Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2011 / Notices 65769 

• Mail: Address your comments to 

the Office of Regulations, Social 

Security Administration, 107 Altmeyer 

Building, 6401 Security Boulevard, 

Baltimore, Maryland 21235–6401. 

Comments are available for public 

viewing on the Federal eRulemaking 

portal at http://www.regulations.gov or 

in person, during regular business 

hours, by arranging with the contact 

person identified below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mariangela Rosa, Social Security 

Administration, 6401 Security 

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235–6401, 

1–877–794–7395 or e-mail 

SSA.504@ssa.gov. For information on 

eligibility or filing for benefits, call our 

national toll-free number, 1–800–772– 

1213 or TTY 1–800–325–0778, or visit 

our Internet site, Social Security Online, 

at http://www.socialsecurity.gov. 

Dated: October 17, 2011. 

Michael J. Astrue, 

Commissioner of Social Security 

[FR Doc. 2011–27353 Filed 10–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary 

Application of Friendship Airways, Inc. 

d/b/a Yellow Air Taxi for Commuter 

Authority 

AGENCY: Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause 

(Order 2011–10–9), Docket DOT–OST– 

2005–21533. 

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Transportation is directing all interested 

persons to show cause why it should 

revoke the Commuter Air Carrier 

Authorization issued to Friendship 

Airways, Inc. d/b/a Yellow Air Taxi and 

deny its application to resume 

commuter operations, pursuant to 49 

U.S.C. 40109(f) and 14 CFR part 298. 

DATES: Persons wishing to file 

objections should do so no later than 

November 1, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to 

objections should be filed in Docket 

DOT–OST–2005–21533 and addressed 

to U.S. Department of Transportation, 

Docket Operations, (M–30, Room W12– 

140), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

West Building Ground Floor, 

Washington, DC 20590, and should be 

served upon the parties listed in 

Attachment A to the order. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine J. O’Toole, Air Carrier Fitness 

Division (X–56, Room W86–489), U.S. 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590, (202) 366–9721. 

Dated: October 18, 2011. 

Susan L. Kurland, 

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 

International Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2011–27455 Filed 10–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Airport Improvement Program: 

Modifications to Benefit Cost Analysis 

(BCA) Threshold 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA); DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of changes; comments 

and responses. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

publication of the final policy changes 

to the Federal Aviation Administration’s 

policy requiring a benefit cost analysis 

(BCA) for capacity projects funded by 

Airport Improvement Program (AIP) 

discretionary funds. On December 16, 

2010, the FAA issued a Notice of 

Availability of Draft Guidance and 

Request for Comments with regard to 

the modification of its policy requiring 

benefit cost analyses (BCA) for capacity 

projects, which was published in the 

Federal Register. (78 FR 78798–02, 

December 16, 2010). The FAA now is (1) 

Issuing the final policy modifying the 

threshold at which BCAs are required 

from $5 million to $10 million in 

Airport Improvement Program (AIP) 

Discretionary funds, and (2) responding 

to comments requested in the Notice on 

December 16, 2010. 

DATES: Effective date of the modified 

policy October 24, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the final guidance 

to begin the implementation of the 

policy for conducting BCAs can be 

obtained from the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office of Airport 

Planning and Programming, Airports 

Financial Assistance Division (APP– 

500), 800 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591. An electronic 

copy of the guidance will be posted on 

the FAA’s Airport’s Division Web site at 

http://www.faa.gov/airports/aip/ 

bc_analysis within 7 days of publication 

of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Frank San Martin, Manager, Financial 

Assistance Division (APP–500), Office 

of Airport Planning and Programming, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591, (202) 267–3831. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

Policy History 

In 1994, the FAA established its 

policy on Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) 

requirements for airport capacity 

projects. Factors leading to these 

requirements included: 

1. The need to improve the 

effectiveness of federal airport 

infrastructure investments in light of a 

decline in federal AIP budgets; 

2. Issuance of Executive Order No. 

12893, ‘‘Principles for Federal 

Infrastructure Investments,’’ 59 FR 4233, 

Jan. 26, 1994; 

3. Guidance from Congress citing the 

need for economic airport investment 

criteria; and 

4. Statutory language from 1994 

included in Title 49 U.S.C. 47115 (d) 

specifying that, in selecting projects for 

discretionary grants to preserve and 

enhance capacity at airports, the 

Secretary shall consider the benefits and 

costs of the projects. 

The FAA implemented BCA 

requirements for capacity projects at all 

categories of airports in order to limit 

the FAA’s risks when investing large 

amounts of discretionary funds. The 

FAA uses the conclusions reached in 

the BCA review to make policy and 

funding decisions on possible future 

federal investments. 

In 1997, a new FAA policy transferred 

responsibility for preparing BCAs from 

the FAA to the sponsor. In addition, the 

policy lowered the projected cost 

threshold from $10 million in AIP 

discretionary funds (established in 

1994) to $5 million. 

The $5 million threshold change was 

made policy in 1997 and formalized in 

a 1999 Federal Register notice, Federal 

Aviation Administration Policy and 

Final Guidance Regarding Benefit Cost 

Analysis (BCA) on Airport Capacity 

Projects for FAA Decisions on Airport 

Improvement Program (AIP) 

Discretionary Grants and Letters of 

Intent (LOI), 64 FR 70107 (Dec. 15, 

1999). 

Since 1997, sponsors have been 

required to conduct BCAs for capacity 

projects for which more than $5 million 

in AIP discretionary funding will be 

requested. In developing the new draft 

guidance increasing the threshold, the 

FAA reviewed the reasons for lowering 

the BCA threshold amount in 1997 and 

concluded that those reasons do not 

present sufficient basis to warrant 

maintaining the $5 million level 

threshold today. 

The FAA has gained valuable 

experience assessing the 

implementation of the policy and the 

need to further clarify the threshold 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
65770 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2011 / Notices 

requirements for BCA. The $5 million 

threshold has remained unchanged for 

over 13 years while costs of 

construction have risen significantly. 

Using a construction cost index that 

approximates heavy civil infrastructure 

costs and is maintained by the Bureau 

of Labor and Statistics, construction 

costs of $5 million in 1997 are 

equivalent to costs of $9.6 million in 

July 2011. FAA’s use of BLS 

construction cost data is explained later 

in Section C. b. ‘‘Setting of the New 

Threshold Level.’’ 

Based on the increase in construction 

costs, the FAA has concluded that $10 

million in AIP Discretionary funds is 

the appropriate threshold for Fiscal Year 

2012 and beyond. Though the BCA 

threshold is being increased, the FAA 

retains the right to require a BCA for any 

capacity project in order to evaluate the 

reasonableness of project costs relative 

to project benefits. 

Procedural History 

On December 16, 2010, the FAA 

published in the Federal Register a 

Notice of Availability of Draft Guidance 

and Request for Comments regarding 

the modification of its policy requiring 

benefit cost analyses (BCA) for capacity 

projects (78 FR 78798–02, December 16, 

2010). This Notice requested comments 

on AIP grant and LOI cost threshold, 

above which BCAs must be performed; 

a total of three commenters responded 

to this request. Two commenters, the 

Airports Council International (ACI) and 

Mr. Joseph M. Polk of the MemphisShelby County Airport Authority, 

expressed support for the draft 

guidance, stating that it will reduce the 

need for potentially costly and timeconsuming BCAs where limited AIP 

discretionary funds are involved. A 

third commenter, the Air Transport 

Association (ATA), expressed a series of 

questions and concerns about the draft 

guidance. The FAA has reviewed and 

addressed these comments below, 

consolidating and arranging them in a 

manner that enables us to best respond. 

B. Modifications to Policy 

The previous AIP grant policy, issued 

June 24, 1997 and commencing in Fiscal 

Year 1998, stated that airport sponsors 

seeking $5 million or more in AIP 

discretionary funds for capacity projects 

were required to provide a completed 

BCA with the grant application. The 

Letters Of Intent (LOI) policy stated that 

a BCA was required for any LOI request 

to be issued in Fiscal Year 1997 or 

thereafter. In 1999, federal policy 

exempted certain reconstruction 

projects from the BCA requirement. 

The FAA will be issuing a companion 

Program Guidance Letter (PGL) 12–01 

titled ‘‘Revised BCA Guidance’’ on the 

date of publication in the Federal 

Register which incorporates the BCA 

requirement threshold modification 

from $5 million to $10 million in 

requested AIP Discretionary funds. This 

revised guidance is based on the report 

titled ‘‘Benefit Cost Analysis Threshold 

Evaluation’’ which assessed the 

technical feasibility for raising the 

threshold to $10 million. A discussion 

of the evaluation and results is included 

in the PGL to inform FAA staff, airport 

sponsors, consultants and the public 

about the basis for this decision. 

C. Discussion of Comments and 

Responses 

On December 16, 2010, the FAA 

established a docket and invited airport 

sponsors and other interested parties to 

comment on the BCA requirement cost 

threshold for AIP grants and LOIs. The 

docket was open for about six weeks 

and closed on January 31, 2011. As 

stated above, this summary and 

discussion of comments reflects the 

major issues raised. 

Comments From ACI and Mr. Polk 

Both the Airports Council 

International (ACI) and Mr. Joseph Polk 

of the Memphis-Shelby County Airport 

Authority expressed support for the 

draft guidance. Mr. Polk cited economic 

inflation as resulting in grants below the 

$10 million mark being ‘‘relatively 

small’’ for ‘‘most commercial airports.’’ 

Mr. Polk also stated that this change 

‘‘reduces bureaucracy and returns 

funding applications to a level that 

worked in the mid-90s.’’ Similarly, ACI 

expressed support and stated that the 

new policy will reduce the need for 

‘‘potentially costly and time-consuming 

BCAs when limited AIP discretionary 

funds are involved.’’ The FAA agrees 

with these commenters as to the 

advantages of offsetting cost inflation 

and the resource conservation 

advantages of this new policy for all 

involved in the grant making process. 

Comments From ATA 

a. Cost/Benefit Statutory Requirement 

ATA Comments: ATA stated that 

‘‘FAA fails to recognize or give effect to 

the statutory requirement that the 

Secretary of Transportation must 

consider the benefits and costs of 

projects selected for discretionary 

grants. FAA does not even attempt to 

demonstrate that raising the threshold 

will not compromise the Secretary’s 

ability to do so.’’ 

FAA Response: The FAA disagrees 

with the comment. The FAA does not 

require BCAs for all AIP projects, 

though the benefits and costs of all 

projects are thoroughly considered. The 

authorizing statute exempts certain 

projects from the BCA process where 

the underlying value of the type of 

project has already been subject to 

economic evaluations through 

regulation, advisory circulars, or an 

amendment process. In addition, to be 

eligible for federal funds AIP projects 

must comply with applicable federal 

regulations, including 14 CFR part 139, 

49 CFR part 1542, and related FAA 

standards and policies. While the FAA 

relies on the BCA results, among other 

considerations, in making discretionary 

funding decisions for certain capacity 

projects, the BCA requirement is not 

imposed on all projects and BCA results 

are not the ultimate arbiter in 

determining grant decisions. Rather, the 

FAA pursues a balanced approach in 

applying the BCA policy to evaluate 

more expensive projects in order to 

protect the federal investment. The 

increase of the threshold amount from 

$5 million to $10 million does not 

change any other provisions related to 

the Secretary of Transportation’s 

consideration of benefit and cost. 

The FAA believes that the balancing 

of the benefits and costs of projects 

evaluated for analysis under this 

approach does not compromise but 

rather assists the Secretary in exercising 

this consideration. It is particularly 

important to note that the revised 

guidance still allows the FAA to require 

BCAs where the project costs fall below 

the threshold when such review is 

warranted by specific circumstances in 

consideration of all relevant factors. 

b. Setting of the New Threshold Level 

ATA Comments: ATA stated, ‘‘[t]he 

Notice first points out that a 

construction cost of $5 million in 1997 

was equivalent to $9.8 million in July 

2008, and then asserts that ‘[t]he $5 

million threshold has required both 

FAA and sponsors of non-primary and 

non-hub airports to devote substantial 

financial and staff resources in 

preparing and evaluating BCAs for 

relatively small projects with readily 

apparent capacity benefits.’ However, 

the connection between the two 

statements is not supported by either 

the Notice or the draft [PGL] cited 

therein, and the conclusion that $10 

million is the appropriate threshold for 

determining whether a BCA is required 

is arbitrary.’’ 

FAA Response: The FAA disagrees 

with the comment. The FAA’s decision 

to raise the BCA threshold to $10 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2011 / Notices 65771 

1The most current data (through July 2011) 

indicate a $5 million project would cost about $9.6 

million today. 

million in 2011 is based mainly on 

increases in construction costs from 

1997 to present. When the original BCA 

threshold of $10 million was established 

in 1994, FAA policy exempted projects 

undertaken solely or principally with 

the objectives of safety, security, 

conformance with FAA standards, or 

environmental mitigation. In addition, 

the FAA considered the potential 

expenses and time needed to assess 

individual capacity projects. At that 

time, the threshold was based on 

applying the policy to cover a select 

number of more expensive and higher 

risk projects, and this reasoning still 

applies. In reevaluating this balance, the 

FAA compared current construction 

costs with costs from 1997, when the 

threshold was lowered to $5 million. 

The FAA was most interested in the 

value of construction costs, especially 

costs for material such as steel, concrete, 

and asphalt, because those costs have 

risen faster than the general rate of 

inflation. Since we were unable to 

locate construction cost data specific to 

airport construction, we relied upon 

highway and street construction data 

collected by the Bureau of Labor and 

Statistics (BLS). These data were 

collected through 2010 and have since 

been replaced by the new BONS index, 

which measures material and supply 

inputs for new nonresidential 

construction. For more information 

about the BONS Index, see U.S. 

Department of Labor Bureau of Labor 

and Statistics, PPI Detailed Report Data 

for July 2010, Vol. 14 No. 7, 6–7 (2010). 

These data provide a reasonable 

approximation of heavy civil 

infrastructure costs in general, and 

therefore best capture the dynamics of 

construction cost increases. 

Based on the latest BLS data from July 

2011, construction costs of $5 million in 

1997 are equivalent to $9.6 million 

today. As calculated, the costs of 

construction have risen significantly 

over the last 13 years, but there has not 

been a corresponding increase in the 

BCA threshold. The FAA does note that 

construction costs that were previously 

at the $5 million level have not fully 

escalated to the $10 million level; 

nevertheless, a threshold increase to $10 

million should negate the need to revisit 

the threshold issue again for a number 

of years. 

c. Airport Project Construction Costs 

ATA Comments: ATA stated ‘‘While 

construction costs in general have 

indeed increased since 1997, FAA has 

not relied on actual costs of airport 

projects funded with AIP discretionary 

grants during that time period, despite 

the potential benefit of reviewing that 

data. (FAA notes in the PGL that ‘we 

were unable to locate construction cost 

data specific to airport construction,’ 

but does not explain why that data 

would not be readily available to the 

grant-maker.). Instead FAA has chosen 

to rely on highway and street 

construction data, which indicates that 

a $5 million project would cost about 

$8.6 million today, a decrease from the 

$9.8 million in 2008 cited in the Notice. 

As the table appended to the PGL 

illustrates, construction costs, while 

exhibiting an overall upward trend, 

fluctuate both seasonally and from year 

to year. To suggest, as FAA does by 

increasing the threshold for BCAs from 

$5 to $10 million, that project 

construction costs have doubled since 

1997 is simply not accurate.’’ 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with 

the comment that it has access to FAA 

grant funding data, but these data have 

limited application since they are 

focused on federal grant program 

administration requirements. The grant 

data make up only a percentage of the 

project costs and the percentages vary 

by airport size and project type. The 

data are not meant to provide detailed 

cost statistics for airport construction 

projects and are not available in a way 

that allows tracking of the unit costs of 

construction items over time. More 

importantly, the funding amounts are 

based on general project descriptions, 

which make it difficult to assess 

changes in costs per work unit. The 

FAA lacks the resources to compile and 

analyze bid tabulations from the several 

thousand projects funded annually 

through AIP. 

The FAA currently uses, and will 

continue to use, the readily available 

construction cost data from the Bureau 

of Labor and Statistics because these 

cost indices are objective, accepted, and 

used industry wide. In addition, the 

BLS data allows for a comparison 

between a set of construction unit costs 

from 1997 to that same set of costs in 

the current time period, data that the 

FAA does not collect as part of the 

Airport Improvement Program (AIP) 

grant making process. The FAA collects 

data on total eligible AIP costs, but the 

level of detail is not sufficient to 

provide a statistical comparison of 

airport construction unit costs between 

1997 and 2010. Collection of such 

information by the FAA would require 

significant resources, would take years 

to compile, and would create a new 

index of construction costs that is 

duplicative of the data provided by the 

BLS. 

The FAA notes that the comment is 

correct that the most recent data 

indicate that construction costs have not 

fully doubled.1 The FAA would like to 

stress, however, that construction costs 

have risen significantly over the last 13 

years and there has not been any 

corresponding increase in the BCA 

threshold. It is important that the FAA 

provides a well-justified threshold level 

that does not fluctuate at short intervals 

in order for airport sponsors to plan and 

develop projects in an efficient manner. 

Accordingly, as previously stated, 

although the escalation of costs has not 

yet reached the $10 million level, a 

threshold increase to $10 million should 

negate the need to revisit the threshold 

issue again for a number of years. 

d. Capacity Benefits of Small Projects 

ATA Comments: ATA stated ‘‘Even if 

the highway construction cost index is 

relevant, and even if one accepts FAA’s 

‘rounding up’ of the numbers to support 

a threshold of $10 million, it does not 

follow that raising the threshold would 

merely exempt ‘relatively small projects 

with readily apparent capacity benefits’ 

at non-primary and non-hub primary 

airports, as the Notice implies. Again, 

FAA has access to data that could 

support—or refute—this point. How 

many of the BCAs prepared or reviewed 

by FAA in the past five or ten years fall 

into this category? How many of those 

projects would come under $10 million 

when adjusted for inflation? Are there 

any examples of projects in the $5–10 

million range where the capacity 

benefits were not ‘‘readily apparent’’? 

And even if some capacity benefits are 

apparent, is it always the case that those 

benefits exceed the $5–10 million cost?’’ 

FAA response: The FAA disagrees 

with the comment. The FAA is not 

proposing to exempt ‘‘’relatively small 

projects with readily apparent capacity 

benefits’ at non-primary and non-hub 

primary airports’’ from a thorough 

planning process, including an 

assessment of project benefits, by 

increasing the threshold to $10 million. 

Rather, in these instances the FAA will 

rely on the traditional master planning, 

regional metropolitan planning, or 

statewide planning processes to 

sufficiently study and analyze the 

capacity benefits of a project instead of 

requiring a separate BCA for such 

projects. 

In addressing this comment, the FAA 

reviewed 117 BCAs for capacity projects 

since the year 2000. Of those, only 12 

projects had construction costs totaling 

less than $10 million. If the threshold 

had increased to keep up with 

construction cost inflation, only one of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
65772 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 205 / Monday, October 24, 2011 / Notices 

the 12 projects with costs under $10 

million would have avoided the BCA 

requirement. Based on the data in FAA’s 

National Plan of Integrated Airport 

Systems, retaining the $5 million 

threshold is likely to create an 

unnecessary resource burden in coming 

years. In the next five years alone there 

are more than 150 projects with capacity 

codes and/or project descriptions that 

appear to be capacity-related. Of these, 

79 have total eligible project costs 

greater than $10 million which typically 

coincide with discretionary requests in 

excess of $5 million. This would likely 

result in project delays and 

corresponding increases in capital costs. 

By raising the threshold to $10 million, 

the number of projects that may require 

a BCA will increase at a significantly 

slower rate. The FAA believes this 

would preserve a prudent balance 

between analysis and expenditure of 

AIP funds, particularly since the 

planning process itself requires an 

assessment of the capacity benefits of 

such projects. 

e. Staff and Sponsor Resource 

Conservation 

ATA Comments: ATA stated, ‘‘FAA 

cites staff and sponsor resources as a 

motivating factor in raising the 

threshold, but once again offers no 

evidence to support the conclusion that 

doing so will conserve these resources. 

It would be helpful to know how many 

projects FAA expects will be newly 

exempt from the BCA requirement in 

coming years, based on past experience 

with grant requests. Furthermore, when 

the threshold was lowered from $10 

million to $5 million in 1997, it was 

done in conjunction with a shift of the 

responsibility for preparing a BCA from 

the FAA to the project sponsor. How 

much of the anticipated savings in staff 

resources will accrue to FAA, and how 

much to airport sponsors? ATA has a 

direct interest in this, since costs 

attributable to preparing BCAs are 

considered allowable airport planning 

costs, and, to the extent not covered by 

an AIP grant, may get passed back to 

airline tenants through inclusion in the 

rate base.’’ 

FAA Response: The FAA’s main 

justification in increasing the threshold 

from $5 million to $10 million is to keep 

pace with the impact of inflation on 

construction costs. Consistent with the 

original BCA policy, in increasing this 

threshold the FAA seeks to balance 

oversight of expensive, high risk 

projects with limited time and monetary 

resources. Based on the data presented 

above there is strong evidence to suggest 

that retaining the existing threshold 

would significantly increase the number 

of small capacity projects requiring 

formal BCA reviews. This would create 

additional project costs, lengthen the 

time required to implement a project, 

and create additional and duplicative 

levels of review by the FAA, airport 

staff, and airport users. Instead, the FAA 

will rely on existing master planning, 

metropolitan area planning, and 

statewide system planning to adequately 

address the capacity benefits of such 

projects. Anticipated savings will accrue 

to sponsors, airline tenants and the 

FAA, though the FAA is not currently 

able to directly quantify these savings. 

g. Full Justification of Projects 

ATA Comments: ATA stated ‘‘ATA 

recognizes that FAA’s constrained 

resources may make the prospect of 

fewer BCAs to prepare or review 

appealing, but we must point out that in 

an era of limited funding it is all the 

more important that projects be fully 

justified in terms of benefits relative to 

costs. While BCAs may not be the only 

means to do this, FAA should ensure 

that it will not lose sight of this 

principle before it raises the threshold.’’ 

FAA Response: The FAA agrees with 

the comment that all projects must be 

fully justified in terms of benefits to the 

traveling public, aviation system users, 

and neighboring communities. 

However, not all projects that compete 

for limited AIP discretionary funds are 

subject to the BCA requirement. Instead, 

the BCA process is one of many tools 

the FAA uses to determine the capacity 

benefits of potential projects. The FAA 

relies on existing master planning, 

metropolitan area planning, and 

statewide system planning processes to 

adequately analyze and address the 

capacity benefits of such projects. As 

circumstances warrant, the FAA also 

requests BCAs or other economic 

evaluations be done for projects under 

the threshold. 

Accordingly, after review of the 

public comments, the FAA has 

determined that the policy proposing to 

increase the BCA threshold from $5 

million to $10 million in AIP 

Discretionary funds should be adopted 

now. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on October 17, 

2011. 

Benito DeLeon, 

Director, Office of Airport Planning and 

Programming. 

[FR Doc. 2011–27364 Filed 10–21–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

[Summary Notice No. PE–2011–48] 

Petition for Exemption; Summary of 

Petition Received 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption 

received. 

SUMMARY: This notice contains a 

summary of a petition seeking relief 

from specified requirements of 14 CFR. 

The purpose of this notice is to improve 

the public’s awareness of, and 

participation in, this aspect of FAA’s 

regulatory activities. Neither publication 

of this notice nor the inclusion or 

omission of information in the summary 

is intended to affect the legal status of 

the petition or its final disposition. 

DATES: Comments on this petition must 

identify the petition docket number 

involved and must be received on or 

before November 14, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA– 

2011–1029 using any of the following 

methods: 

• Government-wide rulemaking Web 

site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov 

and follow the instructions for sending 

your comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to the Docket 

Management Facility; U.S. Department 

of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, Washington, DC 

20590. 

• Fax: Fax comments to the Docket 

Management Facility at 202–493–2251. 

• Hand Delivery: Bring comments to 

the Docket Management Facility in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Privacy: We will post all comments 

we receive, without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. 

Using the search function of our docket 

Web site, anyone can find and read the 

comments received into any of our 

dockets, including the name of the 

individual sending the comment (or 

signing the comment for an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19477–78). 

Docket: To read background 

documents or comments received, go to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES