BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATBE c E I v ED 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

Application of: 

TRANS NORTH AVIATION, LTD. 

for the Award of Fees and Expenses 

Under the Equal Access to Justice Act 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

JUN 1 0 2015 

HEARING DOCKET 

FDMS No. FAA-2014-1117 

______________________ ) 

COMPLAINANT'S ANSWER TO THE APPLICATION 

FOR THE AWARD OF ATTORNEY FEES AND EXPENSES 

UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 

Pursuant to section 14.22 of the Rules Implementing the Equal Access to Justice Act of 

1980, 14 C.F.R. § 14.22 (20 15), the Complainant files this answer to the application for fees and 

expenses in this matter under the Equal Access to Justice Act of 1980 (EAJA). Prior counsel for 

the Complainant previously circulated to the Judge and to the Applicant her assessment of the 

deficiencies in the application. That document is appended to this answer as Attachment A. The 

present document summarizes and expounds on the EAJA application's previously identified 

deficiencies. 

-----------------------t;- The Applicant's key exhibit calculating-the fees and expenses ineltldes t\vo 

mathematical errors. Application for Award of Fees and Expenses, Exhibit 24. The initial error 

is that the Applicant rounded upward the reported attorney work hours from 195:51 to 196. 

Compare id. with Application for Award Fees and Expenses, Exhibit 22 at 13. The secondary 

and compounding error is that Applicant's addition of the requested fees and expenses is simply 

wrong. Application for Award of Fees and Expenses, Exhibit 24. As a result, even before 
2 

subtracting the fees and expenses erroneously claimed, the Applicant's request requires 

recalculation. 

The Applicant's claim of 195.85 hours at a rate of $192 per hour equals $37,603.20. The 

addition to this sum of the Applicant's claimed expenses of $600.89 brings the Applicant's total 

adjusted request to $38,204.09. 

2. The application seeks fees and expenses that are not permitted under the 

applicable regulations. Section 14.05(e) of the Federal Aviation Administration rules 

implementing EAJA expressly provides that "[f]ees may be awarded only for work performed 

after the issuance of a complaint. ... " 14 C.P.R.§ 14.05(e). The Complainant filed the 

complaint in this matter on April 11, 2013. A copy of the complaint is appended to this answer 

as Attachment B. 

Despite the rule's clarity, the application enumerates over three pages of fees that predate 

the filing of the complaint in this matter. Application for A ward ofF ees and Expenses, 

Exhibit 22 at 1-4. The total amount of time that the Applicant claims before the filing of the 

complaint is 37:20, which when multiplied by the rate of$192 per hour, has a value of 

$7,167 36 In addition, the Applicant claims expenses totaling $25.04 that predate the filing of 

the complaint. Accordingly, the Applicant's adjusted request identified in section one, above, 

must be reduced by $7,192.40 as matter oflaw. 

3. It is well settled that administrative agencies have the discretion to use a formal 

adjudicatory process to announce new principles, including the interpretation of agency 

regulations. National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267, 290-95 (1974)(citing 
3 

Securities Exchange Comm'n v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194 (1947); National Labor Rei. Bd. v. 

Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759 (1969)). See also Union Flights, Inc. v. Administrator, Fed. 

Aviation Admin., 957 F.2d 685, 688-89 (9th Cir. 1992). "The views expressed in Chenery II and 

Wyman-Gordon make plain that the [National Labor Relations] Board is not precluded from 

announcing new principles in an adjudicative proceeding and that the choice between rulemaking 

and adjudication lies in the first instance within the Board's discretion." Bell Aerospace, 416 

U.S. at 294. In such instances, any concern regarding a new interpretation's adverse effect on a 

party due to reliance on past agency pronouncements can be alleviated through a waiver of the 

sanction for the underlying conduct. Bell Aerospace, 416 U.S. at 295. 

In the present matter, on December 23,2010, the FAA published in the Federal Register a 

Notice of Proposed Interpretation of the regulation underlying this case. 75 Fed. Reg. 80,746 

(Dec. 23, 2010). A copy of the notice is appended as Attachment C. The FAA's Notice of 

Proposed Interpretation was fully consistent with the interpretation of 14 C.P.R. § 135.267(d) 

that the Complainant propounded in this case. In light of the Notice of Proposed Interpretation 

and the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Bell Aerospace, the Complainant had the legal 

authority to initiate and pursue this case under the legal theory that the Complainant advanced. 

However, the Complainant was no longer substantially justified in pursuing this case 

when the FAA published its withdrawal of the Notice of Proposed Interpretation on November 7, 

2013. A copy of the Withdrawal of the Notice of Proposed Interpretation is appended as 

Attachment D. As of that date, at Congress' direction, the FAA abandoned its effort to 

implement the interpretation underlying the Complainant's case. 
4 

The total amount of time that the Applicant claims before the FAA's withdrawal of the 

Notice of Proposed Interpretation on November 7, 2013, is 107: 11, which when multiplied by 

the rate of$192 per hour, has a value of$20,579.20. In addition, the Applicant claims expenses 

totaling $494.64 that predate publication of the withdrawal of the FAA's proposed interpretation. 

Accordingly, the Applicant's adjusted request, in addition to the reduction set forth in section 

two, above, should be reduced by an additional $13,881.44 

CONCLUSION 

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Applicant's corrected application amount, totaling 

$38,204.09 in attorney fees and expenses, should be reduced by a cumulative amount of 

$21,073.84. Therefore, the total amount awarded to the Applicant under EAJA should be no 

more than $17,130.25. 

Respectfully submitted, 

cJ 

James W. Tegtmeier 

Deputy Regional Couns 1, AGL-7 A 

------------------------rQWfflfi~ce~orf~meltegTii~on~aml~C~o~unnws~el~---------------

Dated: June 5, 2015 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 E. Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

(847) 294-7058 
5 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, certified 

return-receipt requested, two copies of the Complainant's Answer to the Application for the 

Award of Attorney Fees and Expenses Under the Equal Access to Justice Act in the Application 

of Trans North Aviation, Ltd., FDMS Docket No. FAA-2014-1117, addressed to: 

and to: 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, ALJ 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Paul R. Borth, Esq. 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

Suite 200 

800 Waukegan Road 

Glenview, IL 60025 

In addition, I hereby certify that on this date I have sent by U.S. mail, postage prepaid, 

certified return-receipt requested, the original and two copies of the foregoing document to: 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

·-·--··----·-·--------------"W"'litDur wngn.-t Bl'hTuiffild"'i"nn-g,"'3"'u'"it"'e-42~W\I"'jHQlfQiflQ----------

Dated: June 5, 
• L 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

----------------1@-t;,c,.........CQpy 

IN THE MATIER OF 

TRANS NORTH AVIATION, LTD 

FAA DOCKET NO. (12-GL-03-0012) 

FDMS NO. (FAA-2014-1117) 

(formerly FDMS No. 2013-0046) 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

ADlVIINISTRATOR'S RESPONSE TO APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF 

ATTORNEY'S FEES AND EXPENSES UNDER 

THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 

INTRODUCTION 

-------------'fHH&Nefth-Avi:a!i:frn;-Hd. (hereinafter Trans North) is <moo-demaud air taxi that operates under 

a C.P.R. part 135 Air Carrier Certificate with required Operation Specifications. Mr. Ronald 

Schaberg is the President and at all the times mentioned herein the Director of Operations for 

Trans North. The case involved the violation of 14 C.F.R. part 267(d). 

An aircraft owned and operated by Trans North Aviation Crashed just short ofthe runway at 

Chicago Executive Airport on November 28, 2011 at 10:39 p.m. killing three people. An 

investigation into the crash was performed. The Aviation Safety Inspector assigned to 

investigate the accident gathered the evidence at the scene and reviewed the evidence for 

EXHIBIT 1 

I A 
violations for the Federal Aviation Regulations that governed Part 135. Evidence that Inspector 

gathered from the scene and afterward indicated that the pilot violated the required rest 

period when he flew the aircraft from Palm Beach, Florida to Jessup, Georgia for fuel stop and 

then to Chicago Executive Airport {TR. Pgs. 65-66). 

On or about November 26,2011, Mr. Schaberg, accepted an assignment to provide an air ambulance 

flight to transport a hospital patient from West Palm Beach, Florida Airport (airport identifier KPBI) to 

Chicago Executive Airport (identifier KPWK) in Illinois. After receiving the assignment he contacted one 

of Trans North's pilots on November 26, 2011, Mr. Didier, and gave him verbal instruction to fly aircraft 

N4599F a Cessna Model CE 340 to West Palm Beach, Florida, pick up a hospital patient and then fly to 

Chicago Executive Airport in Illinois with the patient. He was to be accompanied on the trip by a 

paramedic, Maynard Blodgett, who would care for the patient on the return trip (Tr. pgs. 210-212). 

The initial plan included a flight to West Palm Beach on November 27, 2011, an overnight stay, fuel 

stops and picking up and transporting the patient to begin a late morning flight to Chicago Executive 

Airport on November 28, 2011. Schaberg identified this as his plan "A" for the trip during his testimony 

(Tr. pgs. 218-226)1

. 

Due the original aircraft having a malfunction, another aircraft had to be provided for the air ambulance 

flight. Mr. Schaberg testified that he once again reviewed the planning of the flight since it was to occur 

in the afternoon instead the morning. He had no evidence that he did that and he gave verbal planning 

instructions to the pilot Didier. 

Other than his testimony, Mr. Schaberg had no other proof that he had reviewed these flight plans or 

-··-------i:hat"they-tTa:lt~-ciTeLkeO.I'Ie testtflecttnanneTngnnouTff11i•sare1Ynown smce afffieenaortlie- - - -

planned completion of the assignment Pilot Didier would have still met his 10 hours of rest. There would 

have been 10 1/2 hours of rest time at the completion of the assignment (Tr. Pgs. 224-22.9). Mr. 

Schaberg knew at that time that the rest time requirement of 135.267(d) was being cut close (by a half 

1 During this testimony Mr. Schaberg was referring to proposed Exhibit R-I which was a printed recreation of what 

he said he did to prepare for the flight under "Plan A" however using a computer this document was prepared on 

July 21, 2013. The document was prepared in summer weather during daylight; the flight in question to took 

place at the end ofNovember 2011 after sunset, in cold winter weather. The Judge accepted it into evidence for a 

limited purpose over objections by the Administrator. The Judge stated it would be used to only show the 

procedures required to prepare a flight plan. Mr. Schaberg failed to print out either the flight plan for Plan A or 

plan B prior to the actual fligiht. 

2 
hour) and that almost any delay in this flight would result in a violation of the 10 hour rest period. Once 

the ambulance was late in arriving at the airport Mr. Schaberg was required to 

After an lnf"rmal Conference, Notice and Final Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty the Agency went 

forward with an Order Assessing a Civil Penalty for $7500.00. Trans North appealed the Order and the 

Agency filed its Complaint April11, 2013 then Trans North filed it Answer on April24, 2013 admitting all 

allegations except one. A hearing was held on July 23, 2013. 

The Administrative Law Judge issued his decision on September 25, 2014 finding that Respondent 

violated 14 C.F.R. Section 135.267(d) which states that each assignment under paragraph (b) of this 

section must provide for at least 10 consecutive hours of rest during the 24 hour-hour period that 

precedes the planned completion time of the assignment and assessed a $7500 Civil Penalty. 

Trans North Aviation Appealed the Administrative Law Judge's decision and the Administrator withdrew 

the Complaint with prejudice. 

The Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) requires the government to pay certain attorney fees 

and costs to a prevailing party unless the government establishes that its position was 

substantially justified or that special circumstances would make an award of fees unjust. 

5 U.S. C.§ 504(a)(l). 

THE APPLICABLE LAW 

----------- -----------------F oftlie-Administi3tor' s position to be found substantially justified it must be reasonable 

in both fact and law, i.e., the facts alleged must have a reasonable basis in truth, the legal theory 

propounded must be reasonable, and the facts alleged must reasonably support the legal theory. 

US. Jet v. Administrator, NTSB Order No. EA-3817 at 2 (1993); Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 

552, 565, 108 S.Ct. 2541 (1988). This standard is less stringent than that applied at the merits 

phase of the proceedings, where the Administrator must prove his case by a preponderance of the 

reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. Accordingly, the FAA's failure to prevail on the 

merits does not preclude a fmding that its position was nonetheless substantially justified under 

3 
the BAJA. See US. Jet v. Administrator at 3; Federal Election Commission v. Rose, 806 F.2d 

1081, 1087 (D.C. Cir. 1986). 

The evidence in this case shows that the Administrator was substantially justified in bringing this 

action. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 504(a)(l), attorney fees and other expenses should not be assessed 

against the United States where the Agency's position as a party to the proceeding was 

substantially justified. The Board, in McCrary v. Engerr, 5 NTSB 1235 (1986), stated that the 

question of whether the Administrator had "substantial justification" for bringing his action is 

determined on the basis of the "administrative record, as a whole." Citing, United States v. 

2,116 Boxes of Boned Beef, 726 F.2d 1481 (lOth Cir., 1984), the Board in McCrary referred to 

the above noted three-prong test to assist in determining "substantial justification" based upon 

the administrative record as a whole. 

Similar pronouncements are made in NTSB decisions.2 In Caruso v. Administrator, NTSB 

Order No. EA-4165 at 6 (May 25, 1994), the Board states "In evaluating the government's 

actions at the BAJA stage, the adjudicating authority need only find that it 'acted slightly more 

than reasonably, even though not in compliance with substantive legal standards applied at the 

merits phase."' Federal Election Commission v. Rose, supra. 

The standard, however, should not be read to raise a presumption that the 

Government's position was not substantially justified, simply because it lost its 

----------==-Ntlf;-ift-facl;-®es-the-standafd require the Govern meAt to es!ablish-lllat-ffs--------------

decisioll to litigate was based 011 a substa11lial p10babilily of p1 evaili11g. [H. R. 

Rep. No. 96-1418, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 11 (1980); S. Rep. No. 96-253, 96th 

Cong., 1st Sess. 7 (1979)] (Emphasis added.) 

The Board does not separately examine each allegation of the government's case to determine 

whether it is substantially justified. Rafter v. Administrator, NTSB Order No. EA-4313 at 5 

(February 10, 1995). Rather, the examination must be broadly focused. Wieland & Perry v. 

Administrator, NTSB Order No. EA-4406 (November 30, 1995). Thus, the government's case 

2 See e.g., Application of Crocker, NTSB Order No. EA-4750 (1999); Application of Finnell, NTSB Order No. EA4427 at 4 (March 6, 1996); Wieland and Perry v. Administrator, NTSB Order No. EA-4406 (November 30, 1995) 

4 
must be examined as a whole, and each position taken by the government must be viewed in 

light of how it affected the case as a whole. An unreasonable position on an inconsequential 

aspect of the case would not render the whole case unjustified, but an unreasonable position on a 

very narrow point might if it was an important point. Rafter, supra. 

ARGUMENT 

The defense of this case was based upon an interpretation issued November 13, 2012, after the 

FAA issued a Notice of Proposed Civil Penalty that was issued to Trans North on July 12, 2012 

and after an. Informal Conference was held. The Kidd interpretation was started by a request for 

an interpretation sent to the Office of Chief counsel on July 12, 2012. It asked several questions 

regarding 14 C.P.R. 267 (d). Question 2: Effect of Delays: which set up a scenario of a flight 

crew that was scheduled to start a duty assignment that is supposed to begin at 0800z and end at 

2100z, (14 hours) with three different flight segments, each of which is scheduled to be 3 hours 

long. (9 hours of flight time). The scenario then sets up a number of delays that are beyond the 

control" of the certificate holder and states they may nevertheless be "conducted" even though 

crew duty time may extend beyond the planned completion of the final flight (more than 14 

hours). The fmal warning about the doctrine is that the original completion time planned must 

have been realistically scheduled as stated in another earlier interpretation.3 

In order to use this interpretation as a defense the planned completion time must be realistic. In 

this case however it was not. The planned time only allowed for a half hour of delay before the 

flight encroached on the 1 0 hour rest period. The flight was planned to take place in the dark and 

-----------tntowinterweath:er inthe ehlcag<nrrea-:-We-Jmowftmfughtfutlowirrgth:atthe-actuatfitghr------- ------

with the fuel stop took approximately 5 Y, hours when the plan was for a 4 Y, hour flight. When 

the aircraft crashed the pilot was into his rest period by 2.5 hours or more. We do not believe the 

flight time completion was realistically planned as the Administrative Judge found. 

Agency's closing arguroent referenced a 2000 (The Whitlow Letter) (Exhibit 2) interpretation 

which applied to Part 121 operators with regard to rest periods. On December 23, 2010 the 

Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration addressed Interpretation of 

3 See letter to Kevin Wilson from Donald P. Byme Assistant Chief counsel of Regulations and Enforcement 

Division (March 30, l992).(quoting and emphasizing a portion of the regulatory text form §l35267(d)) 

5 
Rest Requirements. A Notice of Proposed Interpretations was issued in an effort to clarify 

interpretations ofPartl35.267 (d) with regard to restrequrrements. 

The substance of the Notice was described as follows: 

"The FAA's 2000 interpretation stated that the language of section 121.471(g) created au 

exception to the pilot flight time limitation, but did not provide an exception for pilot rest 

requirements See November 20, 2000, Letter to Captain Richard D. Rubin from James W. 

Whitlow, Deputy Chief counsel "Whitlow Letter" The Whitlow Letter's validity was 

subsequently upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and since that time has 

consistently applied the Whitlow Letter to in its interpretations of section 121.471 (g)" 

(Exhibit 2). 

The proposal additionally explains that "The FAA has determined that it is illogical that the -, 

nearly-identical regulatory language in sections 121.471(g) and 135.263(d) is interpreted in two 

different ways .... As such the FAA proposes to apply the Whitlow Letter's interpretation of 

121.4 71 (g) to sections 13 5.263 (d) and 13 5.267 (d) .... application of the Whitlow Letter would 

supersede any contrary pre Whitlow interpretation of these sections. Under the proposed 

interpretation, section 135.263( d) would not create an exception for flight crew members rest 

requirements. 

Clearly by submitting this proposed interpretation the FAA held the position that Section 

135.263(d) could not create an exception to the flight crew member rest requirements. That if 

m •mfirghtrweredelayect'lmtatlowe-dttrconttnue·unctertl5.263fd)itwouf"c1not creareany-excepuonto l35.267(d) rest requirements which is the position that the Federal Aviation Administration 

held in this case. 

However, due to pressure applied to the Agency this proposal was withdrawn November 7, 2013. 

"Section 346 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of2012 provided that the 

Administrator of the Federal Aviation may not finalize the interpretation proposed in Docket No. 

F AA-2110-1259, relating to the rest requirements, and published in the Federal Register on 

December 23,2010. 

6 
It does not change the fact that rest is required of pilots to insure the safety of flights in air 

transportation that was envisioned when the Rules were created in 1985. The Agency relied on 

the interpretations that had been in existence since 2000. 

The agency represents that they were always substantially justified in going forward "With this 

case in the interest of safety and should not be charged with EAJA fees. 

Should any EAJA fees are granted they should not begin to accrue until after the November 7, 

2013, withdrawal of the Notice of Proposed Interpretation. 

Respectfully submitted, 

eanette B. Daubaras 

FAA Attorney, Great Lakes Region. 

7 
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINSTRATION 

OBJECTIONS TO ATTORNEY'S FEES UNDER EAJA 

FILED BY Borth and Barnett 

Charges on pages 1-3 of 13 are not recoverable under because they were incurred prior to the filing of 

the Complaint: All 2012 and some charges in 2013. 

Total 38:45 hours to be subtracted from total. 

Charges that were incurred between the filing of the Complaint and until the Notice of Proposed 

Interpretation was withdrawn on November 7, 2013, as requested by the FAA Attorney reflects an 

amount of 54.45 hours at 2013 rates. 

Respondent claims 196.00 total however that should absolutely be reduced by 38:45 hours for fees 

incurred before filing of the Complaint. Total hours after reduction is 157:15. 

If fees are assessed then the amount should be reduced by the time that the Notice of Proposed 

Interpretation was in effect until November 7, 2013. The amount of hours should be reduced by 54:45 

which leaves a total of 102:30. 

If fees are assessed the agency respectfully requests that the hours to be reimbursed be reduced to: 

102:30. 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing was served via overnight mail and fax to the 

Judge and facsimile and -'regular man· d\1r. Barnett, ill, Esq. Respondents Representative 

at the following addresses and facsimile numbers: 

Original and One Copy: 

One Copy: 

Judge Richard C. Goodwin 

Hearing Docket 

Office of Hearings M20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor 

RoomE12-320 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Fax 202-366-7536 

Charles R Barnett, III 

Counsel for Respondent 

Barnett & Borth, LLC 

800 Waukegan Road, Ste_ 200 

Glenview, IL 60025 

Fax (815) 356-7042 

Dated this 27th day of March 2015 

--------------~~~ 

FAA Great Lakes 
i'ii"~f!-1. 

80746 Federal Register/Yo!. 75, No. 246/Thursday, December 23, 2010/Proposed Rules 

Subject 

(d) Joint Aircraft SyStem Component 

(JASC)/ Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 55: Stabilizers. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD was Prompted by a report of 

a crack found in the upper center skin pand 

at the aft inboard corner of a right horizontal 

stabilizer. We are issuing this AD to detect 

and conect cracks in the horizontal stabilizer 

upper center skin paneL Uncorrected cracks 

might ultimately lead to the loss of overall 

structural integrity ofthe horizontal 

stabilizer. 

Compliance 

(f) Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

Inspections 

(g) Before the accumulation of20,000 total 

flight cycles, or within 4,379 flight cycles 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever 

occurs later, do eddy current inspections to 

detect cracking of the left and right upper 

center skin panels ofthe horizontal stabilizer, 

in accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions ofBoeing Alert Service Bulletin 

MD80-55A068, dated July 16,2010. 

(1) If no crack is found during any 

inspection required by paragraph (g) ofthis 

AD, repeat the applicable inspections 

thereafter at the applicable times specified in 

paragraph l.E., "Compliance,""ofBoeingAlert 

Service Bulletin MD80-55A068, dated July 

16,2010. 

CFR25.571, Amendment 45, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

Related Information 

(i) For more information about this AD, 

contact Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer, 

Los Angeles ACO, Airframe Branch, ANM120L, FAA Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 

Office, 3960 Paramount Blvd, Lakewood, CA 

90712--4137; telephone: (562) 627-5233; fax: 

(562) 627-5210; e-mail: 

roger .durbin@faa.gov. 

G) For service information identified in this 

AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 

Attention: Data &Services Management, 3855 

Lakewood Boulevard, MC D800--0019, Long 

Beach, California 90846-0001; telephone 

206-544-5000, extension 2; fax 206-766-

5683; e-mail dse.boecorn@)oeing.com; 

Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.corn. You 

may review copies of the referenced service 

information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, the FAA, 1601 Lind AvenueSW., 

Renton, Washington. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, call 

425-227-1221. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on 

December 16,2010. 

Ali Bahrami, 

Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FRDoc. 2010-32209 F:iled 12-22-10; 8:45am) 

BILLING CODE 4910-1:>-P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 135 

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1259] 

Interpretation of Rest Requirements 

2010-1259 using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regu.lations.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., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12-140, West Building 

Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-

0001. 

• Hand Delivery: 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. 

• Fax: (202) 493-2251. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex 

Zektser, Attorney, Regulations Division, 

Office of Chief Counsel, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 

267-3073; e-mail: Alex.Zektser@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

The FAA invites interested persons to 

submit written comments, dat~ or 

views concerning this proposal. 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, please se:nd only 

one copy of written comments, or if you 

are filing comments electronically, 

please submit your comments only one 

(2) If any crack is found during any 

inspection required by paragraph (g) of this 

AD, before further flight, replace the skin 

panel with a serviceable skin panel, in 

accordance with the Accomplishment 

Instructions ofBoeing Alert Service Bulletin 

MD80-55A068, dated July 16,2010. Within 

20,000 flight cycles after the replacement, do 

eddy current inspections as required by 

paragraph (g) ofthis AD. AGENCY: Federal Aviation time. 

Administration (FAA), DOT. The FAA will file in the docket all 

Alternative Methods of Compliance ACTION: Notice of proposed comments received, as· well as a report 

(AMOCs) interpretation. summarizing each substantive public 

(h){l) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft contact with FAA personnel concerning 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the SUMMARY: This action proposes to this proposal. Before acting on this 

------------ ----··auth-orlty-to-a1Jprove--AMOfrfurtlris-:A:.fr,-IT---·-rriTerprenlieap p lr cafl@·-orr4CFK---. -prop o-sal,t1leFAA-W11TCOnsrd-ei-8.1l 

reauested using the procedu_res found in 14 1:;5 2153 aa9 tQg n:st n:quireme:t:ltS gf Gg;g,:u;aeRts n~sgivgEl GR e:r Befere the 

CFR39.19. In accordance wr!h 4 0'R39-

19, § 135.267(d) to situations in which a closing date for comments and an latesend your request to your pnncrpal mspector . , . - d . . . . y 

1 1 FI-ght St d d 0 . t · t O:ffi fhght crewmember s fhght tlme excee s filed comments rfrt rs possrble to do so or oca 1 an ar s IS nc ce, as th . .bl 1

. .

1 d t •th t · · d 1 Th 

appropriate. Ifsendinginfonnation directly . e permrssr e IIDI S ~e 0 / WI ou mcurnng e::pense or ~ ay_. e 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the cucumstances beyond hrs or her ~ FAA may change thrs proposal m light 

attention of the person identified in the controL As discussed below, the FAA of comments received. 

Related Information section ofthis AD. issued several interpretations 1 (2) Before using any approved AMOC, 1 addressing this issue in the 1990s. 

notifY your Principal Maintenance Inspector V However, because the proposed 

or Princ~pal Avioni:s Inspe~to~, as_ interpretation relies heavily on a 

appropnate, or lackmg a pnncrpal mspector, seminal FAA interpretation issued in 

your local Flight Standards District Office. 2000 th d · t t f ld 

{3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable • e propose _m erpre a lOU wou 

level of safety may be used for any repair ~upersede ~ny preVIOUS contrary 

required by this AD if it is approved by the mterpretanons of§§ 135.263 and 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization l35.267(d). 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has DATES: Comments must be received on been authorized by the Manager,. Los Angeles 4 ACO, to make those findings. For a repair 

method to be approved, the repair must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane and 14 

or before January 2 , 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by docket number FAAAvailability of This Proposed 

Interpretation 

You can get an electronic copy using 

the Internet by-

(1) Searching the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal 

(http:/ I www.regula tions.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.gpoaccess.goyJ.fr/index.htmL 
Federal Register/Val. 75, No. 246/Thursday, December 23, 2010/Proposed Rules 80747 

Yo11 can also get a copy by sending a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration, Office ofRulemaking, 

ARM-I, 800 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by 

calling (202) 267-9680. Make sure to 

identifY the docket number or notice 

number of this proposal. 

Background 

The FAA has been asked to provide 

a legal interpretation regarding the 

application ofl4 CFR 135.263 and 

l35.267(d) to the following factual 

scenario. 

An operator plans a flight that is 

anticipated to be completed within a 

13.5-hour duty day. However, 

unanticipated delays (such as late 

passengers and late cargo) occur before 

the last leg of the flight, and these 

delays would extend the flight beyond 

a 14-hour duty day if the last leg is 

completed. The proposed interpretation 

would clarify whether the crew may 

take off on the last leg of the flight, 

knowing in advance that they will not 

receive the 10 hours ofrest required in 

a 24-hour period by section 135.267(d). 

Discussion of the Proposal 

Section l35.267(d) of Title 14 of the 

Code ofFederal Regulations requires 

that a flight assignment operating under 

section 135.267(b) and (c) must provide 

for at least 10 consecutive hours ofrest 

· during the 24-hour period that precedes 

the planned completion time of the 

assignment. Under this seCtion, a duty v 

day may not exceed 14 hours in a 24-

hour period without infringing on the 

required rest time. However, section 

l35.267(d) works in conjunction with 

14 CFR 135.263 (d), which provides that: 

is nearly identical to section l35.263(d). 

That section, 14 CFR 121.4 71 (g), states 

that: 

A flight crewmember is not considered to 

be scheduled for flight time in excess of flight 

time limitations if the flights to which he is 

assigned are scheduled and normally 

terminate within the limitations, but due to 

circumstances beYond the control ofthe 

certificate holder (such as adverse weather 

conditions), are not at the time of departure 

expected to reach their destination within the 

scheduled time. 

The FAA's 2000 interpretation stated 

that the language of section l2L47l(g) 

created an exception to pilot flight time 

limitations, but did not provide an 

exception for pilot rest requirements. 

See Nov. 20,2000, Letter to Captain 

Richard D. Rubin from James W. 

Whitlow, Deputy Chief Counsel 

('Whitlow Letter"). The Whitlow 

Letter's validity was subsequently 

upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the DC Circuit, and since that time, the 

FAA has consistently applied the 

Whitlow Letter in its interpretations of 

section 121.471(g). See Air Transport 

Ass'n of America, Inc. v. F.A.A., 291 

F.3d 49 (DC Cir. 2002) (upholding the 

validity of the Whitlow Letter). See, e.g., 

Mar. 18, 2009, Letter to William E. 

Banks, Jr. from Rebecca B. MacPherson, 

. Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations 

(noting that section 121.471(g) does not 

crewmember was to be aware at the time 

of departure on the last leg of the flight 

that he or she has not had the required 

rest, 14 CFR l35.267(d) would prohibit 

him or her from departing on the last leg 

ofthe flight. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 

17,2010. 

Rebecca B. MacPherson, 

Assistant ChiefCounsel for Regulations, 

AGC-200. 

[FR Doc. 2010-32234 Filed 12-22-10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910---13-P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Part 39 

RIN 3038-AD10 

End-User Exception to Mandatory 

Clearing of Swaps 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission ("'CFTC" or 

"Commission') is proposing new 

requirements governing the elective 

exception to mandatory clearing of 

swaps available for swap counterparties 

meeting certain conditions under 

Section 2(h)(7) of the Commodity 

Exchange Act, as amended by the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act. The Commission is 

provide an exception for rest 

requirements); Jan. 11, 2005, Letter to 

Jan Marcus from Rebecca B. 

MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel 

for Regulations (same). 

The FAA has detennined that it is requesting comments on the proposed 

illogical that the nearly-identical rule and related matters. 

regulatory language in sections DATES: Comments must be received on 

121.47l(g) and 135.263(d) is interpreted or before February 22,2011. 

in two different ways. See Air Transport ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, Afligbtcrewmemberisnotconsideredto Ass'n,291F.3dat51 n.l (statingthat "d t"fi db RIN b beassignedflighttimeinexcessofflighttime 1 en 1 e Y num er3038-AD10, 

limitations if the flights to which he is "[t]he su~stance ~fthe rules in Parts 121 by any of the follo:ving_m~thods: 

assigned normally terminate within the and 135 Is_ esse?U~lly the sam,e and the • _Agency Web Site, vta rts Comments 

----- -!+m-i-ffi-!:i-efrs-;-hu-t--frtte-to-cirettm-sfftnees--b-e'jfifttl---Iules..are..ll.kewJSe-ID:ter.p.re:te.d.2..")...-A~-...Q.:a.l-ffi.e-~~--- -------------··-· 

the control of the certificate holder or flight the FAA proposes to apply the Whrtlow comments.cftc. ov. Follow the 

crewmem er such as adverse weather etter's mterpretation of12L47l(g) to instructions for submitting comments 

conditions), are not at the time of departure sections 135.263(d) and 135.267(d). through the Web site. 

expected t? rea~h their destination within the /Because the_Whitlow ~etter and the • Mail: ~a~id A. Stawick, Secretary of 

planned flight time. l subsequent mterpretatwns based on the the Commtsswn, Commodity Futures 

In the 1990s, the FAA interpreted \Whitlow- Letter are more recent than the Trading Commission, Three Lafayette 

sections 135.263 (d) and l35.267(d) to (I 990s interpretations of sections Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW ., 

permit flight crewmembers to take off \l35.263(d) and 135.267(d), the Whitlow Washington, DC 20581. 

on flights that were scheduled to be )Lett,er line of interpretations best reflects ~ Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as 

completed within a 14-hour duty period \the FAA's current understanding of the mail above. 

even though circumstances beyond the pertinent regulatory language. As such, • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

crewmembers' control extended the the proposed application of the Whitlow www.regalations.gov. Follow 

actual duty time beyond the permissible Letter to sections 135.263(d) and instructions for submitting comments. 

14-hour period. See, e.g., Aug. 30, 1993, l35.267(d) would supersede any Please submit your comments using 

Letter to Mr. Ross from Donald P. Byrne, contrary pre-Whitlow interpretations of only one method. All comments must be 

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations these sections. submitted in English, or if not, 

and Enforcement; Mar. 30, 1992, Letter Under the proposed interpretation, accompanied by an English translation. 

to Kevin Wilson from Donald P. Byrne. section l35.263(d) would not create an Comments will be posted as received to 

However, in 2000, the FAA issued a exception for flightcrewmember rest http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit 

seminal interpretation of a section that requirements. As such, if a flight only information that you wish to make 
u.s Department 

or TronsporJonon 

Federol Avlo!ion 

Admin!. 

NOV 2 0 2000 

Captain Richard D. Rubin, Chairmau 

Allied Pilots Association 

14600 Trinity Boulevard 

Suite 500 

Fort Worth, Texas 76155-2512 

Dear Captain Rubin: 

BOO Independence Ave., S.W. 

Washington. D.C. 20591 

This is in response to your recent letter to me, of September 26, 2000, concerning 

vanous questions that have arisen as a result of the implementation of changes to 

the pilot reserve system at Americau Airlines. Your questions are based on the 

flight time and rest regulations that are applicable to domestic operations. 

The facts, situations and questions that you present are set forth below. I have also 

responded to each question separately below. 

Facts: A crew is assigned reserve standby duty commencing at 0600. 'Ibey are 

then called at 0900 to check in for a flight assignment at II 00. 

End ofRest Report at Release at Sched. Rest Look-back Rest 

Day l 0600 1100 2100 10:00 9:00 

Day2 0700 0700 1700 12:00 !0:00 

In the above example, assume that the crew was assigned to three segments with a 

...... -------- ____ tQ!aLof!ess tlwn &houl;s_o.ffl,-ingin.eaclu:luzy_periruLaud!hatthe.£ched!Jled __________ __ _ __ 

block in gffue !ll&t llight of each day i£ 15 minute; prior to release This original 

schedule does not require compensatory rest. 

I note, prelil1linarily, that your letter states that I should assume that the flight crew 

"was assigned to three segments with a total of!ess thau 8 hours of flying in each 

duty period." I assume that by that statement you meau "less than a total 8 hours 

of scheduled flight time for the three flight segments, on both Day 1 and Day 2." 

Based on that assumption, the regulations that I will apply are those that require a 

minimum of9 consecutive hours of scheduled rest (section 121.47l(b)(l)) that 

may be reduced to a minimum of 8 hours with aminimum of l 0 hours 

compensatory rest that must begin no later than 24 hours after the commencement 
-2-

of the reduced rest (section 121.471( c)(l)(the "reduced/compensatory rest" 

exception)). I have also made other assumptions or clarifications that are 

described in my responses below. 

Situation 1: On Day 1,-all goes according to plan on the frrst two segments. 

However, after leaving the gate on the third segment, the crew encounters an 

unanticipated ground delay that results in only an 8 hour, 45 minutes look-back 

rest period upon termination at destination. 

1. Is compensatory rest now required upon landing? 

Response: You do not provide specific details on what is the tennination 

time of the last flight segment (I assume that by "termination at 

destination" you mean the "termination of the last flight segment") 

However, you state, above, that the flight crew would only receive an 8 

hours and 45 minutes look-back rest period. I therefore assume that the 

termination of that last flight segment, based on the other factual details 

you provide above, was at2115. Lookingback24hours from2115 on Day 

l to 2115 on the day prior to Day l, one finds only 8 and three quarters 

consecutive hours of rest in iheperiod 2115 (of the day prior to Day l) to 

0600 hours (on Day 1 ). 

The only situation iii which a certificate. holder may reduce the minimum 9 

hour required rest period is to utilize the "reduced/compensatory rest" 

exception that allows certificate holders the flexibility to adjust scheduled 

rests in ihe event of late arrivals. Thus, a certificate holder may reduce ihe 

required scheduled rest so that one fmds a minimum look-back rest of 8 

consecutive hours on termination of the last flight segment, as well as 

provide the required comjl_ensatory rest. In your scenar~, _ _t]:teeertificate_ 

mum - _m____ - l:ioldercoul<:lieauceiheregiiirecCillilliiDliffi9co!lse~liti~e hours of 

scheduled rest to 8 and three-quarters hours.1 However, the certificate 

holder must also provide the flight crewmember \vith a compensatory rest 

period of at least 10 hours that must begin no later than 24 hours after 

commencement of the reduced rest period. In your scenario, that 

compensatory rest must begin at 2115 on Day l, since the reduced rest 

begins at2115 on-the day before Day L 

1 I note t_f}at the certificate holder could reduce the scheduled rest to a minimum of8 bours. 
-:-_ 

. ' 

' 

-3-

2. In the case ofa ground delay prior to take-off, wonld the crew and 

certificate holder be correct in using planned flight time and taxi-in time in 

determining the scheduled arrival time'? 

Response: The FAA requires the crew and the certificate holder to use the 

actual expected flight time and taxi-in time, based on the specific 

conditions that exist on the day, to determine the scheduled arrival time for 

purposes of determining whether a flight should he commenced. For 

example, if an airline has published a flight time of three hours, but knows 

that the actual time the flight will take is four hours because of weather, 

ground delays, etc., then the FAA requires the carrier to use four hours for 

purposes· of calculating the arrival time. On the other hand, if the air carrier 

has scheduled a flight for three hours, but on the day in question, it is 

reasonable to conclude that flight time would only be two and~ half hours, 

the carrier may nse two and a half hours to calculate the arrival time. 

3. If the ground delay continues to the point that the look-back rest is 

reduced below 8 hours, can the crew continue? If so, what are the rest 

requirements upon arrival? 

Response: The flight may not take off if the look-back rest period is 

reduced to less than 8 hours. There must be at least an eight-hour lookback rest period. The eight-hour mimmuni reduced rest may not be further ; 

reduced under any circumsta.11ce. 

4. If a ground delay, that would result in a late arrival that would not 

provide at least 8 hours oflook-back rest is known by the certificate holder 

and/or crew prior to gate departure, can the crew depart legally based upon 

the published scheduled flight time? 

Response: No. As stated above, the FAA reqwres the crew and the 

certificate holder to use the actual expected flight time and taxi-in time, 

based on the specific conditions that exist on the day, t~rmine the 

scheduled arrival time for purposes of determining whether a flight should 

be commenced. If the actual expected flight time is longer than the carrier 

originally calculated in determining the scheduled arrival time, then the 

actual expected flight time must be used in determining the look-back rest 

period. 
Situation 2. On Day 1, the crew is late inbound on the second segment which 

results in not being able to leave the gate on the third and last segment on time. 

As a result, the look -back would now provide 8 hours and 45 minutes rest in the 

previous 24, based on the scheduled duration of the final segment. 

L Is compensatory rest now required upon arrival? 

Response: Yes. Compensatory rest would be required upon arrival at the 

third destination. See the discussion in my response to question l of 

Situation 1 above. 

2. If the crew were further delayed so that they could not depart to provide 

at least 8 hours of look-back rest upon arrival; could they depart legally? 

Response: No. If, when using the actual expected flight time, the carrier 

cannot find at least 8 hours of look -back rest upon arrival, then the flight 

may not depart, under the FAA regulations. See my response to question 3 

of Situation 1 above. 

3. If there is a k..-:town ground stop for the destination of the final segment, 

which would result in look-back rest of only 7 hours and45 minutes, can 

the crew legally leave the gate? If they are off the gate when the ground 

stop occurs, can they continue? 

Response: If it is known, or reasonably should be known, that the flight 

time will be extended because of ground stops at the destination airport, 

then this information must be included in determining the actual expected 

flight time. If; when this information is factored in, it is known or should 

be known that an:ival based upon the actual expected flight time will not 

---result-imrt-teast-8-bum of look taclnest;rtn.:rcthe-llignr:may-nofTeaveme--

gate. [f the flight is away from the gate, but JS not yet rn the arr, then the 

flight may not take off. lf!he grouod stops at the destination airport do not 

become known until after the flight is in the air, the FAA will not, as a 

matter of enforcement policy, take enforcement action agai!lSt the flight 

crewmember or the certificate holder for a violation of the regulations, 

provided the ground stops at the destination airport are an unforeseen delay 

beyond the control of the certificate holder and the full, required miniroum 

reduced rest and the compensatory rest are given at the completion of the 

flight segment. 
-5-

4. Should the scheduled arrival time iu 3 above be based upon published 

scheduled flight time or flight planned duration (flight time plus taxi time)? 

Response: Arrival time it> 3 above should be based on flight planned 

duration, i.e., the-actual expected flight time based on the conditions 

existing on the day in question. Also, I am not sure what you mean by 

"published scheduled flight time." If you mean scheduled flight time as 

published in the Official Airline Guide (OAG), such flight time may be 

uorealistically high. Sometimes a certificate holder might overestimate the 

duration of a flight in order to have ·some cushion in the schedule and be 

able to report an on-time arrival. The actoal realistic flight time (block to 

block time) may be less than such "published scheduled flight time" in the 

OAG. 

5. Would the reason for the crew being late on the second flight (beyond 

the control. of the air carrier or not) have any bearing on the rest 

requirement? 

.Response: I assume that your question is whether section 121.47l(g) (the 

"circumstances beyond the control of the certificate holder" exception) 

excuses a rest vioiaticm. No. That exception applies only to the scheduling 

of flight time. It is inapplicable to, and does not excuse, a violation of a 

rest requirement. Also see my response to question 1 of Situation 1 in 

which I discuss the use of the "reduced/compensatory rest" exception, its 

purpose, and compliance with its terms. 

Situation 3: On Day 1, one of the carrier's hubs is impacted by a weather system in 

the morning. As a result, the carrier decides to delay all remaining departure times 

that day out of the hub .. 

1. If a departnre so delayed wrn1ld result io a CW" h;p<iiJg !GGk back rest of 

less than 9 hours, would compensatory rest be required? 

Response: Yes. (I assume that the look-back rest, which is less than 9 

hours, would still be at least 8 hours.) 

2. If the delay resulted in a crew having look-backrest ofless than 8 hours, 

could a crew legally depart? 

Response: No. The FAA would consider this flight to be in violation of the 

regulations. 
-6-

Situation 4. The crew and air carrier iqlow, prior to departure, that forecast winds 

or enroute weather are resulting in a flight plan for that segment that exceeds the 

normal duration published in the carriers schedules. 

1. Can the crew legally depart if the scheduled arrival time based on the 

flight plan would encroach upon or delay the required start of a 

.compensatory rest period? 

Response: I assume that the questions for Situation 4 relate to Day 1 and to 

the last flight segment. I am not sure what you mean by "published in the 

canier's schedules." See my response to question 4 in Situation 3 above. 

If you mean that the crew and certificate holder know, prior to take-off, that 

en route weather conditions will result in the flight taking longer than 

expected, then my answer is as follows. Even if the expected tem1ination 

of the last flig.'It segment would allow a minimum 8 consecutive hours 

look-back rest period, if the crew and certificate holder expect, prior to 

take-off, that the flight will infringe on the required start of the 

compensatory rest period, the crew may not legally depart Thus, although 

the actual flight time might exceed flight time limits and although 

exceeding flight time limits in these circu!IlStances would be allowed unde1 

L'le "circumstances beyond the control of the certificate holder" exception, 

that exception does not permit an encroachment on reduced rest or 

compensatory rest below the minimums specified in the regulations. 

2. If the original cre>vTnember's schedule did not require compensatory 

rest, woUld corr,pensatory rest be required if the scheduled arrival based 

upon the flight plan information resulted in the crewmember having less 

tha;1 9 hours of look-back rest upon arrival? 

u _ __ _ __ _ _______ R\Olij20l!S<;;;_JLuJlon_ termination mlb.e!a:;tJ;light~at,-1:00~-res:t--

. was acnmlly less than 9 bonrs, tbPJJ. compgRs:iJery r&st is req;rired 

regardless of the scheduled arrival. 

3. If the original crewmernber's schedule did not require compensatory 

rest, wquld the crewmember be legal to depart if the scheduled arrival 

based upon the flight plan infonnation resulted in the crewmember having 

less than 8 hours of look -back rest upon arrival? 

Response: No. If, at the time of departure, it is calculated that a pilot will 

have less than 8 hours of look -back rest upon termination of the last flight 

segment, then the flight may not take off. Tne intention to give 

i 
' . 

-7-

compensatory rest may not be used to permit a pilot to take a flight when it 

is known at the beginning ofth.e flight that the pilot will have less 

than 8 hours oflook-back rest upon termination of the last flight segment. 

I hope these responses will be helpful to you. 

Sincerely, 

James W. Whitlow 

Deputy Chief Counsel 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

IN THE MATTER OF 

TRANS NORTH AVIATION, LTD. 

FAA DOCKET NO. (not assigned) 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS NO. (not assigned) 

FAA CASE NO. 2012-GL-03-0012 

COMPLAINT 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), by counsel, hereby files its Complaint, 

pursuant to Rule 208 of the Rules of Practice (14 C.F.R. 13.208), and states as follows: 

I. 

1. Trans North Aviation Inc. (hereinafter, "Trans North") now 

holds and at all times mentioned herein held Air Carrier 

_________ _ ______ i:ertificate __ Nmnher__EREA4A3D__tha_t __ a:u_thDri_z_es_'I'r an s R=:tb__to_ _____________ _ 

conduct operatlons under Part 135 of the Eederal Aviatlon 

Regulations. 

2. At all times mentioned herein, William Didier, holder of 

Airline Transport Pilot Certificate Number 3067631, was 

authorized to conduct Trans North's commercial flight operations 

under -both Part 91 and Part 135. 

EXHIBIT 

I B 
3. On November 28, 2011, Mr. Didier was the Pilot-in-Command of 

a Piper, PA-31-350, N59773, on a Part 135 flight operated by 

Trans North from Jessup-Wayne County Airport, Georgia (KJES), 

with an intended destination of Chicago Executive Airport, 

Wheeling, Illinois (KPWK) (hereinafter referred to as the 

flight) . 

4. The flight ended when N59773 crashed short of Chicago 

Executive Airport in Wheeling, Illinois. The crash resulted in 

three fatalities, including two passengers and Mr. Didier. 

5. Trans North assigned Mr. Didier as Pilot-in-Command of the 

flight on November 28, 2011, which did not provide for at least 

10 consecutive hours of rest during the 24-hour period that 

preceded the planned completion time of the flight assignment. 

II. 

1. By reason of the foregoing facts and circumstances, Respondent violated the 

following section of the Federal Aviation Regulations: 

14 CFR Section 135.267(d), which states that each assignment 

under paragraph (b) of this section must provide for at 

least 10 consecutive hours of rest during the 24-hour period 

t_ha t pre c e dco s_ !J:l~ _ _p_l a llll_e _cj_co~p lE;_t~()[l_ t im"'_o f__t:_ll<:;_~f3_s i gf1rn~n_t . 

2. Pursuant to Title 49 of the United States Code, Section 46301 (49 U.S.C. § 

46301), Respondent is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $11,000 for each violation alleged. 

3. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, a civil penalty of $7500.00 is 

appropriate. 

2 
WHEREFORE, the Agency, by counsel, respectfully requests that the Adnllnistrative 

Law Judge enter an Order that Respondent be assessed a civil penalty in the amount of 

$7,500.00. 

Respectfully submitted this II th day of April, 2013 

Jeanette B Daubaras, Attorney 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7G 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018 

Telephone: 

Facsimile: 

Email: 

(84 7) 294-7313 

(847) 294-7498 

jeanette.b.daubaras@faa.gov 

3 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing Complaint was served via Certified Mail, Return 

Receipt Requested and Regular mail as follows: 

Original and One Copy: 

One Copy 

One Copy: 

Hearing Docket 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S. W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attn: Hearing Docket Clerk 

AGC-430, Wilber Wright Building 

Suite 2Wl000 

Mr. Ronald J. Schaberg 

President 

Trans North Aviation LTD 

Eagle River Airport 

PO Box 1445 

Eagle River, WI 54521 

Charles R. Barnett, III 

1664 Moorland Lane 

Crystal Lake, IL 60014-2985 

Dated this ll th day of April, 2013. 

4 

Yolanda Quiles 

Legal Technician 

FAA Great Lakes 
60746 Federal Register I Vol. 75, No. 246 I Thursday, December 23, 2010 I Proposed Rules 

Subject 

(d) Joint Aircraft System Component 

(JASC)/Air Transport Association (ATA) of 

America Code 55: Stabilizers. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD was prompted by a report of 

a crack found in the upper center skin panel 

at the aft inboard corner of a right horizontal 

stabilizer. We are issuing this AD to detect 

and correct cracks in the horizontal stabilizer 

upper center skin panel. Uncorrected cracks 

might ultimately lead to the loss of overall 

structural integrity of the horizontal 

stabilizer. 

Compliance 

(f) Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

CFR 25.571, Amendment 45, and the 

approval must specifically refer to this AD. 

Related Information 

(i) For more information about this AD, 

contact Roger Durbin, Aerospace Engineer, 

Los Angeles ACO, Airframe Branch, ANM1201, FAA Los Angeles Aircraft Certification 

Office, 3960 Paramount Blvd, Lakewood, CA 

90712-4137; telephone: (562) 627-5233; fax: 

(562) 627-5210; e-mail: 

roger.durbin@jaa.gov. 

{j} For service information identified in this 

AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 

Attention: Data & Services Management, 3855 

Lakewood Boulevard, MC DB00-0019, Long 

Beach, California 90846-0001; telephone 

206-544-5000, extension 2; fax 206-766-

5683; e-mail dse.boecom@boeing.com; 

Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You 

may review copies of the referenced service 

Inspections information at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

(g) Before the accumulation of 20,000 total Directorate, the FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

flight cycles, or within.4,379 flight cycles Renton, Washington. For information on the 

after the effective date of this AD, whichever availability of this material at the FAA, call 

occurs later, do eddy current inspections to 425-227-1221. 

detect cracking of the left and right upper Issued in Renton, Washington, on center skin panels of the horizontal stabilizer, December 16, 2010, in accordance vvith the Accomplishment 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin Ali Bahrami, 

:MD80-55A068, dated July 16, 2010. Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, 

(1) If no crack is found during any Aircraft Certification Service. 

inspection required by paragraph (g) of this [FR Doc. 2010-32209 Filed 12-22-10; 8:45 am] 

2010-1259 using any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http:/ lwww.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., West Building Ground 

Floor, Room W12-140, West Building 

Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-

0001. 

• Hand Delivery: 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. 

• Fax: (202) 493-2251. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex 

Zektser, Attorney, Regulations Division, 

Office of Chief Counsel, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 

267-3073; e-mail: Alex.Zektser@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

AD, repeat the applicable inspections BILLING CODE 4910_13_p The FAA invites interested persons to 

thereafter at the applicable times specified in submit written comments, data, or 

paragraph i.E., "Compliance," of Boeing Alert views concerning this proposal. The 

Service Bulletin MDB0- 55ADBB, dated July DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION most helpful comments reference a 16

r'z )~~~~y crack is found during any specific portion of the proposal, explain Federal Aviation Administration tb 1 d d inspection required by paragraph (g) of this e reason or any recommen e 

AD, before further flight, replace the skin change, and include supporting data. To 

panel with a serviceable skin panel, in 14 CFR Part 135 ensure the docket does not contain 

accordance with the Accomplishment duplicate comments, please send only 

Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin [Docket No. FAA-2010- 12591 one copy of written comments, or if you 

MDS0-55AOB8, dated July 16,2010. Within are filing comments electronically, 

20 DOD fl. ht 1 It th 1 t d Interpretation of Rest Requirements , 1g eye es a er e rep acemen ' 0 please submit your comments only one 

eddy current inspections as required by AGENCY: Federal Aviation time. 

paragraph (g) of this AD. Administration (FAA], DOT. The FAA -will file in tho docket all 

Alternative Methods of Compliance ACTION: Notice of proposed comments received, as well as a report 

(AMOCs) interpretation. summarizing each substantive public 

(h)(1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft contact with FAA personnel concerning 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the --~i.:!-~-~~Y~J]_l~~-~0_bQ_~_Q~QP~~-~-!~------ ____ this _ErQP~og. ~ef9r~ a0IQS_QI!__Qli~ __ ----- ----autnOrity:TO-ipJiTO-ve-AJ\1ITCSWrliifSAIJ,II ___ interpret the application of 14 CFR proposal, the FAA will consider all 

rg~grtod Y&ing t.h.<J procedllnl£ fonnd in 14 135.263 and the xeslxequhemenls of comments xeceived on 01 befoxe the 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, § 135.267(d] to situations in which a 

~~~~Ja~~;;;~u~:~~~~~r&~~~ic~f~fj~~~:~tor flight crewmember's flight time exceeds 

appropriate. If sending information directly the permissible limits due to 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the circumstances beyond his or her 

attention of the person identified in the control. As discussed below, the FAA 

Related Information section of this AD. issued several interpretations 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, addressing this issue in the 1990s. 

notify your Principal Maintenance Inspector However, because the proposed 

or Principal Avionics Inspector, as interpretation relies heavily on a 

appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, seminal FAA interpretation issued in 

yo~) ~~a~~~~t~:~p~~~~~~si:i~~~~~~~·le 2000, the proposed interpretation would 

level of safety may be used for any repair supersede any previous contrary 

required by this AD if it is approved by the interpretations of§§ 135.263 and 

Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization 135.267(d). 

Designation Authorization (ODA) that has 

been authorized by the Manager, Los Angeles 

ACO, to make those findings. For a repair 

method to be approved, the repair must meet 

the certification basis of the airplane and 14 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before January 24, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by docket number FAAclosing date for comments and any latefiled comments if it is possible to do so 

without incurring expense or delay. The 

FAA may change this proposal in light 

of comments received. 

Availability of This Proposed 

Interpretation 

You can get an electronic copy using 

the Internet by~ 

(1) Searching the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal 

(http :I /v.rww.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"W'jlilcbiilp~~~g~e~a~t~ Lh~t~t~~~: ... //!l,l!lllllllll' www.gpoaccess. 1 EXHIBIT 

I C 
Federal Register I Vol. 75, No. 246 I Thursday, December 23, 2010 I Proposed Rules 80747 

You can also get a copy 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. Make sure to 

identify the docket number or notice 

number of this proposal. 

Background 

The FAA has been asked to provide 

a legal interpretation regarding the 

application of 14 CFR 135.263 and 

135.267(d) to the following factual 

scenario. 

An operator plans a flight that is 

anticipated to be completed within a 

13.5-hour duty day. However, 

unanticipated delays (such as late 

passengers and late cargo) occur before 

the last leg of the flight, and these 

delays would extend the flight beyond 

a 14-hour duty day if the last leg is 

completed. The proposed interpretation 

would clarify whether the crew may 

take off on the last leg of the flight, 

knowing in advance that they will not 

receive the 10 hours of rest required in 

a 24-hour period by section 135.267(d). 

Discussion of the Proposal 

Section 135.267(d) of Title 14 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations requires 

that a flight assignment operating under 

section 135.267(b) and (c) must provide 

for at least 10 consecutive hours of rest 

during the 24-hour period that precedes 

the planned completion time of tho 

assignment. Under this section, a duty 

day may not exceed 14 hours in a 24-

hour period without infringing on the 

required rest time. However, section 

135.267(d) works in conjunction with 

14 CFR 135.263(d), which provides that: 

is nearly identical to section 135.263(d). 

That section, 14 CFR 121.471[g), states 

that: 

A flight cre'Wlllember is not considered to 

be scheduled for flight time in excess of flight 

time limitations ifthe flights to which he is 

assigned are scheduled and normally 

terminate within the limitations, but due to 

circumstances beyond the control of the 

certificate holder (such as adverse weather 

conditions), are not at the time of departure 

expected to reach their destination within the 

scheduled time. 

crewmember was to be aware at the time 

of departure on the last leg of the flight 

that he or she has not had the required 

rest, 14 CFR 135.267(d) would prohibit 

him or her from departing on the last leg 

of the flight. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on Decembor 

17, 2010. 

Rebecca B, MacPherson, 

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, 

AGC-200. 

[FR Doc. 2010-32234 Filed 12-22-10; 8:45am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Part 39 

RIN 3038-AD1 0 

End-User Exception to Mandatory 

Clearing of Swaps 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

The FAA's 2000 interpretation stated 

that the language of section 121.471(g) 

created an exception to pilot flight time 

limitations, but did not provide an 

exception for pilot rest requirements. 

See Nov. 20, 2000, Letter to Captain 

Richard D. Rubin from James W. 

Whitlow, Deputy Chief Counsel 

("Whitlow Letter"). The Whitlow 

Letter's validity was subsequently 

upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the DC Circuit, and since that time, tho 

FAA has consistently applied the 

Whitlow Letter in its interpretations of 

section 121.471(g). See Air Transport 

Ass'n of America, Inc. v. F.A.A., 291 

F.3d 49 (DC Cir. 2002) (upholding the SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures 

validity of the Whitlow Letter). See, e.g., Trading Commission ("CFTC" or 

Mar. 18, 2009, Letter to William E. "Commission") is proposing new 

Banks, Jr. from Rebecca B. MacPherson, requirements governing the elective 

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations exception to mandatory clearing of 

(noting that section 121.471(g) does not swaps available for swap counterparties 

provide an exception for rest meeting certain conditions under 

requirements); Jan. 11, 2005, Letter to Section 2(h)(7) of the Commodity 

Jan Marcus from Rebecca B. Exchange Act, as amended by the DoddMacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

for Regulations (same). Protection Act. The Commission is 

The FAA has determined that it is requesting comments on the proposed 

illogical that the nearly-identical rule and related matters. 

regulatory language in sections DATES: Comments must be received on 

121.471(g) and 135.263(d) is interpreted or before February 22, 2011. 

in two different ways. See Air Transport ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, A flight crewmember is not considered to A ' F d ( · h ss n, 291 '.3 at 51 n.1 statmg t at identified by RIN number 3038-AD10, be assigned flight time in excess of flight time [ ]h b limitations if the flights to which he is " t e su. stance ~f the rules in Parts 121 by any of the follo':'lfing .m~thods: 

assig11od normally terminate withinthe _ _ and 135 Is. esso~h~lly the same and the • Agency Web site, vw Its Comments ----------- -------- nm-rta tTons;-DUfOUe--tO-diCUillSl3ii:C-i:r"SD-eyonu---rute-s-a:re--likewis e III ter prete-cPrT,--A-s--suclr,-------on-Hrre-praces~--frttp-;f!------------------------

tHe GQRtrgl gffi~B t;;~;>l!tifica+e h_glQer gr flight the FAA proposes to apply the Whjtlow comments cftc gmr Follow the 

crewmember (such as adverse weather Letter's interpretation of 121.471(g) to instructions for submitting comments 

conditions), are not a~ the ti~e ?f dep.art.ure sections 135.263 (d) and 135.267(d). through the Web site. 

expected t? rea~h theu deshnahon w1thm the Because the Whitlow Letter and the • Mail: David A. Stawick, Secretary of 

planned flight tlme. subsequent interpretations based on the the Commission, Commodity Futures 

In the 1990s, the FAA interpreted Whitlow Letter are more recent than the Trading Commission, Three Lafayette 

sections 135.263(d) and 135.267(d) to 1990s interpretations of sections Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., 

permit flight crewmembers to take off 135.263(d) and 135.267(d), the Whitlow Washington, DC 20581. 

on flights that were scheduled to be Letter line of interpretations best reflects • Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as 

completed within a 14-hour duty period the FAA's current understanding of the mail above. 

even though circumstances beyond the pertinent regulatory language. As such, • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

crewmembers' control extended the the proposed application of the Whitlow wwvv.regulations.gov. Follow 

actual duty time beyond the permissible Letter to sections 135.263(d) and instructions for submitting comments. 

14-hour period. See, e.g., Aug. 30, 1993, 135.267(d) would supersede any Please submit your comments using 

Letter to Mr. Ross from Donald P. Byrne, contrary pre-Whitlow interpretations of only one method. All comments must be 

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations these sections. submitted in English, or if not, 

and Enforcement; Mar. 30, 1992, Letter Under the proposed interpretation, accompanied by an English translation. 

to Kevin Wilson from Donald P. Byrne. section 135.263(d) would not create an Comments will be posted as received to 

However, in 2000, the FAA issued a exception for flight crewmember rest http://www.cftc.gov. You should submit 

seminal interpretation of a section that requirements. As such, if a flight only information that you wish to make 
Federal Register/Val. 78, No. 216/Thursday, November 7, 2013/Proposed Rules 66865 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 135 

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1259] 

Interpretation of Rest Requirements 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed 

interpretation; withdrawal. 

SUMMARY: On December 23, 2010, FAA 

published a Notice of Proposed 

Interpretation seeking public comment 

on the application of certain rest 

requirements during on-demand 

operations. Section 346 of the FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 

provided that the Administrator of the 

Federal Aviation Administration may 

not finalize the interpretation proposed 

in Docket No. FAA-2010-1259, relating 

to rest requirements, and published in 

the Federal Register on December 23, 

2010. Consistent with this statute, no 

further action will be taken with regard 

to this interpretation. 

DATES: The notice of proposed 

interpretation published December 23, 

2010, at 75 FR 80746 is withdrawn as 

of November 7, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Robert Frenzel, Manager, Operations 

Law Branch, Regulations Division, 

Office of Chief Counsel, Federal 

Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 

267-3073; email: 

Robert.Frenzel@jaa.gov. 

Issued in Washlngton, DC, on October 31, 

2013. 

Mark W. Bury, 

--------------- _____ A.s.Ei_stant_Chi.ej_Cnn..n.selfm_Intern a tin n a I T ow~ 

Legislation and Regulations, AGC-200. 

[FR Doc. 2013 26485 Filed 11 6 13; 8:45 arnJ 

BILLING CODE 491G-13-P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter VI 

Negotiated Rulemaking Committee, 

Notice of Change to Schedule of 

Committee Meetings-Title IV Federal 

Student Aid Programs, Gainful 

Employment in a Recognized 

Occupation 

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary 

Education, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to establish 

negotiated rulemaking committee. 

SUMMARY: On June 12, 2013, we 

announced our intention to establish a 

negotiated rulemaking committee to 

prepare proposed regulations to 

establish standards for programs that 

prepare students for gainful 

employment in a recognized 

occupation. We also announced the 

schedule for committee meetings. 

Because of the Federal Government 

shutdown due to a lapse in 

appropriations, we are rescheduling the 

second session of committee meetings to 

November 18-20, 2013. In addition, tho 

last day of the second session will end 

at 5:00p.m. instead of at noon. 

DATES: The dates, times, and locations 

of the committee meetings are set out in 

the Schedule for Negotiations section 

under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information about the content of this 

notice, including information about the 

negotiated rulemaking process, contact: 

Wendy Macias, U.S. Department of 

Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 

8017, Washington, DC 20006. 

Telephone: (202) 502-7526 or by email: 

wendy.macias@ed.gov. 

For general information about the 

negotiated rulemaking process, see The 

Negotiated Rulemaking Process for Title 

IV Regulations, Frequently Asked 

Questions at http://www2.ed.gov/policy! 

highered!reg/hearulemaking/heaOB!negreg-faq.html. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf or text telephone, 

ca11 the Federal Relay Service, toll free, 

at 1-800-877-8339. 

Individuals with disabilities can 

obtain this document in an accessible 

format (e.g., braille, large print, 

audiotape, or compact disc) on request 

to the program contact person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 

Because of the shutdown of the 

Federal Government due to the recent 

lapse in appropriations for fiscal year 

2014, we announce that we are 

rescheduling the second session of 

committee meetings from October 21-

23, 2013 to November 18-20, 2013. 

In addition, we announce that the 

meeting on the final day, November 20, 

2013, will run from 9:00a.m. to 5:00 

p.m., rather than from 9:00a.m. to 12:00 

p.m. The revised schedule for the 

second session follows. 

Schedule for Negotiations: The 

committee will meet for its second and 

final session on November 18-20, 2013. 

The session will run from 9:00 a.m. to 

5:00p.m. each day. 

The meetings will be held at the U.S. 

Department of Education at: 1990 K 

Street NW., Eighth Floor Conference 

Center, Washington, DC 20006. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of the Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. You may also 

access documents of the Department 

published in the Federal Register by 

using the article search feature at: 

wvvw.federalregister.gov. Specifically, 

tlrrough the advanced search feature at 

this site, you can limit yoill search to 

documents published by the 

Department. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1098a. 

Dated: October 30, 2013. 

CONIACL--------------------------------------Brenda-D-aJrn.J\JI!1l<e"'ss>i;,.erc,- ___________ _ 

!=:IlPPI • nn TnnP Assistant Secretarvfor Vocational and Adult 

12, 2013, we published a notice in the E,ducation, delegated the authority to p~rform 

Federal Register (?8 FR 35179) the functions and duties of the Assistant 

announcing our intention to establish a SecretaryforPostsecondaryEducation. 

negotiated rulemaking committee to [FRDoc. 2013-26492 riled 11-6-13; 8:45am] 

prepare proposed regulations for the BILLING CODE 4000-01-P 

Federal Student Aid programs ================ 

authorized under title IV of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended 

(HEA) (title IV Federal Student Aid 

programs) that would establish 

standards for programs that prepare 

students for gainful employment in a 

recognized occupation. In that notice, 

we set a schedule for the committee 

meetings and requested nominations for 

individual negotiators who represent 

key stakeholder constituencies for the 

issue to be negotiated to serve on the 

commiUee. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

48 CFR Parts 927, 952 and 970 

RIN 1991-ABB2 

Acquisition Regulation: Patents, Data, 

and Copyrights 

AGENCY: Department of Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rule making. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy 

(DOE) is ~ 

II 

I D