19886 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, not all documents listed in 

the index may be publicly available, 

such as information that is exempt from 

public disclosure. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 7, 

2015. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08600 Filed 4–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 

13 CFR Part 115 

RIN 3245–AG70 

Surety Bond Guarantee Program; 

Miscellaneous Amendments 

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business 

Administration. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule proposes to change 

the regulations for SBA’s Surety Bond 

Guarantee Program in four areas. First, 

as a condition for participating in the 

Prior Approval and Preferred Programs, 

the proposal would clarify that a Surety 

must directly employ underwriting and 

claims staffs sufficient to perform and 

manage these functions, and final 

settlement authority for claims and 

recovery is vested only in salaried 

employees of the Surety. Second, the 

proposal would provide that all costs 

incurred by the Surety’s salaried claims 

staff are ineligible for reimbursement by 

SBA, but the Surety may seek 

reimbursement for amounts paid for 

specialized services that are provided by 

outside consultants in connection with 

the processing of a claim. Third, the rule 

proposes to modify the criteria for 

determining when a Principal that 

caused a Loss to SBA is ineligible for a 

bond guaranteed by SBA. Fourth, the 

rule proposes to modify the criteria for 

admitting Sureties to the Preferred 

Surety Bond Guarantee Program by 

increasing the Surety’s underwriting 

limitation, as certified by the U.S. 

Treasury Department on its list of 

acceptable sureties, from at least $2 

million to at least $6.5 million. 

DATES: SBA must receive comments to 

this proposed rule on or before June 15, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by RIN 3245–AG70, by any of 

the following methods: (1) Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov, following the 

instructions for submitting comments; 

or (2) Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: 

Barbara J. Brannan, Office of Surety 

Guarantees, 409 Third Street SW., Suite 

8600, Washington, DC 20416. 

SBA will post all comments on 

www.regulations.gov. If you wish to 

submit confidential business 

information (CBI) as defined in the User 

Notice at www.regulations.gov, you 

must submit such information to U.S. 

Small Business Administration, Barbara 

J. Brannan, Office of Surety Guarantees, 

409 Third Street SW., Washington, DC 

20416 or send an email to 

Barbara.brannan@sba.gov. Highlight the 

information that you consider to be CBI 

and explain why you believe SBA 

should hold this information as 

confidential. SBA will review your 

information and determine whether it 

will make the information public. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Barbara J. Brannan, Office of Surety 

Guarantees, (202) 205–6545 or email: 

Barbara.brannan@sba.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Discussion of Proposed Changes 

The U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) guarantees bid, 

payment and performance bonds for 

small and emerging contractors who 

cannot obtain surety bonds through 

regular commercial channels. SBA’s 

guarantee gives Sureties an incentive to 

provide bonding for small businesses 

and, thereby, assists small businesses in 

obtaining greater access to contracting 

opportunities. SBA’s guarantee is an 

agreement between a Surety and SBA 

that SBA will assume a certain 

percentage of the Surety’s loss should a 

contractor default on the underlying 

contract. 

This rule proposes to change the 

regulations governing SBA’s Surety 

Bond Guarantee Program (SBG Program) 

in four areas that have prompted 

questions from participating Sureties 

over the past year. First, the rule 

proposes to clarify that, to participate in 

the Prior Approval and Preferred 

Programs, a Surety must directly 

employ underwriting and claims staffs 

sufficient to perform and manage these 

functions. Final settlement authority for 

claims and recoveries is vested only in 

the surety’s claims staff. The current 

rules require PSB Sureties to vest final 

settlement authority for claims and 

recovery in their salaried employees, see 

13 CFR 115.60(a)(5), and this proposed 

rule would extend this requirement to 

Prior Approval Sureties. Some Prior 

Approval Sureties retain the final 

underwriting authority to approve a 

particular bond and some Prior 

Approval Sureties grant their agents this 

authority. For the latter arrangement, 

the proposed rule would clarify that 

Prior Approval Sureties must have 

salaried employees responsible for 

managing and overseeing the 

underwriting operations. In conducting 

such oversight, SBA would expect Prior 

Approval Sureties to periodically 

conduct reviews of the underwriting 

operations of their agents to ensure that 

the agent is underwriting SBAguaranteed bonds in accordance with 

the standards set forth in 13 CFR 

115.15(a). SBA is not aware that any 

Prior Approval Surety currently 

participating in the SBG Program is 

unable to satisfy this requirement, but is 

making this requirement explicit in the 

regulations for clarity and to avoid 

misunderstanding. PSB Sureties are 

currently required to vest underwriting 

authority in their salaried employees, 

see 13 CFR 115.60(a)(4), and the 

proposed rule would not affect this 

requirement. Accordingly, while PSB 

Sureties may allow their agents to 

perform the initial underwriting on a 

bond, the current rule requires that only 

the PSB Surety may execute the bond 

guarantee agreement (SBA Form 990 or 

990A). 

Second, the rule proposes to specify 

that the costs that the Surety incurs for 

its salaried claims staff are ineligible for 

reimbursement by SBA. SBA considers 

such costs to be integral to the Surety’s 

overhead, which is not eligible for 

reimbursement by SBA. See 13 CFR 

115.16(f)(1). Under the proposed rule, 

however, the Surety may seek 

reimbursement for amounts actually 

paid by the Surety for specialized 

services that are provided by an outside 

consultant, which is not an Affiliate of 

the Surety, in connection with the 

processing of a claim, provided that 

such services are beyond the capability 

of the Surety’s salaried claims staff. For 

example, to evaluate a claim, the Surety 

may need the opinion of a structural 

engineer to determine the Principal’s 

compliance with engineering 

specifications. SBA would not expect 

the Surety to directly employ a 

structural engineer, and SBA would 

approve reasonable costs to contract for 

this specialized service as part of the 

Surety’s Loss. 

Third, the rule proposes to modify the 

conditions under which a Principal, and 

its Affiliates, would be deemed 

ineligible for a bond guaranteed by SBA 

in the circumstance where the Principal 

has previously defaulted on an SBA 

guaranteed surety bond. Under the 

current rules, a Principal and its 

Affiliates are ineligible for further SBA 

bond guarantees if the Surety has 

requested reimbursement for Losses 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19887 

incurred under an SBA guaranteed bond 

issued on behalf of the Principal. See 13 

CFR 115.14(a)(4). However, in the Prior 

Approval Program, the current rules 

provide that SBA’s Office of Surety 

Guarantees (OSG) may agree, upon the 

Surety’s recommendation, to reinstate 

the Principal, and its Affiliates, if the 

Surety has settled its claim with the 

Principal for an amount and on terms 

accepted by OSG (13 CFR 115.36(b)(2)), 

or the Principal’s indebtedness to the 

Surety is discharged by operation of law 

(e.g., bankruptcy discharge) (13 CFR 

115.36(b)(4)), or OSG and the Surety 

determine that further bond guarantees 

are appropriate (13 CFR 115.36(b)(5)). In 

addition, in the PSB Program, the 

current rules provide that the PSB 

Surety may reinstate a Principal’s 

eligibility upon the Surety’s 

determination that reinstatement is 

appropriate (13 CFR 115.14(b)). 

SBA is proposing to modify these 

rules in two ways. First, the proposed 

rule would prohibit the reinstatement of 

a Principal if the Principal, or any of its 

Affiliates, had previously defaulted on 

an SBA guaranteed bond that resulted in 

a Loss (as defined in 13 CFR 115.16) 

that has not been fully reimbursed to 

SBA or if SBA has not been fully 

reimbursed for any Imminent Breach 

payments. The proposed rule would 

provide that the Principal, or any of its 

Affiliates, may be reinstated only if SBA 

has been fully repaid for the Loss or for 

the Imminent Breach payment. In 

addition, the discharge of the 

indebtedness in bankruptcy would no 

longer qualify the Principal for 

reinstatement. These changes would 

conform the SBG Program more closely 

to SBA’s other financial assistance 

programs under which an applicant is 

ineligible for financial assistance if it 

has caused a prior loss to the Agency. 

See 13 CFR 120.111(q). SBA believes 

that a Principal that has previously 

caused a Loss to SBA presents a higher 

risk to the Agency and should not 

receive the benefit of further SBA 

financial assistance. Under the proposed 

rule, SBA would have the authority to 

waive this prohibition for good cause. 

For example, if the Principal is able to 

show that the Loss was attributed to the 

acts or omissions of a co-owner who is 

no longer a part of the business, SBA 

could find good cause to reinstate the 

eligibility of the Principal. PSB Sureties 

would not be delegated the authority to 

make this ‘‘good cause’’ determination, 

but would continue to have the 

authority to reinstate the eligibility of a 

Principal when the Surety determines 

that further bond guarantees are 

appropriate for those Principals deemed 

ineligible under paragraphs (1), (2), (3), 

(5) or (6) of section 115.14. 

Second, the proposed rule would 

apply the same standards regarding the 

loss of eligibility and the conditions for 

reinstatement to both the Prior Approval 

Program and the PSB Program. SBA 

believes that the conditions for 

reinstatement of a Principal’s eligibility 

for SBA guaranteed bonds should not 

depend upon whether the Surety is a 

Prior Approval Surety or a PSB Surety, 

but that the reinstatement conditions 

should be uniform and apply equally to 

both Programs. 

Fourth, the rule proposes to modify 

the criteria for admitting a Surety to 

participate in the Preferred Surety Bond 

Guarantee Program by increasing the 

Surety’s underwriting limitation, as 

certified by the U.S. Treasury 

Department on its list of acceptable 

sureties on Federal bonds, from at least 

$2 million to at least $6.5 million. This 

change would conform the underwriting 

limitation to the statutory increase made 

by Public Law 112–239 in the maximum 

amount of any Contract or Order for 

which SBA may guarantee a bond. All 

PSB Sureties currently participating in 

the PSB Program would satisfy this new 

requirement. 

II. Section-By-Section Analysis 

Section 115.11. SBA is proposing to 

revise this Section by including the 

requirement that an applicant have a 

salaried staff that is employed directly 

(not an agent or other individual or 

entity under contract with the 

applicant) to oversee its underwriting 

functions and to perform all claims and 

recovery functions. This section would 

also be revised to provide that final 

settlement authority for claims and 

recovery actions must be vested only in 

the applicant’s salaried staff. In 

addition, this section would be revised 

to clarify that the applicant must 

continue to comply with SBA’s 

standards and procedures for 

underwriting, administration, claims, 

recovery, and staffing requirements 

while participating in SBA’s Surety 

Bond Guarantee Program. 

Section 115.13(a). SBA is proposing 

to revise this section by adding a new 

paragraph (7) to provide that, to be 

eligible for an SBA guaranteed bond, 

neither the Principal nor any of its 

Affiliates may be ineligible for an SBA 

guaranteed bond under the grounds set 

forth in 13 CFR 115.14. 

Section 115.14. SBA is proposing to 

modify the criteria regarding the loss of 

the Principal’s eligibility for future 

assistance and the conditions for 

reinstatement by providing that a 

Principal loses eligibility for further 

SBA bond guarantees if the Principal, or 

any of its Affiliates, has defaulted on an 

SBA guaranteed bond that resulted in a 

Loss (as defined in 13 CFR 115.16) that 

has not been fully reimbursed to SBA, 

or if SBA has not been fully reimbursed 

for any Imminent Breach payments. 

OSG would have the authority to waive 

this requirement for good cause. In 

addition, the discharge in bankruptcy of 

the Principal’s indebtedness to the 

Surety would no longer qualify the 

Principal for reinstatement. 

SBA is also proposing to apply the 

same criterion on ineligibility and 

conditions for reinstatement to both the 

Prior Approval Program and the PSB 

Program. As the same conditions for 

reinstatement would apply to both the 

Prior Approval Program and the PSB 

Program, the conditions for 

reinstatement set forth in 13 CFR 

115.36(b) and (c) would be moved in 

their entirety to 13 CFR 115.14(b) and 

(c), and the heading of this section 

would be changed to ‘‘Loss of 

Principal’s eligibility for future 

assistance and reinstatement of 

Principal’’. 

Section 115.16(e)(1). SBA is 

proposing to revise this provision to 

provide that SBA will reimburse 

amounts actually paid by a Surety for 

specialized services that are provided 

under contract by outside consultants in 

connection with the processing of a 

claim, provided that such services are 

beyond the capability of the Surety’s 

salaried claims staff. The change, 

coupled with the other changes in this 

Proposed Rule, clarifies that a Surety 

cannot outsource routine claims 

functions and responsibilities or include 

such costs in its reimbursement requests 

submitted to SBA under the bond 

guarantee agreement. With the 

exception of specialized work that falls 

outside the scope of the routine 

processing and administration of claims, 

the expectation is that the Surety will be 

able to perform the claims function at 

no cost to the Agency. 

Section 115.16(f)(1). SBA is proposing 

to revise this provision to clarify that all 

costs incurred by the Surety’s salaried 

claims staff, whether or not specifically 

allocable to an SBA guaranteed bond, 

are excluded from the definition of Loss. 

Costs incurred by the Surety’s salaried 

claims staff, like all other overhead of 

the Surety, are the responsibility of the 

Surety. 

Section 115.18(a)(2). SBA is 

proposing to revise this paragraph to 

provide that the Surety’s failure to 

continue to comply with the 

requirements set forth in section 115.11 

are sufficient grounds for refusal to 

issue further guarantees, or in the case 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19888 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

of a PSB Surety, termination of 

preferred status. 

Section 115.36. By including the 

conditions for reinstatement and the 

standard for underwriting after 

reinstatement in § 115.14(b) and (c), this 

rule proposes to rename the heading of 

this section to ‘‘§ 115.36 Indemnity 

settlements’’, delete ‘‘(a) Indemnity 

settlements.’’, renumber paragraphs 

‘‘(1)’’, ‘‘(2)’’, and ‘‘(3)’’, as ‘‘(a)’’, ‘‘(b)’’, 

and ‘‘(c)’’, respectively, and remove 

paragraphs (b) and (c). 

Section 115.60(a)(1). SBA is 

proposing to conform this provision to 

the statutory increase in the maximum 

contract amount for which a bond may 

be guaranteed by removing 

‘‘$2,000,000’’ and inserting 

‘‘$6,500,000’’ in its place. 

Section 115.60(a)(5). By including in 

§ 115.11 the requirement that all 

Sureties vest final settlement authority 

for claims and recovery only in their 

salaried claims staff, this rule proposes 

to remove 115.60(a)(5) and renumber 

the existing paragraph 115.60(a)(6) 

accordingly. Compliance with Executive 

Orders 12866, 13563, 12988, and 13132, 

the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

Ch. 35) and the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612). 

Executive Order 12866 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this 

proposed rule does not constitute a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. This rule is also 

not a major rule under the 

Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 

800). 

Executive Order 13563 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13563, SBA discussed with several 

surety companies issues regarding the 

SGB Program regulations. In particular, 

SBA discussed the underwriting and 

claims staffing requirements that 

sureties must meet in order to 

participate in SBA’s SGB Program. SBA 

also discussed with these companies the 

conditions for reimbursement of the 

costs incurred by their claims staffs. 

Generally, the sureties responded 

favorably to SBA’s position that changes 

were necessary to clarify or amend the 

regulations on these issues. 

Executive Order 12988 

This action meets applicable 

standards set forth in Sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. The action does not have 

retroactive or preemptive effect. 

Executive Order 13132 

SBA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have substantial, 

direct effects 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, for 

purposes of Executive Order 13132, 

SBA has determined that this proposed 

rule has no federalism implications 

warranting preparation of a federalism 

assessment. 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

Ch. 35 

For the purpose of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C., Chapter 35, 

SBA has determined that this proposed 

rule will not impose any new reporting 

or recordkeeping requirements. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

5 U.S.C. 601, requires administrative 

agencies to consider the effect of their 

actions on small entities, small nonprofit enterprises, and small local 

governments. Pursuant to the RFA, 

when an agency issues a rulemaking, 

the agency must prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis which describes the 

impact of the rule on small entities. 

However, section 605 of the RFA allows 

an agency to certify a rule, in lieu of 

preparing an analysis, if the rulemaking 

is not expected to have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. There are 23 

Sureties that participate in the SBA 

program, and no part of this proposed 

rule would impose any significant 

additional cost or burden on them. 

Consequently, this proposed rule does 

not meet the significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

businesses criterion anticipated by the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 13 CFR Part 115 

Claims, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Small businesses, Surety 

bonds. 

For the reasons cited above, SBA 

proposes to amend 13 CFR part 115 as 

follows: 

PART 115—SURETY BOND 

GUARANTEE 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 115 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. app 3; 15 U.S.C. 687b, 

687c, 694a, 694b note; and Pub. L. 110–246, 

Sec. 12079, 122 Stat. 1651. 

■ 2. Amend § 115.11 by adding three 

sentences at the end to read as follows: 

§ 115.11 Applying to participate in the 

Surety Bond Guarantee Program. 

* * * At a minimum, each applicant 

must have salaried staff that is 

employed directly (not an agent or other 

individual or entity under contract with 

the applicant) to oversee its 

underwriting function and to perform 

all claims and recovery functions. Final 

settlement authority for claims and 

recovery must be vested only in the 

applicant’s claims staff. The applicant 

must continue to comply with SBA’s 

standards and procedures for 

underwriting, administration, claims, 

recovery, and staffing requirements 

while participating in SBA’s Surety 

Bond Guarantee Programs. 

■ 3. Amend § 115.13 by adding 

paragraph (a)(7) to read as follows: 

§ 115.13 Eligibility of Principal. 

* * * * * 

(7) No loss of eligibility. Neither the 

Principal nor any of its Affiliates is 

ineligible for an SBA-guaranteed bond 

under section 115.14. 

■ 4. Amend § 115.14 to read as follows: 

■ a. Revise the section heading, and 

paragraphs (a)(4) and (b). 

■ b. Add paragraph (c). 

§ 115.14 Loss of Principal’s eligibility for 

future assistance and reinstatement of 

Principal. 

* * * * * 

(4) The Principal, or any of its 

Affiliates, has defaulted on an SBAguaranteed bond resulting in a Loss that 

has not been fully reimbursed to SBA, 

or SBA has not been fully reimbursed 

for any Imminent Breach payments. 

* * * * * 

(b) Reinstatement of Principal’s 

eligibility. At any time after a Principal 

becomes ineligible for further bond 

guarantees under § 115.14(a): 

(1) A Prior Approval Surety may 

recommend that such Principal’s 

eligibility be reinstated, and OSG may 

agree to reinstate the Principal if: 

(i) The Surety has settled its claim 

with the Principal, or any of its 

Affiliates, for an amount that results in 

no Loss to SBA or in no amount owed 

for Imminent Breach payments, or OSG 

finds good cause for reinstating the 

Principal notwithstanding the Loss to 

SBA or amount owed for Imminent 

Breach payments; or 

(ii) OSG and the Surety determine 

that further bond guarantees are 

appropriate after the Principal was 

deemed ineligible for further SBA bond 

guarantees under paragraph (1), (2), (3), 

(5) or (6) of section 115.14(a). 

(2) A PSB Surety may: 

(i) Recommend that such Principal’s 

eligibility be reinstated, and OSG may 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19889 

agree to reinstate the Principal, if the 

Surety has settled its claim with the 

Principal, or any of its Affiliates, for an 

amount that results in no Loss to SBA 

or in no amount owed for Imminent 

Breach payments, or OSG finds good 

cause for reinstating the Principal 

notwithstanding the Loss to SBA or 

amount owed for Imminent Breach 

payments; or 

(ii) Reinstate a Principal’s eligibility 

upon the Surety’s determination that 

further bond guarantees are appropriate 

after the Principal was deemed 

ineligible for further SBA bond 

guarantees under § 115.14(a) (1), (2), (3), 

(5) or (6). 

(c) Underwriting after reinstatement. 

A guarantee application submitted after 

reinstatement of the Principal’s 

eligibility is subject to a very stringent 

underwriting review. 

■ 5. Amend § 115.16 by revising 

paragraphs (e)(1) and (f)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 115.16 Determination of Surety’s Loss. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) Amounts actually paid by the 

Surety for specialized services that are 

provided under contract by an outside 

consultant, which is not an Affiliate of 

the Surety, in connection with the 

processing of a claim, provided that 

such services are beyond the capability 

of the Surety’s salaried claims staff; and 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) Any unallocated expenses, all 

direct and indirect costs incurred by the 

Surety’s salaried claims staff, or any 

clear mark-up on expenses or any 

overhead of the Surety, its attorney, or 

any other party hired by the Surety or 

the attorney; 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 115.18 by revising 

paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows: 

§ 115.18 Refusal to issue further 

guarantees; suspension and termination of 

PSB status. 

* * * * * 

(2) Regulatory violations, fraud. Acts 

of wrongdoing such as fraud, material 

misrepresentation, breach of the Prior 

Approval or PSB Agreement, the 

Surety’s failure to continue to comply 

with the requirements set forth in 

§ 115.11, or regulatory violations (as 

defined in §§ 115.19(d) and 115.19(h)) 

also constitute sufficient grounds for 

refusal to issue further guarantees, or in 

the case of a PSB Surety, termination of 

preferred status. 

* * * * * 

■ 7. Amend § 115.36 to read as follows: 

■ a. Revise the section heading; 

■ b. Remove the paragraph heading ‘‘(a) 

Indemnity settlements.’’; 

■ c. Remove paragraphs (b) and (c); and 

■ d. Redesignate paragraphs ‘‘(1)’’, 

‘‘(2)’’, and ‘‘(3)’’, as ‘‘(a)’’, ‘‘(b)’’, and 

‘‘(c)’’. 

§ 115.36 Indemnity settlements. 

* * * * * 

§ 115.60 Selection and admission of PSB 

Sureties. [Amended] 

■ 8. Amend § 115.60 to read as follows: 

■ a. Amend § 115.60(a)(1) by removing 

‘‘$2,000,000’’ and inserting 

‘‘$6,500,000’’ in its place; and 

■ b. Remove paragraph (a)(5) and 

redesignate paragraph (a)(6) as 

paragraph (a)(5). 

Dated: April 6, 2015. 

Maria Contreras-Sweet, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08297 Filed 4–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 23 

[Docket No. FAA–2015–0721; Notice No. 23– 

15–03–SC] 

Special Conditions: Honda Aircraft 

Company, Model HA–420 HondaJet, 

Lithium-Ion Batteries 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed special 

conditions. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes special 

conditions for the Honda Aircraft 

Company, Model HA–420 airplane. This 

airplane will have a novel or unusual 

design feature associated with the 

installation of lithium-ion (Li-ion) 

batteries. The applicable airworthiness 

regulations do not contain adequate or 

appropriate safety standards for this 

design feature. These proposed special 

conditions contain the additional safety 

standards that the Administrator 

considers necessary to establish a level 

of safety equivalent to that established 

by the existing airworthiness standards. 

DATES: Send your comments on or 

before May 4, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by docket number [FAA–2015–0721] 

using any of the following methods: 

D Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

D Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

D Hand Delivery of Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations 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. 

D Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

Privacy: The FAA will post all 

comments it receives, without change, 

to http://regulations.gov, including any 

personal information the commenter 

provides. Using the search function of 

the docket Web site, anyone can find 

and read the electronic form of all 

comments received into any FAA 

docket, including the name of the 

individual sending the comment (or 

signing the comment for an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement can be 

found in the Federal Register published 

on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477–19478), 

as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov. 

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

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Les 

Lyne, Policies & Procedures Branch, 

ACE–114, Federal Aviation 

Administration, Small Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification 

Service, 901 Locust; Kansas City, 

Missouri 64106; telephone (816) 329– 

4171; facsimile (816) 329–4090. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

We invite interested people to take 

part in this rulemaking by sending 

written comments, data, or views. The 

most helpful comments reference a 

specific portion of the special 

conditions, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include 

supporting data. We ask that you send 

us two copies of written comments. 

We will consider all comments we 

receive on or before the closing date for 

comments. We will consider comments 

filed late if it is possible to do so 

without incurring expense or delay. We 

may change these special conditions 

based on the comments we receive. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS