67664 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 219 / Monday, November 13, 2000 / Proposed Rules

kept the FAA informed of the situation

described above. The FAA has

examined the findings of the DAC,

reviewed all available information, and

determined that AD action is necessary

for products of this type design that are

certificated for operation in the United

States.

Explanation of Requirements of

Proposed Rule

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other airplanes of the same

type design registered in the United

States, the proposed AD would require

accomplishment of the actions specified

in the service bulletin described

previously.

Difference Between Proposed AD and

Brazilian Airworthiness Directive

Operators should note that the

applicability of the Brazilian

airworthiness directive includes all

Model EMB–135 and EMB–145 series

airplanes. However, the applicability of

this proposed AD points to the

effectivity of the referenced service

bulletin, which specifies affected

airplane serial numbers and provides

information on in-production airplanes.

Cost Impact

The FAA estimates that 165 Model

EMB–135 and EMB–145 series airplanes

of U.S. registry would be affected by this

proposed AD. It would take

approximately 5 work hours per

airplane (2.5 work hours per BCU) to

accomplish the proposed actions, at an

average labor rate of $60 per work hour.

Required parts would be provided by a

vendor at no charge to the operator.

Based on these figures, the cost impact

of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is

estimated to be $49,500, or $300 per

airplane.

The cost impact figure discussed

above is based on assumptions that no

operator has yet accomplished any of

the proposed requirements of this AD

action, and that no operator would

accomplish those actions in the future if

this AD were not adopted. The cost

impact figures discussed in AD

rulemaking actions represent only the

time necessary to perform the specific

actions actually required by the AD.

These figures typically do not include

incidental costs, such as the time

required to gain access and close up,

planning time, or time necessitated by

other administrative actions.

Regulatory Impact

The regulations proposed herein

would not have a substantial direct

effect on the States, on the relationship

between the national Government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government. Therefore,

it is determined that this proposal

would not have federalism implications

under Executive Order 13132.

For the reasons discussed above, I

certify that this proposed regulation: (1)

Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not

a ‘‘significant rule’’ under the DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44

FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and (3) if

promulgated, will not have a significant

economic impact, positive or negative,

on a substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft

regulatory evaluation prepared for this

action is contained in the Rules Docket.

A copy of it may be obtained by

contacting the Rules Docket at the

location provided under the caption

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation

safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

Accordingly, pursuant to the

authority delegated to me by the

Administrator, the Federal Aviation

Administration proposes to amend part

39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations

(14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS

DIRECTIVES

1. The authority citation for part 39

continues to read as follows:

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

§ 39.13 [Amended]

2. Section 39.13 is amended by

adding the following new airworthiness

directive:

Empresa Brasileira De Aeronautica S.A.

(Embraer): Docket 2000–NM–319–AD.

Applicability: Model EMB–135 and EMB–

145 series airplanes, certificated in any

category, as listed in EMBRAER Service

Bulletin 145–32–0060, Change No. 01, dated

June 6, 2000.

Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane

identified in the preceding applicability

provision, regardless of whether it has been

modified, altered, or repaired in the area

subject to the requirements of this AD. For

airplanes that have been modified, altered, or

repaired so that the performance of the

requirements of this AD is affected, the

owner/operator must request approval for an

alternative method of compliance in

accordance with paragraph (c) of this AD.

The request should include an assessment of

the effect of the modification, alteration, or

repair on the unsafe condition addressed by

this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not

been eliminated, the request should include

specific proposed actions to address it.

Compliance: Required as indicated, unless

accomplished previously.

To prevent uncommanded application of

50 percent braking in one pair of wheels,

which could result in the airplane skidding

off the runway, accomplish the following:

Replacement

(a) Within 2,000 landings after the effective

date of this AD: Replace the brake control

unit (BCU) having part number (P/N) 42–

951–1 or 42–951–2 with a new BCU having

P/N 42–951–3 in accordance with EMBRAER

Service Bulletin 145–32–0060, Change No.

01, dated June 6, 2000.

Spares

(b) As of the effective date of this AD, no

person shall install on any airplane a BCU

having P/N 42–951–1 or 42–951–2.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

(c) An alternative method of compliance or

adjustment of the compliance time that

provides an acceptable level of safety may be

used if approved by the Manager, Atlanta

Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA.

Operators shall submit their requests through

an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance

Inspector, who may add comments and then

send it to the Manager, Atlanta ACO.

Note 2: Information concerning the

existence of approved alternative methods of

compliance with this AD, if any, may be

obtained from the Atlanta ACO.

Special Flight Permits

(d) Special flight permits may be issued in

accordance with sections 21.197 and 21.199

of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR

21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to

a location where the requirements of this AD

can be accomplished.

Note 3: The subject of this AD is addressed

in Brazilian airworthiness directive 2000–07–

01, dated August 20, 2000.

Issued in Renton, Washington, on

November 6, 2000.

Donald L. Riggin,

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.

[FR Doc. 00–28968 Filed 11–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 00–ANM–16]

Proposed Modification of Class E

Airspace, Tillamook, OR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM).

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 219 / Monday, November 13, 2000 / Proposed Rules 67665

SUMMARY: This action proposes to

modify the Class E airspace at

Tillamook, OR. A new Area Navigation

(RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach

Procedure (SIAP) to Runway (RWY) 13

at Tillamook Airport has made this

proposal necessary. Additional Class E

700-feet, and 1,200 feet controlled

airspace, above the surface of the Earth

is required to contain aircraft executing

the RNAV RWY 13 SIAP with a

Terminal Arrival Area (TAA) design to

Tillamook Airport. The intended effect

of this proposal is to provide adequate

controlled airspace for Instrument Flight

Rules (IFR) operations at Tillamook

Airport, Tillamook, OR.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before December 28, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the

proposal in triplicate to: Manager,

Airspace Branch, ANM–520, Federal

Aviation Administration, Docket No.

99–ANM–16, 1601 Lind Avenue SW,

Renton, Washington 98055–4056.

An informal docket may also be

examined during normal business hours

in the office of the Manager, Air Traffic

Division, Airspace Branch, at the

address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brian Durham, ANM–520.7, Federal

Aviation Administration, Docket No.

00–ANM–16 Lind Avenue SW, Renton,

Washington 98055–4056: telephone

number: (425) 227–2527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

Interested parties are invited to

participate in this proposed rulemaking

by submitting such written data, views,

or arguments, as they may desire.

Comments that provide the factual basis

supporting the views and suggestions

presented are particularly helpful in

developing reasoned regulatory

decisions on the proposal. Comments

are specifically invited on the overall

regulatory, aeronautical, economic,

environmental, and energy related

aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify the

airspace docket number and be

submitted in triplicate to the address

listed above. Commenters wishing the

FAA to acknowledge receipt of their

comments on this action must submit,

with those comments, a self-addressed

stamped postcard on which the

following statement is made:

‘‘Comments to Airspace Docket No. 00–

ANM–16.’’ The postcard will be date/

time stamped and returned to the

commenter. All communications

received on or before the specified

closing date for comments will be

considered before taking action on the

proposed rule. The proposal contained

in this action may be changed in the

light of comments received. All

comments submitted will be available

for examination at the address listed

above both before and after the closing

date for comments. A report

summarizing each substantive public

contact with FAA personnel concerned

with this rulemaking will be filed in the

docket.

Availability of NPRM’s

Any person may obtain a copy of this

NPRM by submitting a request to the

Federal Aviation Administration,

Airspace Branch, ANM–520, 1601 Lind

Avenue SW, Renton, Washington

98055–4056. Communications must

identify the docket number of this

NPRM. Persons interested in being

placed on a mailing list for future

NPRM’s should also request a copy of

Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, which

describes the application procedure.

The Proposal

The FAA is considering an

amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal

Regulations, part 71 (14 CFR part 71) by

modifying Class E airspace at

Tillamook, OR. A new RNAV SIAP to

RWY 13 at Tillamook Airport has made

this proposal necessary. Additional

controlled airspace from 700 feet, and

1,200 feet, above the surface is required

to contain aircraft executing the RNAV

RWY 13 SIAP with a TAA design to

Tillamook Airport. The FAA establishes

Class E airspace where necessary to

contain aircraft transitioning between

the terminal and en route environments.

The intended effect of this proposal is

designed to provide for the safe and

efficient use of the navigable airspace.

This proposal would promote safe flight

operations under IFR at the Tillamook

Airport and between the terminal and

en route transition stages.

The area would be depicted on

aeronautical charts for pilot reference.

The coordinates for this airspace docket

are based on North American Datum 83.

Class E airspace areas extending upward

from 700 feet or more above the surface

of the Earth, are published in Paragraph

6005, of FAA Order 7400.9H dated

September 1, 2000, and effective

September 16, 2000, which is

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR

71.1. The Class E airspace designation

listed in this document would be

published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this

proposed regulation only involves an

established body of technical

regulations for which frequent and

routine amendments are necessary to

keep them operationally current. It,

therefore, (1) Is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies

and procedures (44 FR 11013; February

26, 1979(; and (3) does not warrant

preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation

as the anticipated impact is so minimal.

Since this is a routine matter that will

only affect air traffic procedures and air

navigation, it is certified that this rule,

when promulgated, will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as

follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,

CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND

CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS;

AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING

POINTS

1. The authority citation for 14 CFR

part 71 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113,

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR , 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9H,

Airspace Designations and Reporting

Points, dated September 1, 2000, and

effective September 16, 2000, is

amended as follows: Paragraph 6005

Class E airspace areas extending

upward from 700 feet or more above the

surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANM OR E5 Tillamook, OR [Revised]

(Lat 45°25′07′′N., long. 123°48′49′′W.)

The airspace extending upward from 700

feet above the surface within the 7.5-mile

radius of the Tillamook airport, and within

2.5 miles each side of the 334° bearing from

the airport extending to 13.8 miles; and the

airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet

above the surface within the 30 mile radius

of Lat 45°37′05′′N., long. 123°56′36′′W.,

extending clockwise from the 246° bearing to

the 064° bearing, and within the 30 miles

radius of Lat 45°39′57′′N., long.

123°47′30′′W., extending clockwise from the

064° bearing to the 154° bearing of Lat

45°37′05′′N., long. 123°56′36′′W., and within

the 30 miles radius of Lat 45°34′11′′N., long.

124°05′41′′W., extending counterclockwise

from the 244° bearing to the 154° bearing of

67666 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 219 / Monday, November 13, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Lat 45°37′05′′N., long. 123°56′36′′W.; and

excluding that airspace that extends more

than 12 miles west of the U.S. shoreline; that

airspace within Federal airways; the Astoria,

OR; the Portland-Hillsboro; and the Portland,

OR, Class E airspace areas.

* * * * *

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on October

30, 2000.

Charles E. Davis,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division,

Northwest Mountain Region.

[FR Doc. 00–28988 Filed 11–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

24 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. FR 4597–P–01]

RIN 2529–AA89

Fair Housing Act Regulations

Amendments Standards Governing

Sexual Harassment Cases

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal

Opportunity, HUD.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would

amend HUD’s Fair Housing regulations

to establish the standards the

Department will use in sexual

harassment cases.

DATES: Comment due date: January 12,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are

invited to submit comments regarding

this proposed rule to the Rules Docket

Clerk, Office of the General Counsel,

Room 10276, Department of Housing

and Urban Development, 451 Seventh

Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410.

Communications should refer to the

above docket number and title.

Facsimile (FAX) comments are not

acceptable. A copy of each comment

submitted will be available for public

inspection and copying during regular

business hours (7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.)

eastern time at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David H. Enzel, Deputy Assistant

Secretary for Enforcement and

Programs, Room 5204, Department of

Housing and Urban Development, 451

Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC

20410, telephone (202) 619–8046. (This

is not a toll-free number). Individuals

with hearing or speech impairments

may access this number via TTY by

calling the Federal Information Relay

Service at (800) 877–8339 (This is a tollfree number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION The Fair

Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3600–3620)

(referred to as ‘‘the Act’’ in this rule)

prohibits discrimination on the basis of

sex. Sexual harassment related to

housing has been uniformly recognized

by courts as a form of discrimination

based on sex and a violation of the Fair

Housing Act. Sexual harassment may

violate sections 804(a), 804(b), 804(c),

805, 806 or 818 under the Act. As the

Department’s current Fair Housing

regulations do not address the standards

to be applied in cases of sexual

harassment, courts have looked to Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42

U.S.C. 2000 et. seq.) (Title VII), and

associated case law and regulations for

guidance in Fair Housing Act cases. (See

Grieger v. Sheets, 1989 WL 38707 (N.D.

Ill); see also Henson v. City of Dundee,

682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982);

Shellhammer v. Lewallen, 770 F.2d 167

(6th Cir. 1985); Honce v. Vigil, 1 F.3d

1085 (10th Cir. 1993); Beliveau v. Caras,

873 F. Supp. 1393 (D. Cal. 1995);

Krueger v. Cuomo, 115 F.3d 487 (7th

Cir. 1997).) One court has expressed

concern about the Department’s lack of

published standards concerning sexual

harassment as a violation of the Act.

(See DiCenso v. Cisneros, 96 F.3d 1004,

1007 (7th Cir. 1996)).

The Department is promulgating this

proposed rule to provide guidance on

key aspects of evaluating sexual

harassment claims. In formulating the

Department’s position on sexual

harassment, the Department carefully

reviewed case law applying the Fair

Housing Act, case law governing Title

VII, and the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC)

guidelines and policy statements. Victims of sexual harassment at home

lose their traditional place of refuge.

‘‘When the harassment occurs in a

woman’s home, it is a complete

invasion in her life. Ideally, the home is

the haven from the troubles of the day,

when home is not a safe place, a woman

may feel distressed and often

immobile.’’ (Regina Cahan, Home is No

Haven: An Analysis of Sexual

Harassment in Housing 1987 Wis. L.

Rev. 1061, 1072 (1987).) At least two

courts have recognized that sexual

harassment in the home may have more

severe effects than harassment in the

workplace. (See Beliveau v. Caras, 873

F. Supp. 1393, 1397 (C.D. Cal. 1995);

Williams v. Poretsky Management, 955

F. Supp. 490, 497 (S.D. Md. 1996).) Sexual harassment violates the

prohibitions against discrimination on

the basis of sex found in sections 804(a),

804(b), 804(c), 805, or 806 of the Act.

Sexual harassment can also violate

section 818 of the Act, which prohibits

threatening, intimidating or coercive

verbal or physical conduct that occurs

because of an individual’s membership

in a protected class. Threatening,

intimidating or coercive verbal or

physical conduct, which occurs

between neighbors or tenants, may

constitute sexual harassment and, if so,

the offending neighbor or tenant will be

liable under section 818 of the Act.

There are two types of actionable

sexual harassment claims: ‘‘quid pro

quo’’ claims and ‘‘hostile environment’’

claims. There will be cases where the

conduct in question may support both

quid pro quo and hostile environment

claims of sexual harassment.

Proposed § 100.500(a)(1)—Quid Pro

Quo

A ‘‘quid pro quo’’ claim exists when

submission to unwelcome sexual

advances and requests for sexual favors

is made a term or condition of housing

related to the sale or rental of dwellings,

the provision of services in connection

therewith, or the availability of

residential real estate-related

transactions. Such a claim may be

established if submission to or rejection

of such conduct is used as the basis for

decisions affecting the provision of

housing or residential real estate-related

transactions and related benefits or

services. Generally, an individual

asserting a quid pro quo claim of sexual

harassment must establish the existence

of an unwelcome demand for sexual

favors based on the individual’s sex and

that the harassment adversely affected

one or more terms, conditions, or

privileges of housing or a residential

real estate-related transaction or

associated benefits or services.

Proposed § 100.500(a)(2)—Hostile

Environment

A person creates a hostile

environment when that person’s

unwelcome conduct is sufficiently

severe or pervasive that it results in the

creation of an environment that a

reasonable person in the aggrieved

person’s position would find

intimidating, hostile, offensive, or

otherwise significantly less desirable.

Generally, an individual asserting a

hostile environment sexual harassment

claim generally must establish that he or

she was subjected to unwelcome verbal

or physical conduct; the conduct was

severe or pervasive; the conduct was

based upon the individual’s sex; and the

conduct made the environment

burdensome and significantly less

desirable than if the conduct had not

occurred.

Reasonable person standard. Whether

conduct creates a hostile environment

will be evaluated from the perspective