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.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

34795 

Vol. 83, No. 141 

Monday, July 23, 2018 

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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
34796 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1The 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. 

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). 

5Memorandum 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). 

6See, e.g., 49 U.S.C. 46111(b) (allowing 

‘‘individuals’’ who are U.S. citizens to have a 

hearing on the record); § 46111(f) (‘‘An individual 

who commences an appeal’’); § 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). 

7For 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. 

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

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, statutorilymandated 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 

§§ 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

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. 

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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules 34797 

8Memorandum 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). 

9The 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, § 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. 

10See 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. noncitizen 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. 

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 § 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. 

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

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

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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
34798 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

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-forprofit 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules 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.gpo.gov/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 

■ 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. 

■ 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 TypeCertificated Products 

■ 3. Designate §§ 3.1 and 3.5 as 

subpart A. 

■ 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1
34800 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 141 / Monday, July 23, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

threat determination, the FAA will 

continue processing the individual’s 

applications. 

PART 61—CERTIFICATION: PILOTS, 

FLIGHT INSTRUCTORS, AND GROUND 

INSTRUCTORS 

■ 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). 

§ 61.18 Security disqualification [Removed 

and Reserved] 

■ 6. Remove and reserve § 61.18. 

PART 63—CERTIFICATION: FLIGHT 

CREWMEMBERS OTHER THAN 

PILOTS 

■ 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. 

§ 63.14 Security disqualification [Removed 

and Reserved] 

■ 8. Remove and reserve § 63.14. 

PART 65—CERTIFICATION: 

AIRMEN OTHER THAN FLIGHT 

CREWMEMBERS 

■ 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. 

§ 65.14 Security disqualification [Removed 

and Reserved] 

■ 10. Remove and reserve § 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 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2018–0635; Product 

Identifier 2017–NM–183–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, 

Inc. Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC–8–102, 

–103, and –106 airplanes; Model DHC– 

8–200 series airplanes; and Model DHC– 

8–300 series airplanes. This proposed 

AD was prompted by a report that a 

certain modification to the auto relight 

system is incompatible with a certain 

beta lockout system modification and 

could result in de-activation of the auto 

ignition feature of the No. 2 engine. This 

proposed AD would require an 

inspection of the auto ignition system 

and applicable rectification. We are 

proposing this AD to address the unsafe 

condition on these products. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by September 6, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 

M–30, West Building Ground Floor, 

Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this NPRM, contact Bombardier, Inc., 

Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 

Garratt Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario 

M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone 416–375– 

4000; fax 416–375–4539; email 

thd.qseries@aero.bombardier.com; 

internet http://www.bombardier.com. 

You may view this service information 

at the FAA, Transport Standards 

Branch, 2200 South 216th St, Des 

Moines, WA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call 206–231–3195. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2018– 

0635; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this NPRM, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The street address for 

the Docket Operations office (telephone 

800–647–5527) is in the ADDRESSES

section. Comments will be available in 

the AD docket shortly after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anthony Flores, Aerospace Engineer, 

Propulsion and Program Management 

Section, Chicago ACO Branch, Room 

107, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des 

Plaines, IL 60018; telephone 847–294– 

7140; fax 847–294–7834. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite you to send any written 

relevant data, views, or arguments about 

this proposal. Send your comments to 

an address listed under the ADDRESSES

section. Include ‘‘Docket No. FAA– 

2018–0635; Product Identifier 2017– 

NM–183–AD’’ at the beginning of your 

comments. We specifically invite 

comments on the overall regulatory, 

economic, environmental, and energy 

aspects of this NPRM. We will consider 

all comments received by the closing 

date and may amend this NPRM based 

on those comments. 

We will post all comments we 

receive, without change, to http://

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information you provide. We 

will also post a report summarizing each 

substantive verbal contact we receive 

about this NPRM. 

Discussion 

Transport Canada Civil Aviation 

(TCCA), which is the aviation authority 

for Canada, has issued Canadian AD 

CF–2017–21R1, dated June 28, 2017 

(referred to after this as the Mandatory 

Continuing Airworthiness Information, 

or ‘‘the MCAI’’), to correct an unsafe 

condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., 

Model DHC–8–102, –103, and –106 

airplanes; Model DHC–8–200 series 

airplanes; and Model DHC–8–300 series 

airplanes. The MCAI states: 

During the incorporation of the Auto 

Relight modification per Bombardier SB 

[Service Bulletin] 8–74–02 on an aeroplane 

with a Beta Lockout System (BLS) installed, 

it was noticed that if SB 8–74–02 is 

incorporated in conjunction with, or after the 

incorporation of BLS SB 8–76–35 ([Canadian] 

AD CF–2013–15) or SB 8–76–24 (FAA AD 

2000–02–13 [Amendment 39–11531 (65 FR 

4095, January 26, 2000)]), the #2 engine auto 

ignition function of the beta lockout system 

will not be available when the beta lockout 

system is activated. This condition, if not 

corrected, may result in a #2 engine 

uncommanded in-flight shut down. 

To preclude any future occurrence of the 

noted deficiency, Bombardier has issued SB 

8–74–02 Revision B to highlight its 

incompatibility with post SB 8–76–35 or 8– 

76–24 BLS compliant aeroplanes. In 

addition, Bombardier issued a new SB, 8–74– 

06 for Auto Relight System modification that 

can be incorporated in conjunction with or 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS1