first offered for sale after the plan's amendment.
    (d) Retention of records. Each air carrier that is required to
adopt a contingency plan for lengthy tarmac delays shall retain for two
years the following information about any on-ground delay that either
triggers its contingency plan or lasts at least four hours:
    (1) The length of the delay,
    (2) The cause of the delay, and
    (3) The actions taken to minimize hardships for passengers,
including the provision of food and water, the maintenance and
servicing of lavatories, and medical assistance.

Sec.  259.5  Customer service plan.

    (a) Adoption of plan. Each U.S. air carrier that accounts for at
least one percent of scheduled domestic passenger revenue shall adopt a
customer service plan for its scheduled flights and any public charter
flights that it sells directly to the public and shall adhere to this
plan's terms.
    (b) Contents of plan. Each customer service plan shall, at a
minimum, address the following subjects:
    (1) Offering the lowest fare available,
    (2) Notifying consumers of known delays, cancellations, and
diversions,
    (3) Delivering baggage on time,
    (4) Allowing reservations to be held or cancelled without penalty
for a defined amount of time,
    (5) Providing prompt ticket refunds,
    (6) Properly accommodating disabled and special-needs passengers
(At a minimum, this provision must refer to the air carrier's
contingency plan for lengthy tarmac delays.),
    (7) Meeting customers' essential needs during long on-aircraft
delays,
    (8) In the case of oversales, handling ``bumped'' passengers with
fairness and consistency,
    (9) Disclosing travel itinerary, cancellation policies, frequent
flyer rules, and aircraft configuration,
    (10) Ensuring good customer service from code-share partners, and
    (11) Improving response to customer complaints.
    (c) Self-auditing of plan and retention of records. Each air
carrier that is required to adopt a customer service plan shall audit
its own adherence to its plan annually and shall make the results of
its audits available for the Department's review upon request for two
years.

Sec.  259.6  Contract of Carriage.

    (a) Each air carrier that is required to adopt a contingency plan
for lengthy tarmac delays shall incorporate this plan into its contract
of carriage.
    (b) Each air carrier that is required to adopt a customer service
plan shall incorporate this plan in its contract of carriage.
    (c) Each air carrier that has a Web site shall post its entire
contract of carriage on this site.

Sec.  259.7  Response to consumer problems.

    (a) Designated advocates for passengers' interests. Each
certificated air carrier and each commuter air carrier that operates
scheduled domestic passenger service using any aircraft with a design
capacity of more than 30 passenger seats shall designate an employee at
its system operations center and at each airport dispatch center who
shall be responsible for monitoring the effects of flight delays,
flight cancellations, and lengthy tarmac delays on passengers. This
employee shall have input into decisions on which flights to cancel and
which to delay the longest.
    (b) Informing consumers how to complain. Each certificated air
carrier and each commuter air carrier that operates scheduled domestic
passenger service using any aircraft with more than 30 passenger seats
shall provide the name, address, telephone number, and e-mail or web-
mail address of the person with whom or the office with which to file a
complaint on its Web site, on all e-ticket confirmations, and, upon
request, at each ticket counter and gate.
    (c) Response to complaints. Each certificated air carrier and each
commuter carrier that operates scheduled domestic passenger service
using any aircraft with a design capacity of more than 30 passenger
seats shall acknowledge receipt of each complaint to the complainant
within 30 days of receiving it and shall send a substantive response
within 60 days of receiving it.

PART 399--[AMENDED]

    4. The authority citation for part 399 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40101 et seq.

    5. Section 399.81 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  399.81  Unrealistic or deceptive scheduling.

    (a) It is the policy of the Department to consider unrealistic
scheduling of flights by any air carrier providing scheduled passenger
air transportation to be an unfair or deceptive practice and an unfair
method of competition within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. 41712.
    (b) With respect to the advertising of schedule performance, it is
the policy of the Department to regard as an unfair or deceptive
practice or an unfair method of competition the use of any figures
purporting to reflect schedule or on-time performance without
indicating the basis of the calculation, the time period involved, and
the pairs of points or the percentage of systemwide operations thereby
represented and whether the figures include all scheduled flights or
only scheduled flights actually performed.
    (c) Chronically delayed flights.
    (1) This paragraph applies to each U.S. direct air carrier that
holds a certificate issued under 49 U.S.C. 41102 to operate passenger
service and/or cargo and mail service and that accounts for at least
one percent of domestic scheduled passenger revenue.
    (2) It is the policy of the Department to consider any domestic
flight that is operated at least 30 times in a calendar quarter and
arrives more than 15 minutes late or is cancelled more than 70 percent
of the time during that quarter to be chronically delayed.
    (3) For purposes of this paragraph, the Department considers all
flights in a given city-pair market whose scheduled departure times are
within 30 minutes of the most frequently occurring scheduled departure
time to be one single flight.
    (4) It is the policy of the Department to consider any flight that
is chronically delayed for three consecutive calendar quarters to be
unrealistic or deceptive scheduling within the meaning of paragraph (a)
of this section.

    Issued this 17th, day of November 2008, at Washington, DC.
Michael W. Reynolds,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. E8-28527 Filed 12-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P