Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 32441 

AWL Number 53–61–153, as introduced by 

Canadair Regional Jet TR 2B–2109, dated 

October 13, 2005, to Appendix B, 

‘‘Airworthiness Limitations,’’ of Part 2 of the 

Canadair Regional Jet MRM. 

TABLE 1—COMPLIANCE TIMES FOR INITIAL INSPECTIONS

As of November 29, 2005 (the effective date of 

AD 2005–23–01, Amendment 39–14359 (70 FR 

69073, November 14, 2005)): If the total flight 

cycles accumulated on the airplane are— 

Inspect before the airplane accumulates— 

8,000 or fewer ..................................................... 12,000 total flight cycles. 

More than 8,000 but fewer than 12,000 ............. 15,000 total flight cycles or within 4,000 flight cycles after November 29, 2005 (the effective 

date of AD 2005–23–01, Amendment 39–14359 (70 FR 69073, November 14, 2005)), 

whichever is first. 

12,000 or more but fewer than 15,000 ............... 17,000 total flight cycles or within 3,000 flight cycles after November 29, 2005 (the effective 

date of AD 2005–23–01), whichever is first. 

15,000 or more but fewer than 17,000 ............... 18,500 total flight cycles or within 2,000 flight cycles after November 29, 2005 (the effective 

date of AD 2005–23–01), whichever is first. 

17,000 or more but fewer than 18,500 ............... 19,500 total flight cycles or within 1,500 flight cycles after November 29, 2005 (the effective 

date of AD 2005–23–01), whichever is first. 

18,500 or more but fewer than 19,500 ............... 20,000 total flight cycles or within 1,000 flight cycles after November 29, 2005 (the effective 

date of AD 2005–23–01), whichever is first. 

19,500 or more ................................................... 500 flight cycles after November 29, 2005 (the effective date of AD 2005–23–01). 

(h) Retained General Revision of MRM 

This paragraph restates the requirements of 

paragraph (g) of AD 2005–23–01, 

Amendment 39–14359 (70 FR 69073, 

November 14, 2005). For airplanes having 

serial numbers 7003 through 8025 inclusive, 

8030, and 8034: When the information in 

AWL Number 53–61–153 of the Canadair 

Regional Jet TR 2B–2109, dated October 13, 

2005, to Appendix B, ‘‘Airworthiness 

Limitations,’’ of Part 2 of the Canadair 

Regional Jet MRM, is included in the general 

revisions of the MRM, the general revisions 

may be inserted into the AWL section of the 

Instructions for Continued Airworthiness, 

and this information may be removed from 

the MRM. 

(i) New Revision of the Maintenance 

Program 

Within 60 days after the effective date of 

this AD: Revise the maintenance program by 

incorporating the revised inspection 

requirements specified in AWL Number 53– 

61–153 of Bombardier TR 2B–2187, dated 

June 22, 2011, to Appendix B –Airworthiness 

Limitations, of Part 2 of the Bombardier CL– 

600–2B19 MRM. The initial compliance 

times for the task start at the applicable time 

specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this 

AD. Doing an inspection required by 

paragraph (i) of this AD terminates the 

requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD. 

(1) For airplanes that have accumulated 

10,500 total flight cycles or less as of the 

effective date of this AD: Before the 

accumulation of 12,000 total flight cycles. 

(2) For airplanes that have accumulated 

more than 10,500 total flight cycles as of the 

effective date of this AD: Within 1,500 flight 

cycles after the effective date of this AD, or 

at the next scheduled inspection interval for 

AWL Number 53–61–153, whichever occurs 

first. 

(j) No Alternative Actions or Intervals 

After accomplishing the revisions required 

by paragraph (i) of this AD, no alternative 

actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be 

used other than those specified in Canadair 

Regional Jet TR 2B–2109, dated October 13, 

2005, to Appendix B, ‘‘Structural 

Airworthiness Limitations, of Part 2 of the 

Canadair Regional Jet MRM; and Bombardier 

TR 2B–2187, dated June 22, 2011, to 

Appendix B—Airworthiness Limitations, of 

Part 2 of the Bombardier CL–600–2B19 MRM; 

unless the actions and intervals are approved 

as an AMOC in accordance with the 

procedures specified in paragraph (k)(1) of 

this AD. 

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions 

The following provisions also apply to this 

AD: 

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs): The Manager, New York Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), ANE–170, FAA, 

has the authority to approve AMOCs for this 

AD, if requested using the procedures found 

in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 

39.19, send your request to your principal 

inspector or local Flight Standards District 

Office, as appropriate. If sending information 

directly to the manager of the ACO, send it 

to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing 

Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 

1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, 

New York 11590; telephone: (516) 228–7300; 

fax: (516) 794–5531. Before using any 

approved AMOC, notify your appropriate 

principal inspector, or lacking a principal 

inspector, the manager of the local flight 

standards district office/certificate holding 

district office. The AMOC approval letter 

must specifically reference this AD. 

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement 

in this AD to obtain corrective actions from 

a manufacturer or other source, use these 

actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective 

actions are considered FAA-approved if they 

are approved by the State of Design Authority 

(or their delegated agent). You are required 

to assure the product is airworthy before it 

is returned to service. 

(l) Related Information 

Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness 

Directive CF–2011–30, dated August 11, 

2011, and the following temporary revision; 

for related information. 

(1) Bombardier TR 2B–2187, dated June 22, 

2011, to Appendix B—Airworthiness 

Limitations, of Part 2 of the Bombardier CL– 

600–2B19 MRM. 

(2) Canadair Regional Jet TR 2B–2109, 

dated October 13, 2005, to Appendix B, 

‘‘Airworthiness Limitations,’’ of Part 2 of the 

Canadair Regional Jet MRM. 

Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 18, 

2012. 

Michael J. Kaszycki, 

Acting Manager, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2012–13329 Filed 5–31–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 121 

[Docket No. FAA–2011–0045] 

Proposed Legal Interpretation 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA). 

ACTION: Proposed interpretation. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is considering 

clarifying prior legal interpretations 

regarding pilot in command discretion 

under 14 CFR 121.547(a)(3) and (a)(4). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 31, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments 

identified by Docket Number FAA– 

2011–0045 using any of the following 

methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

32442 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1We assume for purposes of this proposed legal 

interpretation that all operations are conducted 

under the flag operating rules. Thus, the analysis of 

flight time limitations in this proposed legal 

interpretation is limited to the current applicable 

flight time limitations found in subpart R of part 

121. 

2 14 CFR 121.471(f) (flight time limitations 

applicable to domestic operations) provides a 

description of deadhead transportation which is 

used in the same context throughout the part 121 

regulatory framework for domestic, flag and 

supplemental flight time limitations. Section 

121.471(f) states, ‘‘Time spent in transportation, not 

local in character, that a certificate holder requires 

of a flight crewmember and provides to transport 

the crewmember to an airport at which he is to 

serve on a flight as a crewmember, or from an 

airport at which he was relieved from duty to return 

to his home station, is not considered part of a rest 

period.’’ 

3Section 121.547(a) states: 

(a) No person may admit any person to the flight 

deck of an aircraft unless the person being admitted 

is— 

(1) A crewmember; 

(2) An FAA air carrier inspector, a DOD 

commercial air carrier evaluator, or an authorized 

representative of the National Transportation Safety 

Board, who is performing official duties; 

(3) Any person who— 

(i) Has permission of the pilot in command, an 

appropriate management official of the part 119 

certificate holder, and the Administrator; and 

(ii) Is an employee of— 

(A) The United States; or 

(B) A part 119 certificate holder and whose duties 

are such that admission to the flightdeck is 

necessary or advantageous for safe operation; or 

(C) An aeronautical enterprise certificated by the 

Administrator and whose duties are such that 

admission to the flightdeck is necessary or 

advantageous for safe operation. 

(4) Any person who has the permission of the 

pilot in command, an appropriate management 

official of the part 119 certificate holder and the 

Administrator. Paragraph (a)(2) of this section does 

not limit the emergency authority of the pilot in 

command to exclude any person from the flight 

deck in the interests of safety. 

Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30; U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

Hand Delivery or Courier: Bring 

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: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara 

Mikolop, Attorney, Regulations 

Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, 

Federal Aviation Administration, 800 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20591; telephone: 202– 

267–3073. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 

12, 2010, the FAA received a request for 

a legal interpretation from the 

Independent Pilots Association (IPA) 

regarding the consequences of deadhead 

transportation in connection with flight 

time limitations for flag operations, and 

the conditions for admission to an 

aircraft flight deck found in 14 CFR 

121.547 and the United Parcel Service 

Flight Operations Manual (UPS FOM). 

We propose a three-part response to 

IPA’s inquiry. First, we will address the 

issues regarding deadhead 

transportation. Second, we will address 

the issues regarding admission to the 

flight deck, in which we propose to 

clarify prior interpretations regarding 

pilot in command discretion under 14 

CFR 121.547(a)(3) and (a)(4). Third, we 

will address the issues regarding certain 

provisions in the UPS FOM regarding 

admission to the flight deck. 

I. Deadhead Transportation 1

An individual is considered to be in 

deadhead transportation when an 

employing air carrier requires that 

individual to ride as a passenger to a 

location at which he or she will serve 

as a flightcrew member or from a 

location at which the individual was 

relieved from duty as a flightcrew 

member to return to his home 

station.2 See 14 CFR 121.471(f); Legal 

Interpretation from Donald P. Byrne to 

James W. Johnson (May 9, 2003). In 

order to qualify as deadhead 

transportation, the transportation (1) 

Cannot be local in character, (2) must be 

required of the flightcrew member by 

the air carrier and, (3) must be arranged 

by the air carrier. See Legal 

Interpretation 1992–48. Assuming that 

all three of these qualifiers are met, an 

individual assigned by a certificate 

holder to a flight, without being 

assigned to any duties during that flight, 

will be considered to be in deadhead 

transportation. We caution, however, 

that deadhead transportation is not 

considered part of a flightcrew 

member’s rest period under any of the 

regulations governing flight time 

limitations. See 14 CFR 121.471(f), 

121.491 and 121.519. 

Although time spent in deadhead 

transportation is not included as part of 

a flightcrew member’s rest, it is also not 

included in calculations of flight time 

limitations for a flightcrew member 

engaged in flag operations. Flight time 

limitations for flightcrew members in 

flag operations are found in subpart R of 

part 121. Subpart R, places limits on the 

amount of time an individual may act or 

may be scheduled to act as a flightcrew 

member for an air carrier. For purposes 

of determining compliance with the 

flight time limitations in subpart R, 

flight time calculations are based on 

total block-to-block time. See Legal 

Interpretation 1997–20; Legal 

Interpretation 1990–27 (stating that the 

language in § 121.483(a), ‘‘no carrier 

may schedule a pilot to fly * * *,’’ 

prescribes a block-to-block limitation); 

Legal Interpretation 1989–1 

(distinguishing ‘‘scheduled to fly’’ from 

the term, ‘‘flight deck duty’’ (used in 

subpart S) which means work as a 

flightcrew member on the flight deck). 

These flight time limitations can only 

be violated when an individual acts or 

is scheduled to act as a flightcrew 

member for an air carrier. Thus, the time 

during which one is assigned to 

deadhead transportation does not count 

towards flight time limits because, in 

order to be assigned to deadhead 

transportation, one cannot also be 

assigned to a flight as a flightcrew 

member. However, we must caution that 

if a person in deadhead transportation 

performs duty during the course of the 

flight as a pilot, flight engineer, or flight 

navigator, that person becomes a 

flightcrew member. See 14 CFR § 1.1 

(defining a flightcrew member as ‘‘[A] 

pilot, flight engineer, or flight navigator 

assigned to duty in an aircraft during 

flight time.’’). As such, the total blockto-block time for the flight will accrue 

towards the flight time limitations 

found in subpart R. 

II. Admission to the Flight Deck 

IPA’s request for interpretation raises 

two broad issues related to the 

application of § 121.547(a) which 

identifies the individuals who may be 

admitted to the flight deck of an aircraft 

operating under part 121 and the 

conditions for such admission.3 The 

first issue we will address involves the 

identification of the appropriate 

provision within § 121.547(a) by which 

crewmembers and individuals in 

deadhead transportation may be 

admitted to the aircraft flight deck. The 

second issue we will address involves 

the exercise of pilot in command (PIC) 

discretion regarding the admission of 

certain individuals to the flight deck. 

Regarding the first issue raised by 

IPA, crewmembers may be admitted to 

the flight deck pursuant to 

§ 121.547(a)(1) and individuals in 

deadhead transportation may be 

admitted to the flight deck pursuant to 

§§ 121.547(a)(3) or (a)(4). The regulation 

plainly states that only crewmembers 

may be admitted to the flight deck of an 

aircraft under the authority of 

§ 121.547(a)(1). As discussed earlier in 

this proposed legal interpretation, an 

individual assigned to a flight as a 

crewmember cannot, at the same time, 

be assigned to deadhead transportation. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 32443 

Thus an individual assigned to 

deadhead transportation may not be 

admitted to the flight deck under 

§ 121.547(a)(1). 

An individual in deadhead 

transportation may, however, be 

admitted to the flight deck under 14 

CFR 121.547(a)(3) or (a)(4). Section 

121.547(a)(3) allows flight deck access 

for employees of certain entities, 

including employees of part 119 

certificate holders, whose presence on 

the flight deck is necessary or 

advantageous for safe operation. Thus, 

this provision could be used to allow 

persons in deadhead transportation 

access to the flight deck. Section 

121.547(a)(4) is more general than 

§ 121.547(a)(3) in that it applies to ‘‘any 

person.’’ 

The second broad issue raised by IPA 

involves the PIC’s exercise of discretion 

regarding flight deck admission under 

§ 121.547(a). This issue has been 

discussed in prior legal interpretations 

examining the PIC’s overall safety 

responsibility, as well as the implication 

of the PIC prior permission 

requirements that appear in 

§§ 121.547(a)(3) and (a)(4) but not in 

(a)(1) or (a)(2). 

Individuals who may be admitted to 

the flight deck under §§ 121.547(a)(1) 

and (a)(2) (i.e., crewmembers, FAA 

inspectors, Department of Defense 

Commercial air carrier evaluators and 

certain National Transportation Safety 

Board representatives) serve a presumed 

safety role and as such, are not subject 

to the same prerequisites for admission 

as those individuals identified in 

§§ 121.547(a)(3) and (a)(4). In contrast 

with §§ 121.547(a)(1) and (a)(2), 

admission to the flight deck under 

either §§ 121.547(a)(3) or (a)(4) requires 

prior permission from the PIC, the FAA 

Administrator and an appropriate 

management official of the certificate 

holder. In promulgating §§ 121.547(a)(3) 

and (a)(4), the FAA has recognized a 

legitimate need to allow individuals 

who do not fall within §§ 121.547(a)(1) 

and (a)(2) onto the flight deck. The FAA 

has also recognized that this need for 

flight deck access does not arise out of 

a presumed safety need. Accordingly, 

the PIC has greater latitude to deny an 

individual access to the flight deck 

under §§ 121.547 (a)(3) and (a)(4). 

In prior legal interpretations, we 

stated that the PIC permission provision 

provides the PIC unfettered discretion 

whether to admit certain individuals to 

the flight deck under a §§ 121.547(a)(3) 

or (a)(4) situation. See Legal 

Interpretation from Joseph A. Conte to 

Brigitte Lakah (December 16, 2002); 

Legal Interpretation 2001–7. But see 

Legal Interpretation 2003–1 

(distinguishing a ‘‘pure’’ 

§§ 121.547(a)(3) or (a)(4) situation as the 

only time the PIC has unfettered 

discretion and stating that a ‘‘pure’’ 

§§ 121.547(a)(3) or (a)(4) situation does 

not exist when an individual’s presence 

on the flight deck is required by another 

rule (e.g., § 121.550 regarding secret 

service agents)). We based these 

interpretations on the rationale that a 

PIC’s safety authority would be 

undermined if his or her decision to 

deny permission for certain people to 

enter the flight deck in a §§ 121.547 

(a)(3) or (a)(4) situation was challenged 

by his or her employer. See Legal 

Interpretation 2003–1 (indicating that 

post flight disciplinary proceedings 

taken by an air carrier in a pure 

§§ 121.547(a)(3) or (a)(4) situation 

interferes with the duties and 

responsibilities required of a PIC by 

regulation); Legal Interpretation from 

Joseph A. Conte to Brigitte Lakah 

(December 16, 2002) (stating that 

second-guessing a PIC’s decision to 

deny permission for certain people to 

enter the flight deck would undermine 

‘‘[T]he safety underpinning for having a 

‘PIC-permission-provision’ in the 

regulations.’’); Legal Interpretation 

2001–7. 

The PIC bears the responsibility for 

the safety of the passengers, crew, cargo 

and aircraft during flight. See 14 CFR 

91.3 and 121.535(e)–(f). To that end, it 

continues to be the PIC’s decision as to 

whether there is a safety-related reason 

for excluding from the flight deck an 

individual eligible for admission under 

§§ 121.547(a)(3) or (a)(4). See e.g. Legal 

Interpretation 2001–7 (identifying 

numerous potential reasons for denying 

admission to the flight deck in a 

§§ 121.547(a)(3) or (a)(4) situation such 

as rough weather, distraction to 

flightcrew, a complex operation 

requiring heightened attention by the 

flightcrew, all of which are safetyrelated). 

However, to the extent that prior legal 

interpretations state or simply imply 

that air carriers have no ability to 

question a PIC in their employ regarding 

his or her decision to deny flight deck 

access to an individual for a reason that 

is not based on a safety concern, we 

believe the agency overstated its 

position. Accordingly, we propose to 

rescind the relevant portions of those 

prior legal interpretations. The FAA 

believes that at an appropriate time and 

venue, air carriers must be able to 

question why a PIC decided to exclude 

certain individuals from the flight deck 

when there was no apparent safety 

issue. 

While, as we have stated above, the 

PIC is responsible for the safety of the 

passengers, crew, cargo and aircraft 

during flight, we also hold air carriers 

responsible for the safe conduct of all 

aspects of their operations. See 

generally 14 CFR part 121. But, limiting 

air carriers’ ability to manage their 

workforce, when there is no apparent 

risk to aviation safety, is outside the 

scope of the agency’s safety oversight 

responsibilities. 

The FAA’s interest is in promoting 

safety and as such, we would be 

concerned with any action by the carrier 

that could reasonably impact the ability 

of the PIC to exercise his or her 

authority to make a determination that 

access to the flight deck needs to be 

denied for the safety of the operation. 

To that end, the agency presumption in 

any investigation will be that the PIC 

acted appropriately. The FAA expects, 

however, that the PIC will be able to 

articulate a safety-related reason for 

denying access to the flight deck in 

situations subject to §§ 121.547(a)(3) 

and (a)(4). 

III. United Parcel Service Flight 

Operations Manual 

The United Parcel Service Flight 

Operations Manual (UPS FOM) provides 

for the UPS implementation of 

§ 121.547(a). See UPS FOM, 

Administration, Jumpseat Policies and 

Procedures, 02–04, Priority Descriptions 

(Rev No: 40, Rev Date: 08/31/10). The 

UPS FOM includes a list that describes 

numerous categories of potential 

jumpseat occupants and provides a 

priority order for their carriage. See id. 

The categories of potential jumpseat 

occupants include potential 

crewmembers and individuals in 

deadhead transportation. See id. The 

UPS FOM identifies as ‘‘Priority 3A’’ 

jumpseat occupants, ‘‘UPS 

crewmembers who have been provided 

a commercial ticket for a deadhead, but 

elect to travel via the Company 

jumpseats instead * * *’’ See id. The 

UPS FOM identifies, ‘‘U.S. Government 

couriers (U.S. Government employees 

only), Loadmasters, UPS Maintenance 

and Flight Operations personnel * * * 

(Note)’’ as priority 3 jumpseat 

occupants. The ‘‘Note’’ referred to in the 

priority 3 description further explains 

the priority 3 jumpseat occupants as 

follows: 

Note: Priority 3 UPS crewmember flight 

deck occupants are important to UPS flight 

operations. These priority 3 flight deck 

occupants are UPS-assigned other 

crewmembers and these on-duty 

crewmembers will assist the operating crew 

at the direction of the Captain during normal 

and emergency operations. These duties 

enhance the security and safety of the flight 

operation; thus, these crewmembers gain 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

32444 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

4 14 CFR 121.385(a) provides the regulatory 

framework for required crewmembers. It states, ‘‘No 

certificate holder may operate an airplane with less 

than the minimum flight crew in the airworthiness 

certificate or the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) 

approved for that type airplane and required by this 

part for the kind of operation being conducted.’’ To 

the extent that a certificate holder assigns a 

deadheading individual, flightcrew member or 

crewmember to a particular operation and that 

individual is not required for the operation by the 

aircraft type certificate, operating regulations or 

AFM, the FAA would not view that individual as 

a ‘‘required crewmember’’ for purposes of 

compliance with 14 CFR 121.385(a). 

admission to the flight deck under FAR 

121.547 (a)(1). As a result, the Captain’s 

discretion, regarding these other 

crewmembers, is not unfettered. The 

exclusion of these crewmembers from the 

flight deck requires that the Captain has a 

compelling explanation, which is valid only 

if an emergency situation exists whereby the 

presence of these crewmembers is not in the 

interests of aviation safety. 

See id. Based on the note associated 

with the description of individuals 

identified for priority 3 status by the 

UPS FOM, it appears that UPS intends 

for loadmasters and UPS maintenance 

and flight operations personnel to be 

assigned to perform duties during flight 

and therefore meet the definition of 

crewmembers. It is possible that these 

individuals meet the definition of 

‘‘crewmember’’ if they are ‘‘assigned to 

perform duty in an aircraft during flight 

time.’’ See 14 CFR 1.1. See e.g. Legal 

Interpretation 1986–12 (stating that if a 

mechanic employee of an air carrier is 

assigned duty during flight time, then 

the mechanic is a ‘‘crewmember’’ and 

may ride in the jumpseat pursuant to 

§ 121.547(a)(1)). It is also possible that 

some individuals could meet the 

definition of flightcrew member 

depending on their airman 

qualifications and the type of duty 

assigned, thus triggering the flight time 

limitations in Subpart R.4 For purposes 

of evaluating compliance with 

§ 121.547(a), the priority descriptions in 

the UPS FOM are not determinative. A 

determination as to whether a jumpseat 

occupant meets the definition of 

crewmember or flightcrew member for a 

particular operation would have to be 

made on a case-by-case basis because 

the language in the UPS FOM does not 

provide sufficient detail to make a 

blanket determination. If a particular 

jumpseat occupant meets the definition 

of flightcrew member or crewmember 

then this individual would gain 

admission to the flight deck under 

§ 121.547(a)(1). If it is determined that a 

particular individual seeking admission 

to the flight deck has been assigned to 

the flight for purposes of deadhead 

transportation, with the intent that he or 

she travel primarily as a passenger, then 

this individual may gain access to the 

flight deck with the approvals described 

in §§ 121.547(a)(3) or (a)(4). 

Issued in Washington, DC, on May 24, 

2012. 

Rebecca B. MacPherson, 

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, 

AGC–200. 

[FR Doc. 2012–13290 Filed 5–31–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Indian Gaming Commission 

25 CFR Part 543 

RIN 3141–AA27 

Minimum Internal Control Standards 

AGENCY: National Indian Gaming 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The National Indian Gaming 

Commission (NIGC) proposes to amend 

its minimum internal control standards 

for Class II gaming under the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act to reorder the 

sections, delete commonly understood 

definitions, add and amend existing 

definitions; amend the term ‘‘variance’’ 

as it applies to establishing an alternate 

minimum standard; amend the bingo, 

pull-tab, information and technology 

sections to reflect technological 

advances; delete references to 

‘‘unrestricted player accounts’’; and 

consolidate the revenue audit and audit 

and accounting procedures into their 

respective sections. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

July 31, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any one of the following methods, 

however, please note that comments 

sent by electronic mail are strongly 

encouraged. 

D Email comments to: 

reg.review@nigc.gov. 

D Mail comments to: National Indian 

Gaming Commission, 1441 L Street 

NW., Suite 9100, Washington, DC 

20005. 

D Hand deliver comments to: 1441 L 

Street NW., Suite 9100, Washington, DC 

20005. 

D Fax comments to: National Indian 

Gaming Commission at 202–632–0045. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

National Indian Gaming Commission, 

1441 L Street NW., Suite 9100, 

Washington, DC 20005. Telephone: 

202–632–7009; email: 

reg.review@nigc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Comments Invited 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in this proposed rulemaking 

by submitting such written data, views, 

or arguments as they may desire. 

Comments that provide the factual basis 

supporting the views and suggestions 

presented are particularly helpful in 

developing reasoned regulatory 

decisions on the proposal. 

II. Background 

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 

(IGRA or Act), Public Law 100–497, 25 

U.S.C. 2701 et seq., was signed into law 

on October 17, 1988. The Act 

establishes the NIGC and sets out a 

comprehensive framework for the 

regulation of gaming on Indian lands. 

On January 5, 1999, the NIGC published 

a final rule in the Federal Register 

called Minimum Internal Control 

Standards. 64 FR 590. The rule added 

a new part to the Commission’s 

regulations establishing Minimum 

Internal Control Standards (MICS) to 

reduce the risk of loss because of 

customer or employee access to cash 

and cash equivalents within a casino. 

The rule contains standards and 

procedures that govern cash handling, 

documentation, game integrity, 

auditing, surveillance, and variances, as 

well as other areas. 

The Commission recognized from 

their inception that the MICS would 

require periodic review and updates to 

keep pace with technology, and has 

amended them three times since: June 

27, 2002 (67 FR 43390), August 12, 2005 

(70 FR 47108), and October 10, 2008 (73 

FR 60498). In addition to making 

updates to account for advances in 

technology, the 2008 MICS also 

included part 543 and began the process 

of relocating all Class II controls into 

that part. These MICS do not classify 

games as Class II or Class III; rather, they 

provide minimum controls for gaming 

that is assumed to be Class II. 

On November 18, 2010, the NIGC 

issued a Notice of Inquiry and Notice of 

Consultation (NOI) advising the public 

that the NIGC was conducting a 

comprehensive review of its regulations 

and requesting public comment on 

which of its regulations were most in 

need of revision, in what order the 

Commission should review its 

regulations, and the process NIGC 

should utilize to make revisions. 75 FR 

70680 (Nov. 18, 2010). On April 4, 2011, 

after consulting with tribes and 

reviewing all comments, NIGC 

published a Notice of Regulatory 

Review Schedule (NRR) setting out a 

consultation schedule and process for 

review. 76 FR 18457. The Commission’s 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS