[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 22, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 83737-83744]
[FR Doc No: 2016-28016]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 23

[Docket No.FAA-2016-9409; Notice No. 23-16-03-SC]

Special Conditions: Cranfield Aerospace Limited, Cessna Aircraft
Company Model 525; Tamarack Load Alleviation System and Cranfield
Winglets--Interaction of Systems and Structures

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes special conditions for the Cessna
Aircraft Company model 525 airplane. This airplane as modified by
Cranfield Aerospace Limited will have a novel or unusual design
features associated with the installation of a Tamarack Active
Technology Load Alleviation System and Cranfield Winglets. These design
features will include winglets and an Active Technology Load
Alleviation System. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not
contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional
safety standards the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

DATES: Send your comments on or before December 22, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2016-9409
using any of the following methods:
    [ssquf] Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
    [ssquf] Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    [ssquf] Hand Delivery of Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    [ssquf] Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information
the commenter provides. Using the search function of

the docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of
all comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Reyer, Continued Operational
Safety, ACE-113, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service, 901 Locust; Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone (816) 329-
4131; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. We ask
that you send us two copies of written comments.
    We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing
date for comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is
possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. We may change
these special conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background

    On January 25, 2016, Cranfield Aerospace Limited (CAL) applied for
a supplemental type certificate to install winglets on the Cessna
Aircraft Company (Cessna) model 525. The Cessna model 525 twin turbofan
engine airplane is certified in the normal category for eight seats,
including a pilot, a maximum gross weight of 10,700 pounds, and a
maximum altitude of 41,000 feet mean sea level.
    Special conditions have been applied on past 14 CFR part 25
airplane programs in order to consider the effects on systems on
structures. The regulatory authorities and industry developed
standardized criteria in the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
(ARAC) forum based on the criteria defined in Advisory Circular 25.672-
1, dated November 15, 1983. The ARAC recommendations have been
incorporated in the European Aviation Safety Agency Certification
Specifications (CS) 25.302 and CS 25, appendix K. The special
conditions used for part 25 airplane programs, can be applied to part
23 airplane programs in order to require consideration of the effects
of systems on structures. However, some modifications to the part 25
special conditions are necessary to address differences between parts
23 and 25 as well as differences between parts 91 and 121 operating
environments.
    Winglets increase aerodynamic efficiency. However, winglets also
increase wing design static loads, increase the severity of the wing
fatigue spectra, and alter the wing fatigue stress ratio, which under
limit gust and maneuvering loads factors, may exceed the certificated
wing design limits. The addition of the Tamarack Active Technology Load
Alleviation System (ATLAS) mitigates the winglet's adverse structural
effects by reducing the aerodynamic effectiveness of the winglet when
ATLAS senses gust and maneuver loads above a predetermined threshold.
    The ATLAS functions as a load-relief system. This is accomplished
by measuring airplane loading via an accelerometer and moving an
aileron-like device called a Tamarack Active Control Surface (TACS)
that reduces lift at the tip of the wing. The TACS are located outboard
and adjacent to the left and right aileron control surfaces. The TACS
movement reduces lift at the tip of the wing, resulting in the wing
spanwise center of pressure moving inboard, thus reducing bending
stresses along the wing span. Because the ATLAS compensates for the
increased wing root bending at elevated load factors, the overall
effect of this modification is that the required reinforcement of the
existing Cessna wing structure due to the winglet installation is
reduced. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain
adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature.
    The ATLAS is not a primary flight control system, a trim device, or
a wing flap. However, several regulations under Part 23, Subpart D--
Design and Construction--Control Systems, have applicability to ATLAS,
which might otherwise be considered ``Not Applicable'' under a strict
interpretation of the regulations. These Control System regulations
include Sec. Sec.  23.672, 23.675, 23.677, 23.681, 23.683, 23.685,
23.693, 23.697, and 23.701.
    An airplane designed with a load-relief system must provide a
equivalent level of safety to an airplane with similar characteristics
designed without a load-relief system. In the following special
conditions, an equivalent level of safety is provided by relating the
required structural safety factor to the probability of load-relief
system failure and the probability of exceeding the frequency of design
limit and ultimate loads.
    These special conditions address several issues with the operation
and failure of the load-relief system. These issues include the
structural requirements for the system in the fully operational state;
evaluation of the effects of system failure, both at the moment of
failure and continued safe flight and landing with the failure
annunciated to the pilot; and the potential for failure of the failure
monitoring/pilot annunciation function.
    The structural requirements for the load-relief system in the fully
operational state are stated in special condition 2(e) of these special
conditions. In this case, the structure must meet the full requirements
of part 23, subparts C and D with full credit given for the effects of
the load-relief system.
    In the event of a load-relief system failure in-flight, the effects
on the structure at the moment of failure must be considered as
described in special condition 2(f)(l) of these special conditions.
These effects include, but are not limited to the structural loads
induced by a hard-over failure of the load-relief control surface and
oscillatory system failures that may excite the structural dynamic
modes. In evaluating these effects, pilot corrective actions may be
considered and the airplane may be assumed to be in 1g (gravitation
force) flight prior to the load-relief system failure. These special
conditions allows credit, in the form of reduced structural factors of
safety, based on the probability of failure of the load-relief system.
Effects of an in-flight failure on flutter and fatigue and damage
tolerance must also be evaluated.
    Following the initial in-flight failure, the airplane must be
capable of continued safe flight and landing. Special condition 2(f)(2)
in these special conditions assumes that a properly functioning,
monitoring, and annunciating system has alerted the pilot to the load-
relief failure. Since the pilot has been made aware of the load-relief
failure, appropriate flight limitations, including speed restrictions,
may be considered when evaluating structural loads, flutter, and
fatigue and

damage tolerance. These special conditions allows credit, in the form
of reduced structural factors of safety, based on the probability of
failure of the load-relief system and the flight time remaining on the
failure flight.
    Special condition 2(g) of these special conditions addresses the
failure of the load-relief system to annunciate a failure to the pilot.
These special conditions addresses this concern with maintenance
actions and requirements for monitoring and annunciation systems.
    These special conditions have been modified from previous, similar
part 25 special conditions because of the differences between parts 23
and 25 as well as to address the part 91 operating and maintenance
environment. Paragraph (c)(3) of the part 25 special condition \2\ is
removed from these special conditions. Special condition 2(h) of these
special conditions is modified to require a ferry permit for additional
flights after an annunciated failure or obvious system failure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Special Condition No. 25-164-SC, ``Boeing Model 737-700 IGW,
Interaction of Systems and Structures,'' Effective August 30, 2000
(65 FR 55443).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Sec.  21.101, Cranfield Aerspace Limited
must show that the Cessna model 525, as changed, continues to meet the
applicable provisions of the regulations incorporated by reference in
Type Certificate No. A1WI, revision 24, or the applicable regulations
in effect on the date of application for the change. The regulations
incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred
to as the ``original type certification basis.'' The regulations
incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. A1WI, revision 24 are
14 CFR part 23 effective February 1, 1965, amendments 23-1 through 23-
38 and 23-40.
    If the Administrator finds the applicable airworthiness regulations
(i.e., 14 CFR part 23) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards for the Cessna model 525 because of a novel or unusual design
feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of
Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type
certificate to modify any other model included on the same type
certificate to incorporate the same or similar novel or unusual design
feature, the FAA would apply these special conditions to the other
model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Cessna 525 must comply with the fuel vent and exhaust
emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34 and the noise certification
requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Cessna model 525 will incorporate the following novel or
unusual design features: Cranfield winglets with a Tamarack Active
Technology Load Alleviation System.

Discussion

    Airplanes equipped with systems that affect structural performance,
either directly or as a result of a failure or malfunction, the
applicant must take into account the influence of these systems and
their failure conditions when showing compliance with the requirements
of part 23, subparts C and D.
    The applicant must use the following criteria for showing
compliance with these special conditions for airplanes equipped with
flight control systems, autopilots, stability augmentation systems,
load alleviation systems, flutter control systems, fuel management
systems, and other systems that either directly or as a result of
failure or malfunction affect structural performance. If these special
conditions are used for other systems, it may be necessary to adapt the
criteria to the specific system.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Cessna model 525. Should Cranfield Aerspace Limited apply at a later
date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model
included on A1WI, revision 24 to incorporate the same novel or unusual
design feature, the FAA would apply these special conditions to that
model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability
and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval
of these features on the airplane.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Proposed Special Conditions

    Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the
following special conditions as part of the type certification basis
for Cessna Aircraft Company 525 airplanes modified by Cranfield
Aerospace Limited.

1. Active Technology Load Alliviation System (ATLAS)

SC 23.672 Load Alleviation System

    The load alleviation system must comply with the following:
    (a) A warning, which is clearly distinguishable to the pilot under
expected flight conditions without requiring the pilot's attention,
must be provided for any failure in the load alleviation system or in
any other automatic system that could result in an unsafe condition if
the pilot was not aware of the failure. Warning systems must not
activate the control system.
    (b) The design of the load alleviation system or of any other
automatic system must permit initial counteraction of failures without
requiring exceptional pilot skill or strength, by either the
deactivation of the system or a failed portion thereof, or by
overriding the failure by movement of the flight controls in the normal
sense.
    (1) If deactivation of the system is used to counteract failures,
the control for this initial counteraction must be readily accessible
to each pilot while operating the control wheel and thrust control
levers.
    (2) If overriding the failure by movement of the flight controls is
used, the override capability must be operationally demonstrated.
    (c) It must be shown that, after any single failure of the load
alleviation system, the airplane must be safely controllable when the
failure or malfunction occurs at any speed or altitude within the
approved operating limitations that is critical for the type of failure
being considered;
    (d) It must be shown that, while the system is active or after any
single failure of the load alleviation system--
    (1) The controllability and maneuverability requirements of part
23, subpart D, are met within a practical operational flight envelope
(e.g., speed, altitude, normal acceleration, and airplane
configuration) that is described in the Airplane Flight Manual (AFM);
and
    (2) The trim, stability, and stall characteristics are not impaired
below a

level needed to permit continued safe flight and landing.

SC 23.677 Load Alleviation Active Control Surface

    (a) Proper precautions must be taken to prevent inadvertent or
improper operation of the load alleviation system. It must be
demonstrated that with the load alleviation system operating throughout
its operational range, a pilot of average strength and skill level is
able to continue safe flight with no objectionable increased workload.
    (b) The load alleviation system must be designed so that, when any
one connecting or transmitting element in the primary flight control
system fails, adequate control for safe flight and landing is
available.
    (c) The load alleviation system must be irreversible unless the
control surface is properly balanced and has no unsafe flutter
characteristics. The system must have adequate rigidity and reliability
in the portion of the system from the control surface to the attachment
of the irreversible unit to the airplane structure.
    (d) It must be demonstrated the airplane is safely controllable and
a pilot can perform all maneuvers and operations necessary to effect a
safe landing following any load allevation system runaway not shown to
be extremely improbable, allowing for appropriate time delay after
pilot recognition of the system runaway. The demonstration must be
conducted at critical airplane weights and center of gravity positions.

SC 23.683 Operation Tests

    (a) It must be shown by operation tests that, when the flight
control system and the load alleviation systems are operated and loaded
as prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section, the flight control
system and load alleviation systems are free from--
    (1) Jamming;
    (2) Excessive friction; and
    (3) Excessive deflection.
    (b) The operation tests in paragraph (a) of this section must also
show the load alleviation system and associated surfaces do not
restrict or prevent aileron control surface movements, or cause any
adverse response of the ailerons, under the loading prescribed in
paragraph (c) of this section that would prevent continued safe flight
and landing.
    (c) The prescribed test loads are for the entire load alleviation
and flight control systems, loads corresponding to the limit airloads
on the appropriate surfaces.
    Note: Advisory Circular (AC) 23-17C ``Systems and Equipment Guide
to Certification of Part 23 Airplanes'' provides guidance on potential
methods of compliance with this section and other regulations
applicable to this STC project.

SC 23.685 Control System Details

    (a) Each detail of the load alleviation system and related moveable
surfaces must be designed and installed to prevent jamming, chafing,
and interference from cargo, passengers, loose objects, or the freezing
of moisture.
    (b) There must be means in the cockpit to prevent the entry of
foreign objects into places where they would jam any one connecting or
transmitting element of the load alleviation system.
    (c) Each element of the load alleviation system must have design
features, or must be distinctively and permanently marked, to minimize
the possibility of incorrect assembly that could result in
malfunctioning of the control system.

SC 23.697 Load Alleviation System Controls

    (a) The load alleviation control surface must be designed so that
during normal operation, when the surface has been placed in any
position, it will not move from that position unless the control is
adjusted or is moved by the operation of a load alleviation system.
    (b) The rate of movement of the control surface in response to the
load alleviation system controls must give satisfactory flight and
performance characteristics under steady or changing conditions of
airspeed, engine power, attitude, flap configuration, speedbrake
position, and during landing gear extension and retraction.

SC 23.701 Load Alleviation System Interconnection

    (a) The load alleviation system and related movable surfaces as a
system must--
    (1) Be synchronized by a mechanical interconnection between the
movable surfaces or by an approved equivalent means; or
    (2) Be designed so the occurrence of any failure of the system that
would result in an unsafe flight characteristic of the airplane is
extremely improbable; or
    (b) The airplane must be shown to have safe flight characteristics
with any combination of extreme positions of individual movable
surfaces.
    (c) If an interconnection is used in multiengine airplanes, it must
be designed to account for unsymmetrical loads resulting from flight
with the engines on one side of the plane of symmetry inoperative and
the remaining engines at takeoff power. For single-engine airplanes,
and multiengine airplanes with no slipstream effects on the load
alleviation system, it may be assumed that 100 percent of the critical
air load acts on one side and 70 percent on the other.

Sec. Sec.  23.675, ``Stops;'' 23.681, ``Limit Load Static Tests;'' and
23.693, ``Joints''

    The load alleviation system must comply with Sec. Sec.  23.675,
23.681, and 23.693 as written and no unique special condition will be
required for these regulations.

Applicability of Control System Regulations to Other Control Systems

    The load alleviation system must comply with Sec. Sec.  23.675,
23.681, and 23.693 as written and no unique special condition will be
required for these regulations.

2. Interaction of Systems and Structures

    (a) The criteria defined herein only address the direct structural
consequences of the system responses and performances and cannot be
considered in isolation but should be included in the overall safety
evaluation of the airplane. These criteria may in some instances
duplicate standards already established for this evaluation. These
criteria are only applicable to structure whose failure could prevent
continued safe flight and landing. Specific criteria that define
acceptable limits on handling characteristics or stability requirements
when operating in the system degraded or inoperative mode are not
provided in this special condition.
    (b) Depending upon the specific characteristics of the airplane,
additional studies may be required that go beyond the criteria provided
in this special condition in order to demonstrate the capability of the
airplane to meet other realistic conditions such as alternative gust or
maneuver descriptions for an airplane equipped with a load alleviation
system.
    (c) The following definitions are applicable to this special
condition.
    (1) Structural performance: Capability of the airplane to meet the
structural requirements of 14 CFR part 23.
    (2) Flight limitations: Limitations that can be applied to the
airplane flight conditions following an in-flight occurrence and that
are included in the flight manual (e.g., speed limitations, avoidance
of severe weather conditions, etc.).
    (3) Reserved.

    (4) Probabilistic terms: The probabilistic terms (probable,
improbable, extremely improbable) used in this special condition are
the same as those used in Sec.  23.1309. For the purposes of this
special condition, extremely improbable for normal, utility, and
acrobatic category airplanes is defined as 10-\8\ per hour.
For commuter category airplanes, extremely improbable is defined as
10-\9\ per hour.
    (5) Failure condition: The term failure condition is the same as
that used in Sec.  23.1309, however this special condition applies only
to system failure conditions that affect the structural performance of
the airplane (e.g., system failure conditions that induce loads, change
the response of the airplane to inputs such as gusts or pilot actions,
or lower flutter margins).
    (d) General. The following criteria (paragraphs (e) through (i))
will be used in determining the influence of a system and its failure
conditions on the airplane structure.
    (e) System fully operative. With the system fully operative, the
following apply:
    (1) Limit loads must be derived in all normal operating
configurations of the system from all the limit conditions specified in
subpart C (or defined by special condition or equivalent level of
safety in lieu of those specified in subpart C), taking into account
any special behavior of such a system or associated functions or any
effect on the structural performance of the airplane that may occur up
to the limit loads. In particular, any significant nonlinearity (rate
of displacement of control surface, thresholds or any other system
nonlinearities) must be accounted for in a realistic or conservative
way when deriving limit loads from limit conditions.
    (2) The airplane must meet the strength requirements of part 23
(static strength and residual strength for failsafe or damage tolerant
structure), using the specified factors to derive ultimate loads from
the limit loads defined above. The effect of nonlinearities must be
investigated beyond limit conditions to ensure the behavior of the
system presents no anomaly compared to the behavior below limit
conditions. However, conditions beyond limit conditions need not be
considered when it can be shown that the airplane has design features
that will not allow it to exceed those limit conditions.
    (3) The airplane must meet the aeroelastic stability requirements
of Sec.  23.629.
    (f) System in the failure condition. For any system failure
condition not shown to be extremely improbable, the following apply:
    (1) At the time of occurrence. Starting from 1-g level flight
conditions, a realistic scenario, including pilot corrective actions,
must be established to determine the loads occurring at the time of
failure and immediately after failure.
    (i) For static strength substantiation, these loads, multiplied by
an appropriate factor of safety that is related to the probability of
occurrence of the failure, are ultimate loads to be considered for
design. The factor of safety is defined in figure 1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO16.011

    (ii) For residual strength substantiation, the airplane must be
able to withstand two thirds of the ultimate loads defined in
subparagraph (f)(1)(i).
    (iii) For pressurized cabins, these loads must be combined with the
normal operating differential pressure.
    (iv) Freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown up to the
speeds defined in Sec.  23.629(f). For failure conditions that result
in speeds beyond VD/MD, freedom from aeroelastic
instability must be shown to increased speeds, so that the margins
intended by Sec.  23.629(f) are maintained.
    (v) Failures of the system that result in forced structural
vibrations (oscillatory failures) must not produce loads that could
result in detrimental deformation of primary structure.
    (2) For the continuation of the flight. For the airplane, in the
system failed state and considering any appropriate

reconfiguration and flight limitations, the following apply:
    (i) The loads derived from the following conditions (or defined by
special condition or equivalent level of safety in lieu of the
following conditions) at speeds up to VC/MC, or
the speed limitation prescribed for the remainder of the flight, must
be determined:
    (A) The limit symmetrical maneuvering conditions specified in
Sec. Sec.  23.321, 23.331, 23.333, 23.345, 23.421, 23.423, and 23.445.
    (B) The limit gust and turbulence conditions specified in
Sec. Sec.  23.341, 23.345, 23.425, 23.443, and 23.445.
    (C) The limit rolling conditions specified in Sec.  23.349 and the
limit unsymmetrical conditions specified in Sec. Sec.  23.347, 23.427,
and 23.445.
    (D) The limit yaw maneuvering conditions specified in Sec. Sec.
23.351, 23.441, and 23.445.
    (E) The limit ground loading conditions specified in Sec. Sec.
23.473 and 23.493.
    (ii) For static strength substantiation, each part of the structure
must be able to withstand the loads in paragraph (f)(2)(i) of this
special condition multiplied by a factor of safety depending on the
probability of being in this failure state. The factor of safety is
defined in figure 2.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO16.012

    (iii) For residual strength substantiation, the airplane must be
able to withstand two thirds of the ultimate loads defined in paragraph
(f)(2)(ii) of this special condition. For pressurized cabins, these
loads must be combined with the normal operating pressure differential.
    (iv) If the loads induced by the failure condition have a
significant effect on fatigue or damage tolerance then their effects
must be taken into account.
    (v) Freedom from aeroelastic instability must be shown up to a
speed determined from figure 3. Flutter clearance speeds V' and V'' may
be based on the speed limitation specified for the remainder of the
flight using the margins defined by Sec.  23.629.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP22NO16.013

    (vi) Freedom from aeroelastic instability must also be shown up to
V' in figure 3 above, for any probable system failure condition
combined with any damage required or selected for investigation by
Sec. Sec.  23.571 through 23.574.
    (3) Consideration of certain failure conditions may be required by
other sections of 14 CFR part 23 regardless of calculated system
reliability. Where analysis shows the probability of these failure
conditions to be less than 10-8 for normal, utility, or
acrobatic category airplanes or less than 10-9 for commuter
category airplanes, criteria other than those specified in this
paragraph may be used for structural substantiation to show continued
safe flight and landing.
    (g) Failure indications. For system failure detection and
indication, the following apply:
    (1) The system must be checked for failure conditions, not
extremely improbable, that degrade the structural capability below the
level required by part 23 or significantly reduce the reliability of
the remaining system. As far as reasonably practicable, the flightcrew
must be made aware of these failures before flight. Certain elements of
the control system, such as mechanical and hydraulic components, may
use special periodic inspections, and electronic components may use
daily checks, in lieu of detection and indication systems to achieve
the objective of this requirement. These certification maintenance
requirements must be limited to components that are not readily
detectable by normal detection and indication systems and where service
history shows that inspections will provide an adequate level of
safety.
    (2) The existence of any failure condition, not extremely
improbable, during flight that could significantly affect the
structural capability of the airplane and for which the associated
reduction in airworthiness can be minimized by suitable flight
limitations, must be signaled to the flightcrew. The probability of not
annunciating these failure conditions must be extremely improbable
(unannunciated failure). For example, failure conditions that result in
a factor of safety between the airplane strength and the loads of
subpart C below 1.25, or flutter margins below V'', must be signaled to
the flightcrew during flight.
    (h) Further flights with known load-relief system failure.
Additional flights after an annunciated failure of the load-relief
system or obvious failure of the load-relief system are permitted with
a ferry permit only. In these cases, ferry permits may be issued to
allow moving the airplane to an appropriate maintenance facility.
Additional flights are defined as, further flights after landing on a
flight where an annunciated or obvious failure of the load-relief
system has occurred or after an annunciated or obvious failure of the

load-relief system occurs during preflight preparation.
    (i) Fatigue and damage tolerance. If any system failure would have
a significant effect on the fatigue or damage evaluations required in
Sec. Sec.  23.571 through 23.574, then these effects must be taken into
account.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on November 10, 2016.
Mel Johnson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-28016 Filed 11-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-C


[Federal Register: October 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 63883-63884]
[DOCID:fr18oc10-118]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-63089; File No. SR-MSRB-2010-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Consisting of Fee
Changes to Its Real-Time Transaction Price Service and Comprehensive
Transaction Price Service, and Termination of Its T+1 Transaction Price
Service

October 13, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``the Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on September 30, 2010, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(``Board'' or ``MSRB'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the MSRB.
The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The MSRB has filed with the Commission a proposed rule change
relating to the MSRB's Real-time Transaction Reporting System
(``RTRS''). The proposed rule change consists of fee changes to the
MSRB's Real-Time Transaction Price Service and Comprehensive
Transaction Price Service of RTRS and the consolidation into the
Comprehensive Transaction Price Service of its existing T+1 Transaction
Price Service. In addition, the proposed rule change would change the
name of the Real-Time Transaction Price Service to the ``MSRB Real-Time
Transaction Data Subscription Service'' and would change the name of
the Comprehensive Transaction Price Service to the ``MSRB Comprehensive
Transaction Data Subscription Service.'' The MSRB proposes an effective
date for this proposed rule change of January 1, 2011.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the MSRB's Web
site at http://www.msrb.org/Rules-and-Interpretations/SEC-Filings/2010-
Filings.aspx and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the MSRB included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Board has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections
A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    In January 2005, the MSRB commenced operation of RTRS, also known
as the ``Transaction Data Program,'' and its Real-Time Transaction
Price Service providing a real-time stream of data representing
municipal securities transaction reports made by brokers, dealers and
municipal securities dealers (``dealers'') to RTRS, with an annual
subscription fee of $5,000.\3\ The MSRB proposes to rename the Real-
time Transaction Price Service as the ``MSRB Real-Time Transaction Data
Subscription Service'' (the ``Real-Time Service'') and to increase the
annual subscription fee for the Real-Time Service from $5,000 to
$10,000 beginning on January 1, 2011.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release No. 50820 (December 8, 2004).
    \4\ The MSRB could, in its discretion, waive the Real-Time
Service subscription fee for not-for-profit organizations, academic
institutions, or other entities or persons who desire the service
for non-profit or research purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Comprehensive Transaction Price Service currently consists of a
T+5 Report of transaction data five business days after trade date and
a T+20 Report of transaction data 20 business days after trade date.
The MSRB proposes to rename the Comprehensive Transaction Price Service
as the ``MSRB Comprehensive Transaction Data Subscription Service''
(the ``Comprehensive Service'') and to increase the subscription fee
for the Comprehensive Service from $2,000 annually to $5,000 annually
effective January 1, 2011.\5\ Additionally, the MSRB proposes to
consolidate the free T+1 Transaction Price Service into the
Comprehensive Service and to terminate the separate T+1 Transaction
Price Service as of December 31, 2010. As amended and consolidated, the
Comprehensive Service will continue to be made available through
electronic file download over the internet, and it will include three
reports: Transaction data one business day after the trade (T+1),
transaction data five business days after the trade (T+5), and
transaction data twenty business days after the trade (T+20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As with the Real-Time Service, the MSRB could, in its
discretion, waive the Comprehensive Service subscription fee for
not-for-profit organizations, academic institutions, or other
entities or persons who desire the service for non-profit or
research purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MSRB continues to encourage information vendors--and various
other entities that make securities data available to members of the
securities industry and the public--to use the transaction data in
their products and services and permits those parties to re-disseminate
the data, either in its original form or with enhancements to address
the specific needs of specific data users. To this end, subscribers may
(i) use the data for their internal business purposes; (ii) re-
disseminate the data to their customers, clients and system users; and/
or (iii) re-disseminate the data in other products or services that
they offer to their customers, clients and system users, subject to
certain terms and limitations, including those relating to proprietary
and intellectual property rights of third parties in information
provided by such third parties that is made available through the
subscription.
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to assess commercially
reasonable fees for MSRB data services that will partially defray the
costs and expenses of operating and administering MSRB market
information programs. The MSRB has not increased the cost of the Real-
Time Service since it was implemented approximately six years ago.
Moreover, prior to January 2005, the MSRB offered, among other reports,
two delayed transaction reports (the Inter-Dealer Report and the
Combined Report) for $15,000 each. The proposed subscription fee for
the Real-Time Service is less than either of these delayed transaction
reports offered prior to January 2005. The MSRB has not increased the
cost of the Comprehensive Service since November 2001, when it was
introduced as the Daily Comprehensive Report.
    The proposed rule change is needed to help bring the Board's
revenues more closely in line with expenditures and to help ensure that
subscription fees and revenues are reasonable. Currently, the Real-Time
Service generates revenue of approximately $220,000 annually, and the
Comprehensive Service generates revenue of approximately $48,000
annually. No revenue is generated by

the T+1 Transaction Price Service. Consequently, all three services
generate less than $300,000 of revenue per year. The cost of operating
MSRB market information programs has been increasing annually. Fee
revenue obtained through these subscription services covers only a
small portion of RTRS operating costs. Even with the proposed
increases, the MSRB does not expect subscription fees to cover more
than a relatively small percentage of program costs.
2. Statutory Basis
    The MSRB believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15B(b)(2)(J) of the Act,\6\ which requires, in pertinent part,
that the MSRB's rules shall:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-4(b)(2)(J).

    Provide that each municipal securities broker and each municipal
securities dealer shall pay to the Board such reasonable fees and
charges as may be necessary or appropriate to defray the costs and
expenses of operating and administering the Board. Such rules shall
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
specify the amount of such fees and charges.

    The proposed rule change provides for commercially reasonable fees
to partially offset costs associated with operating RTRS and producing
and disseminating transaction reports to subscribers.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Board does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act since it would apply equally to
all market participants that chose to subscribe to the services.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments Received on the
Proposed Rule Change by Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received on the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MSRB-2010-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MSRB-2010-09. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies
of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements
with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the
Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington,
DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3
p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and
copying at the MSRB's offices. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-MSRB-2010-09 and should be submitted on or before
November 8, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-26182 Filed 10-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 143 (Thursday, July 25, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35868-35869]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15827]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-2769]

21st Century Cures: Announcing the Establishment of the BEST
Resource Taxonomy; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for
Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; establishment of docket; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the establishment of a public docket to receive comments from
interested parties (including academic institutions, regulated
industry, and patient groups) on the Agency's publication of a glossary
of terms which is part of the BEST (Biomarkers, EndpointS, and other
Tools) Resource Taxonomy. FDA has developed a web page that describes
the BEST Resource Taxonomy and links out to the official National
Library of Medicine web page for the BEST glossary of terms. Comments
on the BEST Resource Taxonomy will help FDA enhance its utility and may
assist FDA in developing future versions of this resource and
identifying best methods for conveying information about biomarkers,
endpoints, and other drug development tools to the general public.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on this notice by
September 23, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before September 23, 2019. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of September 23, 2019. Comments
received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions)
will be considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery
service acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2019-N-2769 for ``21st Century Cures: Announcing the Establishment
of the BEST Resource Taxonomy.'' Received comments, those filed in a
timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be placed in the docket and, except
for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable
at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Leptak, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 6461, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-0017<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Stephen Ripley, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,
240-402-7911.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 3011 of the 21st Century Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-255) added
a new section 507 to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 357). Section 3011(b)(3)(A) requires FDA to collaborate with
biomedical research consortia and other interested parties to
``establish a taxonomy for the classification of biomarkers (and
related scientific concepts) for use in drug development.'' FDA is
meeting this legislative requirement through updates to the BEST
Resource on the National Library of Medicine website, available at
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK326791/, is FDA's response to
this

legislative requirement. In Spring 2015, the FDA-NIH (National
Institutes of Health) Joint Leadership Council identified the
harmonization of terms used in translational science and medical
product development as a priority need, with a focus on terms related
to study endpoints and biomarkers (see https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/ucm614359.htm). Working
together with the goals of improving communication, aligning
expectations, and improving scientific understanding, the two agencies
developed the BEST Resource. The current phase of BEST comprises a
glossary that clarifies use of important terms in the context of
biomarkers and related scientific concepts and describes some of the
hierarchical relationships, connections, and dependencies among the
terms it contains. For example, the BEST glossary aims to capture
distinctions between biomarkers and clinical assessments and to
describe their distinct roles in biomedical research, clinical
practice, and medical product development. FDA refers the public to the
following web page for additional background information as well as a
link to the BEST glossary of terms: https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DevelopmentResources/ucm614359.htm. FDA has
previously discussed taxonomy for biomarkers used in drug development
at its public meeting on Drug Development Tool Process on December 11,
2018, and invited comment on the BEST taxonomy in guidance published on
December 12, 2018, on the evidentiary framework for biomarker
qualification.

II. Establishment of a Docket and Issues for Consideration

    To help FDA determine the utility of the BEST glossary of terms,
develop future iterations, and identify best methods for conveying this
information, FDA is soliciting public comments on the BEST glossary
that can be found on the following web page: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK338448/?report=reader. The BEST glossary
is meant to be a resource that will be periodically updated with
additional terms and clarifying information. Specifically, FDA welcomes
comments concerning: (1) The utility of the BEST glossary; (2) specific
proposed edits, including additions and removal of terms, with a
rationale supporting these proposed edits; (3) the best approach for
developing future iterations of the glossary; and (4) questions
pertaining to the BEST glossary that you would like FDA to address in
future communications. As the glossary is refined, the goal is to
elaborate on these terms, so they will remain relevant, thus fostering
consistent usage. Ultimately, FDA hopes that the BEST glossary will
help to accelerate development and refinement of medical products,
which will lead to improvements in health outcomes. The Agency will
consider comments submitted to the docket as it revises the BEST
glossary of terms.

    Dated: July 22, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-15827 Filed 7-24-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 16 (Friday, January 24, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4075-4077]
[FR Doc No: 2014-01074]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket No. RM13-2-000]

Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the final rule (RM13-2-
000) which was published in the Federal Register of Thursday, December
5, 2013 (78 FR 73239). The regulations revised the pro forma Small
Generator

Interconnection Procedures (SGIP) and pro forma Small Generator
Interconnection Agreement (SGIA) originally set forth in Order No.
2006.

DATES: Effective on February 3, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Leslie Kerr (Technical Information), Office of Energy Policy and
Innovation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Monica Taba (Technical Information), Office of Electric Reliability,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Elizabeth Arnold (Legal Information), Office of the General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    146 FERC ] 61,019

Errata Notice

    On November 22, 2013, the Commission issued an order in the above-
referenced docket. Small Generator Interconnection Agreements and
Procedures, 145 FERC ] 61,159 (2013). This errata notice serves to
correct references to Small Generator Interconnection Procedures (SGIP)
section numbers in the order and the pro forma SGIP, and to make other
typographical corrections.
    In FR Doc. 2013-28515 appearing on page 73239 in the Federal
Register of Thursday, December 5, 2013, the following corrections are
made:
    1. On page 73256, in the second column, footnote 221 is corrected
to read as follows:
    `` \221\ The Commission adds the following language to the first
paragraph of section 2.1 of the SGIP:
    However, Fast Track eligibility is distinct from the Fast Track
Process itself, and eligibility does not imply or indicate that a Small
Generating Facility will pass the Fast Track screens in section 2.2.1
below or the Supplemental Review screens in section 2.4.4 below.''
    2. On page 73259, in the third column, the third sentence of
paragraph 142 is corrected to read as follows:
    ``Regarding NRECA, EEI & APPA's assertion that the use of 100
percent of minimum load limits the flexibility to move loads and the
ability to deploy additional sectionalizing devices for reliability
enhancement, we note that one of the factors to be considered in the
safety and reliability screen of the supplemental review asks whether
operational flexibility is reduced by the proposed Small Generating
Facility (see SGIP section <IP_ADDRESS>.5).''
    3. On page 73264, in the second column, the last sentence of
paragraph 182 is corrected to read as follows:
    ``We do, however, modify section <IP_ADDRESS> to include language that
the Transmission Provider will provide an interconnection agreement to
the Interconnection Customer if the Interconnection Customer agrees to
pay for the modifications to the Transmission Provider's system,
similar to the language in section 2.3.1 of the SGIP.''
    4. On page 73271, in the first column, footnote 449 is corrected to
read as follows:
    `` \449\ NRECA, EEI & APPA at 29 (quoting the NOPR, FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 32,697 at P 1, n. 4) (emphasis added).
    5. On page 73288, the last sentence of the first paragraph in
section 2.1 of Appendix C, Revisions to the Pro Forma SGIP, is
corrected to read as follows:
    ``However, Fast Track eligibility is distinct from the Fast Track
Process itself, and eligibility does not imply or indicate that a Small
Generating Facility will pass the Fast Track screens in section 2.2.1
below or the Supplemental Review screens in section 2.4.4 below.''
    6. On page 73293, the table in section <IP_ADDRESS> of Appendix C,
Revisions to the Pro Forma SGIP, is corrected to read as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Type of
                                  interconnection to
 Primary distribution line type         primary         Result/criteria
                                   distribution line
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three-phase, three wire.........  3-phase or single   Pass screen.
                                   phase, phase-to-
                                   phase.
Three-phase, four wire..........  Effectively-        Pass screen.
                                   grounded 3 phase
                                   or Single-phase,
                                   line-to-neutral.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. On page 73297, the first sentence of section <IP_ADDRESS>.1 of
Appendix C, Revisions to the Pro Forma SGIP is corrected to read as
follows:
    ``The type of generation used by the proposed Small Generating
Facility will be taken into account when calculating, estimating, or
determining circuit or line section minimum load relevant for the
application of screen <IP_ADDRESS>.''
    8. On pages 73299 and 73300, sections <IP_ADDRESS>, <IP_ADDRESS>, and <IP_ADDRESS>
of Appendix C, Revisions to the Pro Forma SGIP, are corrected to read
as follows:
    ``<IP_ADDRESS> If the proposed interconnection passes the supplemental
screens in sections <IP_ADDRESS>, <IP_ADDRESS>, and <IP_ADDRESS> above and does not
require construction of facilities by the Transmission Provider on its
own system, the interconnection agreement shall be provided within ten
Business Days after the notification of the supplemental review
results.
    <IP_ADDRESS> If interconnection facilities or minor modifications to the
Transmission Provider's system are required for the proposed
interconnection to pass the supplemental screens in sections <IP_ADDRESS>,
<IP_ADDRESS>, and <IP_ADDRESS> above, and the Interconnection Customer agrees to
pay for the modifications to the Transmission Provider's electric
system, the interconnection agreement, along with a non-binding good
faith estimate for the interconnection facilities and/or minor
modifications, shall be provided to the Interconnection Customer within
15 Business Days after receiving written notification of the
supplemental review results.
    <IP_ADDRESS> If the proposed interconnection would require more than
interconnection facilities or minor modifications to the Transmission
Provider's system to pass the supplemental screens in sections <IP_ADDRESS>,
<IP_ADDRESS>, and <IP_ADDRESS> above, the Transmission Provider shall notify the
Interconnection Customer, at the same time it notifies the
Interconnection Customer with the supplemental review results, that the
Interconnection Request shall be evaluated under the section 3 Study
Process unless the Interconnection Customer withdraws its Small
Generating Facility.''
    9. On page 73349, Section 10.0 of Attachment 8 (Facilities Study
Agreement) to Appendix C, Revisions to the Pro Forma SGIP, is corrected
to read as follows:
    ``10.0 Within ten Business Days of providing a draft
Interconnection Facilities Study report to Interconnection Customer,
Transmission Provider and Interconnection Customer shall meet to
discuss the results of the Interconnection Facilities Study.''

    Dated: January 15, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-01074 Filed 1-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 6, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26072-26074]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10524]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2015-0001; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1470]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or

regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where
applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for
the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice
is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary
FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The
FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures
that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of
having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In
addition, the FIRM and FIS report, once effective, will be used by
insurance agents and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance
premium rates for new buildings and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before August 4, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1470, to
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location and
the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: April 22, 2015.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Adams County, Colorado, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Adams County...  4430 South Adams County
                                          Parkway, Brighton, CO 80601.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Arapahoe County, Colorado, and Incorporated Area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Aurora.........................  15151 East Alameda Parkway,
                                          Suite 3200, Aurora, CO 80012.
City of Centennial.....................  7437 South Fairplay Street,
                                          Centennial, CO 80112.
City of Greenwood Village..............  6060 South Quebec Street,
                                          Greenwood Village, CO 80111.
Unincorporated Areas of Arapahoe County  6924 South Lima Street,
                                          Centennial, CO 80112.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Douglas County, Colorado, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Lone Tree......................  9222 Teddy Lane, Lone Tree, CO
                                          80124.
Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County.  100 3rd Street, Castle Rock, CO
                                          80104.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2015-10524 Filed 5-5-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P