83 FR 34795 - Security Threat Disqualification Update

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 141 (July 23, 2018)

Page Range		34795-34800
FR Document		2018-15534

The FAA proposes to amend and consolidate the security threat disqualification regulations. This proposed rule would outline the FAA actions on certificates or applications for certificates when the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) notifies the FAA that an individual poses a security threat.

Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 141 (Monday, July 23, 2018)

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 141 (Monday, July 23, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34795-34800]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15534]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 34795]]

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 3, 61, 63, and 65

[Docket No.: FAA-2018-0656; Notice No. 18-03]
RIN 2120-AL04

Security Threat Disqualification Update

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend and consolidate the security threat
disqualification regulations. This proposed rule would outline the FAA
actions on certificates or applications for certificates when the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) notifies the FAA that an
individual poses a security threat.

DATES: Send comments on or before August 22, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0656
using any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at (202) 493-2251.
Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions concerning this action,
contact Courtney Freeman, Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-200, Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20591; telephone (202) 267-3073; email Courtney.Freeman@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. 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.
This rulemaking is promulgated under 49 U.S.C. 106(f), which
establishes the authority of the Administrator to promulgate
regulations and rules; and 49 U.S.C. 44701(a)(5), which requires the
Administrator to promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce
by prescribing regulations and setting minimum standards for other
practices, methods, and procedures necessary for safety in air commerce
and national security.
This rulemaking is also promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 46111,
which requires the Administrator to amend, modify, suspend, or revoke
any certificate or any part of a certificate issued under Title 49 when
the TSA notifies the FAA that the holder of the certificate poses or is
suspected of posing a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to
airline or passenger safety.
Additionally, this rulemaking is promulgated pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
44903(j)(2)(D)(i), which requires that TSA coordinate with the
Administrator of the FAA to ensure that individuals are screened before
being certificated by the FAA. Thus, the FAA will not issue a
certificate to screened individuals identified by TSA as security
threats.

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

This proposed rulemaking would amend and consolidate the current
FAA security threat disqualification regulations found in 14 CFR 61.18,
63.14, and 65.14 into part 3 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR). Those regulations provide, in sum, that no person
is eligible to hold a certificate, rating, or authorization issued
under each of those parts when the TSA notifies the FAA in writing of
an adverse security threat determination.
Since 2004, the FAA has not applied these regulations to United
States (U.S.), citizens or resident aliens, instead relying on the
statutory authority in 49 U.S.C. 46111, Public Law 108-176 (Dec. 12,
2003), and 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i), Public Law 108-458 (Dec. 17,
2004), enacted after the FAA issued its security threat
disqualification regulations. Section 46111 directs the FAA to take
action against ``any part of a certificate'' issued under Title 49 in
response to a security threat determination by the TSA and also
provides a hearing and appeal process for U.S. citizens. Section
44903(j)(2)(D)(i) provides that individuals will be screened against
the consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist maintained by the
federal government prior to being certificated by the FAA. This
proposed rule is necessary to conform the above-cited FAA regulations
to 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 44903(j)(2)(D)(i) and to clarify the FAA's
process for preventing the issuance of certificates to applicants that
the TSA finds to be security threats.
Consistent with 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 44903(j)(2)(D)(i), the proposed
security threat regulations describe the actions the FAA will take on a
certificate or certificate application when it receives notification
from the TSA that an individual is a security threat. As with current
practice under the statute, the FAA would not issue a certificate or
any part of a certificate when the TSA has notified the FAA in writing
that the individual poses, or is suspected of

[[Page 34796]]

posing, a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or
passenger safety. For certificates already issued, the FAA would amend,
modify, suspend, or revoke any FAA-issued certificate or part of such
certificate upon written notification from the TSA that the certificate
holder poses, or is suspected of posing a risk of air piracy or
terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger safety.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The TSA directs what specific action the FAA should take on
the certificate and includes that information in the letter
notifying the FAA of the security threat determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Costs and Benefits

This rule is not expected to impose anything other than minimal
cost, if any. The proposed regulations would merely codify existing,
statutorily-mandated procedures that FAA has been following since 2004.
This proposed rule, therefore, would not have significant economic
impact within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 and DOT's policies
and procedures.

II. Background

A. Current Statutory and Regulatory Structure Governing Security Threat
Disqualification

In response to the attack on the United States on September 11,
2001, the FAA issued the current security threat disqualification
regulations to prevent a possible imminent hazard to aircraft, persons,
and property within the United States. Specifically, in 2003, the FAA,
in consultation with the TSA, determined that security threat
disqualification regulations were necessary to minimize security
threats and potential security vulnerabilities to the fullest extent
possible. The FAA, the TSA, and other federal security agencies were
concerned about the potential use of aircraft to carry out further
terrorist acts in the United States. Accordingly, the FAA issued a
final rule, Ineligibility for an Airman Certificate Based on Security
Grounds, 68 FR 3772 (Jan. 24, 2003), providing that an individual
determined by the TSA to be a security threat is ineligible for airman
certification and thus cannot not hold an FAA-issued airman
certificate. The FAA took this action because a person who poses a
security threat should not be in a position that could be used to take
actions that are contrary to civil aviation security and, therefore,
safety in air commerce. These security threat disqualification
regulations are found in Sec. Sec. 61.18, 63.14, and 65.14.
Subsequent to the issuance of the current FAA security threat
disqualification regulations, the President signed into law 49 U.S.C.
46111 \2\ and 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i).\3\ Section 46111 requires
the FAA to amend, modify, suspend, or revoke certificates or any part
of a certificate issued under Title 49, when the TSA informs the FAA
that the holder ``poses, or is suspected of posing, a risk of air
piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline or passenger safety.'' Under
section 44903(j)(2)(D)(i), the TSA and the FAA must work together to
``ensure that individuals are screened . . . before being certificated
by the [FAA].'' After the passage of these statutes, the FAA did not
update its regulations, though it did publish in the Federal Register
its disposition of comments to the 2003 final rule which noted that if
additional rulemaking was necessary to reflect the statutory
requirements of 46111, the FAA would utilize notice and comment
rulemaking.\4\ The FAA's Federal Register document also summarized two
D.C. Circuit cases from 2004 that sought judicial review of the FAA and
the TSA's security threat disqualification regulations. In one of those
cases, Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1184
(D.C. Cir. 2004), the FAA, the TSA, and the Department of Justice
pledged not to apply existing regulations to U.S. citizens or resident
aliens, as further addressed in the Discussion of the Proposal.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, Public
Law 108-176, 117 Stat. 2490 (Dec. 12, 2003).
\3\ Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, Public Law
108-458, 118 Stat. 3638 (Dec. 17, 2004).
\4\ Ineligibility for an Airman Certificate Based on Security
Grounds, 70 FR 25761 (May 16, 2005).
\5\ Memorandum to the Dockets, TSA Rulemaking Dockets Nos. TSA-
2002-13732 and TSA-2002-13733, Transportation Security
Administration, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Mar. 16,
2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of the Proposal

A. Scope

The proposed rule would codify the FAA's authority to amend,
modify, suspend, and revoke FAA-issued certificates and any part of
such certificates issued to individuals under Title 49 based on the
TSA's written notification that a certificate holder poses a security
threat. The proposed rule would also clarify the FAA's authority to
deny or hold in abeyance applications for certificates and any parts of
such certificates when the TSA notifies the FAA that an applicant poses
a security threat. The proposed rule would implement the security
threat disqualification requirement mandated in 49 U.S.C. 46111 and
44903(j)(2)(D)(i).
Both 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 44903(j)(2)(D)(i), on which this proposed
rule relies, refer to certificate holders and applicants in terms of
individuals, rather than entities.\6\ While there is separate statutory
authority for FAA certificate-action against entities based on TSA
security threat determinations,\7\ this proposed rule addresses only
individuals who hold or are applying for certificates issued under
Title 49 of the United States Code.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 46111(b) (allowing ``individuals'' who
are U.S. citizens to have a hearing on the record); Sec. 46111(f)
(``An individual who commences an appeal''); Sec. 46111(g)(3)
(``upon request of the individual adversely affected by an order of
the [FAA] Administrator''); 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i) (requiring
screening of ``individuals); Cf. Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) Vetting of Airmen Certificates and General
Aviation Airport Access and Security Procedures, DHS OIG (July
2011), https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_11-96_Jul11.pdf;
Memorandum To The Dockets, TSA Rulemaking Dockets Nos. TSA-2002-
13732 and TSA-2002-13733, Transportation Security Administration,
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Mar. 16, 2004).
\7\ For example, 49 U.S.C. 44924, provides for FAA suspension or
revocation of a repair station's certificate based on a TSA
determination regarding the repair station's security measures and
security risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Certificate Applicants

While 49 U.S.C. 46111 sets out a mechanism by which the FAA handles
the amendment, modification, suspension, or revocation of an
individual's certificate, it is silent as to how the FAA should handle
security threat determinations at the certificate application stage.
This proposed rule would codify the FAA's process for preventing the
issuance of certificates to individuals at the application stage when
the TSA finds the individuals to be security threats. FAA's authority
to deny or hold in abeyance an individual's certificate application
based on the TSA's written notification that an individual poses a
security threat is necessary to implement the intent of 49 U.S.C.
44903(j)(2)(D)(i), which requires the FAA to coordinate with the TSA to
ensure that certificate applicants are screened against all appropriate
records in the consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist
maintained by the federal government before being certificated by the
FAA.
The FAA must not issue certificates to individuals who the TSA
finds to be a security threat. The proposed rule would provide that,
upon notification from the TSA, the FAA would hold in abeyance the
applications of these individuals while they are provided the

[[Page 34797]]

opportunity to appeal the TSA's security threat determination under the
TSA's appeal process. The FAA would deny an application only upon the
TSA's notification of a final security threat determination.
Alternatively, if the TSA notifies the FAA that it has withdrawn its
security threat determination, the FAA would continue processing the
application.

C. Application of Regulations to U.S. Citizens and Resident Aliens

The FAA proposes to apply the security threat disqualification
regulations to all individuals, including U.S. citizens and resident
aliens, who hold FAA-issued certificates or are applying for these
certificates. This approach would harmonize the proposed security
threat disqualification regulations with 49 U.S.C. 46111 and
44903(j)(2)(D)(i). It would also close a gap in the FAA's security
threat disqualification regulations which are currently not being
applied to U.S. citizens and resident aliens as a result of a pledge
made by the FAA and the TSA in the case Coalition of Airline Pilots
Associations v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1184 (D.C. Cir. 2004). In the Coalition
of Airline Pilots Associations case, unions representing aviation
workers raised various challenges to the TSA and the FAA's current
security threat disqualification regulations. The D.C. Circuit never
reached the merits of the unions' claims. Instead, the Court dismissed
the unions' petition for review, finding that intervening events had
mooted their claims, specifically the new laws enacted by Congress.
Both the TSA and the FAA pledged that the existing security threat
regulations would no longer be applied to U.S. citizens or resident
aliens as a result of the passage of Sec. 46111 which provides a
different mechanism for TSA security threat determinations and appeal
procedures for U.S. citizens.\8\ The agencies also noted that when they
issued new security threat disqualification regulations they would do
so pursuant to notice and comment rulemaking. Another D.C. Circuit
decision, decided on the same day as the Coalition of Airline Pilots
Associations case, upheld the application of the same FAA security
threat disqualification regulations to non-resident aliens because the
regulations provide sufficient due process for non-resident aliens.
Jifry v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1174 (DC Cir. 2004). This proposal would
establish regulations that apply equally to all certificate holders and
applicants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ Memorandum to the Dockets, TSA Rulemaking Dockets Nos. TSA-
2002-13732 and TSA-2002-13733, Transportation Security
Administration, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Mar. 16,
2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. TSA Security Threat Determinations and Appeals

The FAA's certificate denials are generally covered under 49 U.S.C.
44703 and, therefore, are appealable to the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB). In cases of security threat disqualifications, if
the certificate action is appealable to the NTSB, the FAA does not
anticipate that the scope of these appeals would extend beyond an
examination of the procedural ground for the certificate action or
application denial because an affected individual would be provided the
opportunity to challenge the substance of TSA's security threat
determination under TSA's appeal process.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ The appropriate venue for appealing a certificate action
based on a security threat determination was also discussed
substantially in Jifry v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1174 (DC Cir. 2004). The
court stated that ``Section 46111 makes no provision for NTSB review
even for citizens, and the Conference Report states that non-
resident aliens `have the right to the appeal procedures that [TSA]
has already provided for them.' H.R. Conf. Rpt. 108-334 at 152
(2003). In addition, Sec. 46111(a) requires the FAA to respond
automatically to TSA threat assessments . . . if these pilots retain
any right to NTSB review at all, it is no broader than the review
for procedural regularity that they have received . . .'' Jifry at
1180.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the case of a security threat disqualification, the certificate
action or application denial would be based on the TSA's applicant
vetting and security threat determinations, as mandated under 49 U.S.C.
46111 and 44903(j)(2)(D)(i). The FAA's reliance on TSA's vetting and
security threat determinations is also based on the broad statutory
authority and responsibility that the Aviation and Transportation
Security Act (ATSA), Public Law 107-71, (115 Stat. 597, Nov. 19, 2001),
placed in the office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for
Security with regard to intelligence information and security threat
assessments. The FAA is not privy to the basis for the TSA's security
threat determinations, which often include classified information.
Therefore, the FAA's certificate actions and application denials are
based solely on written notification by the TSA of a security threat
determination against an individual. Accordingly, appeals of the
security threat determinations made by the TSA are made through the
TSA's administrative appeal process.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ See 49 U.S.C. 46111. TSA currently is using interim redress
procedures for U.S. citizen, U.S. non-citizen national, and lawful
permanent resident certificate holders. While section 46111 does not
require that TSA provide ALJ review to U.S. non-citizen nationals
and lawful permanent residents, TSA has chosen to do so in its
interim procedures. TSA also provides U.S. non-citizen nationals and
lawful permanent residents with review by the TSA Final Decision
Maker if those individuals choose to appeal an ALJ Decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 direct
that each Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon
a reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation
justify its costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub.
L. 96-354) requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of
regulatory changes on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act
(Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits agencies from setting standards that create
unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In
developing U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's
analysis of the economic impacts of this proposed rule.
The existing security threat disqualification regulations, 14 CFR
parts 61.18, 63.14, and 65.14, disqualify any person who the TSA has
found to be a security threat from obtaining an FAA certificate. These
regulations went into effect on January 24, 2004. A year later, the
President signed statutory authority in 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 49 U.S.C.
44903(j)(2)(D)(i) into law. 49 U.S.C. 46111 directs the FAA to take
action against the holder of any part of a certificate in response to a
security threat determination by the TSA and also provides an appeal
process for U.S. citizens. 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i) directs TSA to
coordinate with the FAA to ensure that individuals are screened against
a consolidated and integrated terrorist watchlist maintained by the
federal government prior to being certificated by the FAA. The existing
regulations and the statutory authority are virtually identical, and
the FAA has been relying on the statutory authority, not the existing
regulations, to prevent

[[Page 34798]]

individuals who are security threats from obtaining or holding a
certificate. The FAA has not updated its regulations since the
enactment of statutory authority 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 49 U.S.C.
44903(j)(2)(D)(i). Since there are no new requirements in the proposed
rule, the expected outcome would be a minimal cost, if any, and a full
regulatory evaluation was not prepared. The FAA requests comments with
supporting justification about the FAA determination of minimal
economic impact.
The FAA has, therefore, determined that this proposed rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation.'' To achieve this principle, agencies are
required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to
explain the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals
are given serious consideration. The RFA covers a wide-range of small
entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and
small governmental jurisdictions.
Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the agency may so
certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. The
certification must include a statement providing the factual basis for
this determination, and the reasoning should be clear.
The proposed rule provides similar requirements found in the
existing security threat disqualification regulations in 14 CFR 61.18,
63.14, and 65.14, and statutory authority located at 49 U.S.C. 46111
and 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i). Thus, the proposed rule would not
impose any new costs to the industry. The expected outcome would be a
minimal economic impact on any small entity affected by this rulemaking
action.
If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA.
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies
that this proposed rulemaking would not result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has
assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that
the objective of the rule is for the safety of the American public and
is therefore not considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign
commerce of the United States.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155 million in lieu of $100
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there would be no new requirement for information collection associated
with this proposed rule.

F. International Compatibility

In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these proposed regulations.

G. Environmental Analysis

FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined preliminarily that this rulemaking action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion identified in paragraph 5-6.6 and involves no
extraordinary circumstances.

V. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

This rule is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR
9339, February 3, 2017) because it is issued with respect to a national
security function of the United States.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency has
determined that this action would not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government, and, therefore, would not have
Federalism implications.

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

The FAA analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
would not be a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order
and would not be likely to have a significant adverse effect

[[Page 34799]]

on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

D. Executive Order 13609, International Cooperation

Executive Order 13609, Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation, promotes international regulatory cooperation to meet
shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues and to reduce, eliminate, or prevent
unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The FAA has
analyzed this proposed action under the policies and agency
responsibilities of Executive Order 13609, and has determined that this
action would have no effect on international regulatory cooperation.

VI. Additional Information

A. Comments Invited

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

B. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

An electronic copy of rulemaking documents may be obtained from the
internet by--
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or
3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's web page at http://www.thefederalregister.org/fdsys/.
Copies may also be obtained by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling (202) 267-9680.
Commenters must identify the docket or notice number of this
rulemaking.
All documents the FAA considered in developing this proposed rule,
including economic analyses and technical reports, may be accessed from
the internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in item
(1) above.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 3

Aviation safety.

14 CFR Part 61

Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, Drug abuse,
Recreation and recreation areas, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Teachers.

14 CFR Part 63

Aircraft, Airman, Alcohol abuse, Aviation safety, Drug abuse,
Navigation (air), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security
measures.

14 CFR Part 65

Air traffic controllers, Aircraft, Airmen, Airports, Alcohol abuse,
Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Security measures.

The Proposed Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend chapter 1 of title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

PART 3--GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 3 is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44704, and 46111.

0
2. Add a new subpart A heading to read as follows:

Subpart A--General Requirements Concerning Type Certificated
Products or Products, Parts, Appliances, or Materials That May Be
Used on Type-Certificated Products

0
3. Designate Sec. Sec. 3.1 and 3.5 as subpart A.
0
4. Add new subpart B to read as follows:

Subpart B--Security Threat Disqualification

Sec.
3.200 Effect of TSA notification on a certificate or any part of a
certificate held by an individual.
3.205 Effect of TSA notification on applications by individuals for
a certificate or any part of a certificate.

Sec. 3.200 Effect of TSA notification on a certificate or any part of
a certificate held by an individual.

When the TSA notifies the FAA that an individual holding a
certificate or part of a certificate issued by the FAA poses, or is
suspected of posing, a risk of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to
airline or passenger safety, the FAA will issue an order amending,
modifying, suspending, or revoking any certificate or part of a
certificate issued by the FAA.

Sec. 3.205 Effect of TSA notification on applications by individuals
for a certificate or any part of a certificate.

(a) When the TSA notifies the FAA that an individual who has
applied for a certificate or any part of a certificate issued by the
FAA poses, or is suspected of posing, a risk of air piracy or terrorism
or a threat to airline or passenger safety, the FAA will hold the
individual's certificate applications in abeyance pending further
notification from the TSA.
(b) When the TSA notifies the FAA that the TSA has made a final
security threat determination regarding an individual, the FAA will
deny all the individual's certificate applications. Alternatively, if
the TSA notifies the FAA that it has withdrawn its security

[[Page 34800]]

threat determination, the FAA will continue processing the individual's
applications.

PART 61--CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND
INSTRUCTORS

0
5. The authority citation for part 61 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707,
44709-44711, 44729, 44903, 45102-45103, 45301-45302; Sec. 2307 Pub.
L. 114-190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 U.S.C. 44703 note).

Sec. 61.18 Security disqualification [Removed and Reserved]

0
6. Remove and reserve Sec. 61.18.

PART 63--CERTIFICATION: FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS OTHER THAN PILOTS

0
7. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44703, 44707, 44709-
44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.

Sec. 63.14 Security disqualification [Removed and Reserved]

0
8. Remove and reserve Sec. 63.14.

PART 65--CERTIFICATION: AIRMEN OTHER THAN FLIGHT CREWMEMBERS

0
9. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g). 40113, 44701-44703, 44707,
44709-44711, 45102-45103, 45301-45302.

Sec. 65.14 Security disqualification [Removed and Reserved]

0
10. Remove and reserve Sec. 65.14.

Issued, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 46111,
and 44903(j) in Washington, DC, on July 16, 2018.
Charles Trippe,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2018-15534 Filed 7-20-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

34796 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules

posing, a risk of air piracy or terrorism disqualification regulations, the disqualification requirement mandated
or a threat to airline or passenger safety. President signed into law 49 U.S.C. in 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 44903(j)(2)(D)(i).
For certificates already issued, the FAA 46111 2 and 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i).3 Both 49 U.S.C. 46111 and
would amend, modify, suspend, or Section 46111 requires the FAA to 44903(j)(2)(D)(i), on which this
revoke any FAA-issued certificate or amend, modify, suspend, or revoke proposed rule relies, refer to certificate
part of such certificate upon written certificates or any part of a certificate holders and applicants in terms of
notification from the TSA that the issued under Title 49, when the TSA individuals, rather than entities.6 While
certificate holder poses, or is suspected informs the FAA that the holder ‘‘poses, there is separate statutory authority for
of posing a risk of air piracy or terrorism or is suspected of posing, a risk of air FAA certificate-action against entities
or a threat to airline or passenger piracy or terrorism or a threat to airline based on TSA security threat
safety.1 or passenger safety.’’ Under section determinations,7 this proposed rule
44903(j)(2)(D)(i), the TSA and the FAA addresses only individuals who hold or
B. Costs and Benefits are applying for certificates issued
must work together to ‘‘ensure that
This rule is not expected to impose individuals are screened . . . before under Title 49 of the United States
anything other than minimal cost, if being certificated by the [FAA].’’ After Code.
any. The proposed regulations would
the passage of these statutes, the FAA B. Certificate Applicants
merely codify existing, statutorily-
did not update its regulations, though it While 49 U.S.C. 46111 sets out a
mandated procedures that FAA has
did publish in the Federal Register its mechanism by which the FAA handles
been following since 2004. This
disposition of comments to the 2003 the amendment, modification,
proposed rule, therefore, would not
final rule which noted that if additional suspension, or revocation of an
have significant economic impact
rulemaking was necessary to reflect the individual’s certificate, it is silent as to
within the meaning of Executive Order
12866 and DOT’s policies and statutory requirements of 46111, the how the FAA should handle security
procedures. FAA would utilize notice and comment threat determinations at the certificate
rulemaking.4 The FAA’s Federal application stage. This proposed rule
II. Background Register document also summarized would codify the FAA’s process for
A. Current Statutory and Regulatory two D.C. Circuit cases from 2004 that preventing the issuance of certificates to
Structure Governing Security Threat sought judicial review of the FAA and individuals at the application stage
Disqualification the TSA’s security threat when the TSA finds the individuals to
disqualification regulations. In one of be security threats. FAA’s authority to
In response to the attack on the those cases, Coalition of Airline Pilots deny or hold in abeyance an
United States on September 11, 2001, Associations v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1184 individual’s certificate application
the FAA issued the current security (D.C. Cir. 2004), the FAA, the TSA, and based on the TSA’s written notification
threat disqualification regulations to the Department of Justice pledged not to that an individual poses a security
prevent a possible imminent hazard to apply existing regulations to U.S. threat is necessary to implement the
aircraft, persons, and property within citizens or resident aliens, as further intent of 49 U.S.C. 44903(j)(2)(D)(i),
the United States. Specifically, in 2003, addressed in the Discussion of the which requires the FAA to coordinate
the FAA, in consultation with the TSA, Proposal.5 with the TSA to ensure that certificate
determined that security threat
applicants are screened against all
disqualification regulations were III. Discussion of the Proposal
appropriate records in the consolidated
necessary to minimize security threats
A. Scope and integrated terrorist watchlist
and potential security vulnerabilities to
maintained by the federal government
the fullest extent possible. The FAA, the The proposed rule would codify the before being certificated by the FAA.
TSA, and other federal security agencies FAA’s authority to amend, modify, The FAA must not issue certificates to
were concerned about the potential use suspend, and revoke FAA-issued individuals who the TSA finds to be a
of aircraft to carry out further terrorist certificates and any part of such security threat. The proposed rule
acts in the United States. Accordingly, certificates issued to individuals under would provide that, upon notification
the FAA issued a final rule, Ineligibility Title 49 based on the TSA’s written from the TSA, the FAA would hold in
for an Airman Certificate Based on notification that a certificate holder abeyance the applications of these
Security Grounds, 68 FR 3772 (Jan. 24, poses a security threat. The proposed individuals while they are provided the
2003), providing that an individual rule would also clarify the FAA’s
determined by the TSA to be a security authority to deny or hold in abeyance 6 See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 46111(b) (allowing
threat is ineligible for airman applications for certificates and any ‘‘individuals’’ who are U.S. citizens to have a
certification and thus cannot not hold parts of such certificates when the TSA hearing on the record); § 46111(f) (‘‘An individual
an FAA-issued airman certificate. The who commences an appeal’’); § 46111(g)(3) (‘‘upon
notifies the FAA that an applicant poses request of the individual adversely affected by an
FAA took this action because a person a security threat. The proposed rule order of the [FAA] Administrator’’); 49 U.S.C.
who poses a security threat should not would implement the security threat 44903(j)(2)(D)(i) (requiring screening of
be in a position that could be used to ‘‘individuals); Cf. Transportation Security
take actions that are contrary to civil Administration (TSA) Vetting of Airmen Certificates
2 Vision 100—Century of Aviation
and General Aviation Airport Access and Security
aviation security and, therefore, safety Reauthorization Act, Public Law 108–176, 117 Stat. Procedures, DHS OIG (July 2011), https://
in air commerce. These security threat 2490 (Dec. 12, 2003). www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_11-96_
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1

disqualification regulations are found in 3 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Jul11.pdf; Memorandum To The Dockets, TSA
§§ 61.18, 63.14, and 65.14. Act, Public Law 108–458, 118 Stat. 3638 (Dec. 17, Rulemaking Dockets Nos. TSA–2002–13732 and
2004). TSA–2002–13733, Transportation Security
Subsequent to the issuance of the 4 Ineligibility for an Airman Certificate Based on Administration, U.S. Department of Homeland
current FAA security threat Security Grounds, 70 FR 25761 (May 16, 2005). Security (Mar. 16, 2004).
5 Memorandum to the Dockets, TSA Rulemaking 7 For example, 49 U.S.C. 44924, provides for FAA
1 The TSA directs what specific action the FAA Dockets Nos. TSA–2002–13732 and TSA–2002– suspension or revocation of a repair station’s
should take on the certificate and includes that 13733, Transportation Security Administration, certificate based on a TSA determination regarding
information in the letter notifying the FAA of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Mar. 16, the repair station’s security measures and security
security threat determination. 2004). risk.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jul 20, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1

34798 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules

individuals who are security threats would be a minimal economic impact burdens imposed on the public. The
from obtaining or holding a certificate. on any small entity affected by this FAA has determined that there would
The FAA has not updated its regulations rulemaking action. be no new requirement for information
since the enactment of statutory If an agency determines that a collection associated with this proposed
authority 49 U.S.C. 46111 and 49 U.S.C. rulemaking will not result in a rule.
44903(j)(2)(D)(i). Since there are no new significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the F. International Compatibility
requirements in the proposed rule, the
expected outcome would be a minimal head of the agency may so certify under In keeping with U.S. obligations
cost, if any, and a full regulatory section 605(b) of the RFA. Therefore, as under the Convention on International
evaluation was not prepared. The FAA provided in section 605(b), the head of Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to
requests comments with supporting the FAA certifies that this proposed conform to International Civil Aviation
justification about the FAA rulemaking would not result in a Organization (ICAO) Standards and
determination of minimal economic significant economic impact on a Recommended Practices to the
impact. substantial number of small entities. maximum extent practicable. The FAA
The FAA has, therefore, determined has determined that there are no ICAO
C. International Trade Impact Standards and Recommended Practices
that this proposed rule is not a
Assessment that correspond to these proposed
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ as
defined in section 3(f) of Executive The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 regulations.
Order 12866, and is not ‘‘significant’’ as (Pub. L. 96–39), as amended by the
G. Environmental Analysis
defined in DOT’s Regulatory Policies Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub.
and Procedures. L. 103–465), prohibits Federal agencies FAA Order 1050.1F identifies FAA
from establishing standards or engaging actions that are categorically excluded
B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination in related activities that create from preparation of an environmental
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 unnecessary obstacles to the foreign assessment or environmental impact
(Pub. L. 96–354) (RFA) establishes ‘‘as a commerce of the United States. statement under the National
principle of regulatory issuance that Pursuant to these Acts, the Environmental Policy Act in the
agencies shall endeavor, consistent with establishment of standards is not absence of extraordinary circumstances.
the objectives of the rule and of considered an unnecessary obstacle to The FAA has determined preliminarily
applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and the foreign commerce of the United that this rulemaking action qualifies for
informational requirements to the scale States, so long as the standard has a the categorical exclusion identified in
of the businesses, organizations, and legitimate domestic objective, such as paragraph 5–6.6 and involves no
governmental jurisdictions subject to the protection of safety, and does not extraordinary circumstances.
regulation.’’ To achieve this principle, operate in a manner that excludes V. Executive Order Determinations
agencies are required to solicit and imports that meet this objective. The
consider flexible regulatory proposals statute also requires consideration of A. Executive Order 13771, Reducing
and to explain the rationale for their international standards and, where Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
actions to assure that such proposals are appropriate, that they be the basis for Costs
given serious consideration. The RFA U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed This rule is not subject to the
covers a wide-range of small entities, the potential effect of this proposed rule requirements of E.O. 13771 (82 FR 9339,
including small businesses, not-for- and determined that the objective of the February 3, 2017) because it is issued
profit organizations, and small rule is for the safety of the American with respect to a national security
governmental jurisdictions. public and is therefore not considered function of the United States.
Agencies must perform a review to an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign
determine whether a rule will have a B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
commerce of the United States.
significant economic impact on a The FAA has analyzed this proposed
substantial number of small entities. If D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment rule under the principles and criteria of
the agency determines that it will, the Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The
agency must prepare a regulatory Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4) agency has determined that this action
flexibility analysis as described in the requires each Federal agency to prepare would not have a substantial direct
RFA. However, if an agency determines a written statement assessing the effects effect on the States, or the relationship
that a rule is not expected to have a of any Federal mandate in a proposed or between the Federal Government and
significant economic impact on a final agency rule that may result in an the States, or on the distribution of
substantial number of small entities, expenditure of $100 million or more (in power and responsibilities among the
section 605(b) of the RFA provides that 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, various levels of government, and,
the head of the agency may so certify local, and tribal governments, in the therefore, would not have Federalism
and a regulatory flexibility analysis is aggregate, or by the private sector; such implications.
not required. The certification must a mandate is deemed to be a ‘‘significant
include a statement providing the C. Executive Order 13211, Regulations
regulatory action.’’ The FAA currently
factual basis for this determination, and That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155
the reasoning should be clear. Distribution, or Use
million in lieu of $100 million. This
The proposed rule provides similar proposed rule does not contain such a The FAA analyzed this proposed rule
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1

requirements found in the existing mandate; therefore, the requirements of under Executive Order 13211, Actions
security threat disqualification Title II of the Act do not apply. Concerning Regulations that
regulations in 14 CFR 61.18, 63.14, and Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
65.14, and statutory authority located at E. Paperwork Reduction Act Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The
49 U.S.C. 46111 and 49 U.S.C. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 agency has determined that it would not
44903(j)(2)(D)(i). Thus, the proposed (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires that the be a ‘‘significant energy action’’ under
rule would not impose any new costs to FAA consider the impact of paperwork the executive order and would not be
the industry. The expected outcome and other information collection likely to have a significant adverse effect

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jul 20, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules 34799

on the supply, distribution, or use of Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), if the FAA is The Proposed Amendment
energy. aware of proprietary information filed In consideration of the foregoing, the
with a comment, the agency does not Federal Aviation Administration
D. Executive Order 13609, International
place it in the docket. It is held in a proposes to amend chapter 1 of title 14,
Cooperation
separate file to which the public does Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
Executive Order 13609, Promoting not have access, and the FAA places a
International Regulatory Cooperation, note in the docket that it has received PART 3—GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
promotes international regulatory it. If the FAA receives a request to
cooperation to meet shared challenges examine or copy this information, it ■ 1. The authority citation for part 3 is
involving health, safety, labor, security, treats it as any other request under the revised to read as follows:
environmental, and other issues and to Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701,
reduce, eliminate, or prevent 552). The FAA processes such a request 44704, and 46111.
unnecessary differences in regulatory under Department of Transportation ■ 2. Add a new subpart A heading to
requirements. The FAA has analyzed procedures found in 49 CFR part 7. read as follows:
this proposed action under the policies
and agency responsibilities of Executive B. Availability of Rulemaking
Documents Subpart A—General Requirements
Order 13609, and has determined that Concerning Type Certificated Products
this action would have no effect on An electronic copy of rulemaking or Products, Parts, Appliances, or
international regulatory cooperation. documents may be obtained from the Materials That May Be Used on Type-
VI. Additional Information internet by— Certificated Products
1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking
A. Comments Invited ■ 3. Designate §§ 3.1 and 3.5 as
Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
subpart A.
The FAA invites interested persons to 2. Visiting the FAA’s Regulations and ■ 4. Add new subpart B to read as
participate in this rulemaking by Policies web page at http:// follows:
submitting written comments, data, or www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or
views. The agency also invites 3. Accessing the Government Printing Subpart B—Security Threat
comments relating to the economic, Office’s web page at http:// Disqualification
environmental, energy, or federalism www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
impacts that might result from adopting Sec.
Copies may also be obtained by 3.200 Effect of TSA notification on a
the proposals in this document. The sending a request to the Federal certificate or any part of a certificate held
most helpful comments reference a Aviation Administration, Office of by an individual.
specific portion of the proposal, explain Rulemaking, ARM–1, 800 Independence 3.205 Effect of TSA notification on
the reason for any recommended Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, or applications by individuals for a
change, and include supporting data. To by calling (202) 267–9680. Commenters certificate or any part of a certificate.
ensure the docket does not contain must identify the docket or notice
duplicate comments, commenters § 3.200 Effect of TSA notification on a
number of this rulemaking. certificate or any part of a certificate held
should send only one copy of written All documents the FAA considered in by an individual.
comments, or if comments are filed developing this proposed rule, When the TSA notifies the FAA that
electronically, commenters should including economic analyses and an individual holding a certificate or
submit only one time. technical reports, may be accessed from
The FAA will file in the docket all part of a certificate issued by the FAA
the internet through the Federal poses, or is suspected of posing, a risk
comments it receives, as well as a report eRulemaking Portal referenced in item
summarizing each substantive public of air piracy or terrorism or a threat to
(1) above. airline or passenger safety, the FAA will
contact with FAA personnel concerning
this proposed rulemaking. Before acting List of Subjects issue an order amending, modifying,
on this proposal, the FAA will consider suspending, or revoking any certificate
14 CFR Part 3 or part of a certificate issued by the
all comments it receives on or before the
closing date for comments. The FAA Aviation safety. FAA.
will consider comments filed after the 14 CFR Part 61 § 3.205 Effect of TSA notification on
comment period has closed if it is applications by individuals for a certificate
possible to do so without incurring Aircraft, Airmen, Alcohol abuse, or any part of a certificate.
expense or delay. The agency may Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Recreation (a) When the TSA notifies the FAA
change this proposal in light of the and recreation areas, Reporting and that an individual who has applied for
comments it receives. recordkeeping requirements, Security a certificate or any part of a certificate
Proprietary or Confidential Business measures, Teachers. issued by the FAA poses, or is
Information: Commenters should not suspected of posing, a risk of air piracy
14 CFR Part 63
file proprietary or confidential business or terrorism or a threat to airline or
information in the docket. Such Aircraft, Airman, Alcohol abuse, passenger safety, the FAA will hold the
information must be sent or delivered Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Navigation individual’s certificate applications in
directly to the person identified in the (air), Reporting and recordkeeping abeyance pending further notification
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT requirements, Security measures. from the TSA.
section of this document, and marked as (b) When the TSA notifies the FAA
14 CFR Part 65
proprietary or confidential. If submitting that the TSA has made a final security
information on a disk or CD–ROM, mark Air traffic controllers, Aircraft, threat determination regarding an
the outside of the disk or CD–ROM, and Airmen, Airports, Alcohol abuse, individual, the FAA will deny all the
identify electronically within the disk or Aviation safety, Drug abuse, Reporting individual’s certificate applications.
CD–ROM the specific information that and recordkeeping requirements, Alternatively, if the TSA notifies the
is proprietary or confidential. Security measures. FAA that it has withdrawn its security

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jul 20, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1

34800 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules

threat determination, the FAA will Notice of proposed rulemaking
ACTION: section. Comments will be available in
continue processing the individual’s (NPRM). the AD docket shortly after receipt.
applications. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new Anthony Flores, Aerospace Engineer,
PART 61—CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Propulsion and Program Management
FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC–8–102, Section, Chicago ACO Branch, Room
INSTRUCTORS –103, and –106 airplanes; Model DHC– 107, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des
8–200 series airplanes; and Model DHC– Plaines, IL 60018; telephone 847–294–
■ 5. The authority citation for part 61 8–300 series airplanes. This proposed
continues to read as follows: 7140; fax 847–294–7834.
AD was prompted by a report that a
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, certain modification to the auto relight
44701–44703, 44707, 44709–44711, 44729, system is incompatible with a certain Comments Invited
44903, 45102–45103, 45301–45302; Sec. beta lockout system modification and
2307 Pub. L. 114–190, 130 Stat. 615 (49 We invite you to send any written
could result in de-activation of the auto
U.S.C. 44703 note). relevant data, views, or arguments about
ignition feature of the No. 2 engine. This
this proposal. Send your comments to
§ 61.18 Security disqualification [Removed proposed AD would require an
an address listed under the ADDRESSES
and Reserved] inspection of the auto ignition system
section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA–
■ 6. Remove and reserve § 61.18. and applicable rectification. We are
2018–0635; Product Identifier 2017–
proposing this AD to address the unsafe
NM–183–AD’’ at the beginning of your
PART 63—CERTIFICATION: FLIGHT condition on these products.
comments. We specifically invite
CREWMEMBERS OTHER THAN DATES: We must receive comments on comments on the overall regulatory,
PILOTS this proposed AD by September 6, 2018. economic, environmental, and energy
■ 7. The authority citation for part 63 ADDRESSES: You may send comments, aspects of this NPRM. We will consider
continues to read as follows: using the procedures found in 14 CFR all comments received by the closing
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following date and may amend this NPRM based
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701–
44703, 44707, 44709–44711, 45102–45103,
methods: on those comments.
45301–45302. • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to We will post all comments we
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the receive, without change, to http://
§ 63.14 Security disqualification [Removed instructions for submitting comments. www.regulations.gov, including any
and Reserved] • Fax: 202–493–2251. personal information you provide. We
■ 8. Remove and reserve § 63.14. • Mail: U.S. Department of will also post a report summarizing each
Transportation, Docket Operations, substantive verbal contact we receive
PART 65—CERTIFICATION: M–30, West Building Ground Floor, about this NPRM.
AIRMEN OTHER THAN FLIGHT Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey
CREWMEMBERS Discussion
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
■ 9. The authority citation for part 65 • Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail Transport Canada Civil Aviation
address above between 9 a.m. and 5 (TCCA), which is the aviation authority
continues to read as follows:
p.m., Monday through Friday, except for Canada, has issued Canadian AD
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g). 40113, Federal holidays. CF–2017–21R1, dated June 28, 2017
44701–44703, 44707, 44709–44711, 45102– (referred to after this as the Mandatory
45103, 45301–45302.
For service information identified in
this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., Continuing Airworthiness Information,
§ 65.14 Security disqualification [Removed Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 or ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe
and Reserved] Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario condition for certain Bombardier, Inc.,
■ 10. Remove and reserve § 65.14. M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416–375– Model DHC–8–102, –103, and –106
4000; fax 416–375–4539; email airplanes; Model DHC–8–200 series
Issued, under the authority provided by 49 airplanes; and Model DHC–8–300 series
U.S.C. 106(f), 46111, and 44903(j) in thd.qseries@aero.bombardier.com;
Washington, DC, on July 16, 2018. internet http://www.bombardier.com. airplanes. The MCAI states:
Charles Trippe, You may view this service information During the incorporation of the Auto
Chief Counsel.
at the FAA, Transport Standards Relight modification per Bombardier SB
Branch, 2200 South 216th St, Des [Service Bulletin] 8–74–02 on an aeroplane
[FR Doc. 2018–15534 Filed 7–20–18; 8:45 am] with a Beta Lockout System (BLS) installed,
Moines, WA. For information on the
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
availability of this material at the FAA, it was noticed that if SB 8–74–02 is
call 206–231–3195. incorporated in conjunction with, or after the
incorporation of BLS SB 8–76–35 ([Canadian]
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Examining the AD Docket AD CF–2013–15) or SB 8–76–24 (FAA AD
2000–02–13 [Amendment 39–11531 (65 FR
Federal Aviation Administration You may examine the AD docket on 4095, January 26, 2000)]), the #2 engine auto
the internet at http:// ignition function of the beta lockout system
14 CFR Part 39 www.regulations.gov by searching for will not be available when the beta lockout
and locating Docket No. FAA–2018– system is activated. This condition, if not
[Docket No. FAA–2018–0635; Product 0635; or in person at the Docket corrected, may result in a #2 engine
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1

Identifier 2017–NM–183–AD] Management Facility between 9 a.m. uncommanded in-flight shut down.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, To preclude any future occurrence of the
RIN 2120–AA64 except Federal holidays. The AD docket noted deficiency, Bombardier has issued SB
8–74–02 Revision B to highlight its
Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, contains this NPRM, the regulatory incompatibility with post SB 8–76–35 or 8–
Inc. Airplanes evaluation, any comments received, and 76–24 BLS compliant aeroplanes. In
other information. The street address for addition, Bombardier issued a new SB, 8–74–
AGENCY:Federal Aviation the Docket Operations office (telephone 06 for Auto Relight System modification that
Administration (FAA), DOT. 800–647–5527) is in the ADDRESSES can be incorporated in conjunction with or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:31 Jul 20, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23JYP1.SGM 23JYP1

Document Created: 2018-07-21 00:49:27
Document Modified: 2018-07-21 00:49:27

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Proposed Rules
Action		Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
Dates		Send comments on or before August 22, 2018.
Contact		For questions concerning this action, contact Courtney Freeman, Office of the Chief Counsel, AGC-200, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-3073; email [email protected]
FR Citation		83 FR 34795
RIN Number		2120-AL04
CFR Citation		14 CFR 3 14 CFR 61 14 CFR 63 14 CFR 65
CFR Associated		Aviation Safety; Airman; Navigation (air); Aircraft; Airmen; Alcohol Abuse; Drug Abuse; Recreation and Recreation Areas; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Security Measures; Teachers; Air Traffic Controllers and Airports

83 FR 34795 - Security Threat Disqualification Update

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONFederal Aviation Administration

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 141 (July 23, 2018)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration