[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 21, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40201-40203]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14430]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-7264; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-185-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Airbus Model A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series
airplanes; and Model A340-500 and -600 series airplanes. This proposed
AD was prompted by a quality control review on the final assembly line,
which determined that the wrong aluminum alloy was used to manufacture
several structural parts. This proposed AD would require a one-time
eddy current conductivity measurement of certain cabin and cargo
compartment structural parts to determine if an incorrect aluminum
alloy was used, and replacement of any affected part with a serviceable
part. We are proposing this AD to detect and replace structural parts
made of incorrect aluminum alloy. This condition could result in
reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Airbus
SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 45
80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
7264; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vladimir Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-7264;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-185-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2015-0206, dated October 12, 2015 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model
A330-200, -200 Freighter, and -300 series airplanes; and Model A340-500
and -600 series airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Following an Airbus quality control review on the final assembly
line, it was discovered that wrong aluminum alloy was used to
manufacture several structural parts.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could reduce the
structural integrity of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Airbus issued
Service Bulletin (SB) A330-53-3261, SB A330-53-3262, and SB A340-53-
5072, as applicable to aeroplane type, to provide instructions to
identify the affected parts.

    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-
time Special Detailed Inspection (SDI) [eddy current conductivity
measurements] of certain cabin and/or cargo compartment parts for
material identification and, depending on findings, replacement with
serviceable parts.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
7264.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following service information:
     Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3261, including Appendixes
01, 02, and 03, dated June 23, 2015.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3262, including Appendixes
01 and 02, dated June 23, 2015.
     Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-5072, including Appendixes
01 and 02, dated June 23, 2015.
    The service information describes procedures for a one-time eddy
current conductivity measurement of certain cabin and cargo compartment
structural parts to determine if an incorrect aluminum alloy was used,
and replacement of any affected part with a serviceable part. This
service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these
same type designs.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 37 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We also estimate that it would take about 11 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $34,595, or $935
per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any on-condition repairs would take
about 45 work-hours and would require parts costing $0, for a cost of
$3,825 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these repairs.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our
cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2016-7264; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-
185-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 5, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1) and (c)(2) of this AD, certificated in any category.
    (1) Airbus Model A330-201, -202, -203, -223, -223F, -243, -243F,
-301, -302, -303, -321, -322, -323, -341, -342, and -343 airplanes,
having manufacturer serial numbers identified in Airbus Service
Bulletin A330-53-3261, dated June 23, 2015; and/or Airbus Service
Bulletin A330-53-3262, dated June 23, 2015.
    (2) Airbus Model A340-541 and -642 airplanes, manufacturer
serial numbers 1030, 1040, 1079, 1091, 1102, and 1122.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a quality control review on the final
assembly line, which determined that the wrong aluminum alloy was
used to manufacture several structural parts. We are issuing this AD
to detect and replace structural parts made of incorrect aluminum
alloy. This condition could result in reduced structural integrity
of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) One-time Measurement

    Within 6 years after the effective date of this AD, but not
exceeding 12 years since the date of issuance of the original
certificate of airworthiness or the date of issuance of the original
export certificate of airworthiness: Do a one-time eddy current
conductivity measurement of the cabin and cargo compartment
structural parts identified in the ``Affected Part Number'' column
of table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD to determine if an
incorrect aluminum alloy

was used, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the
applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1),
(g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD.
    (1) For cargo compartment structural parts for Model A330
airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A330-53-3261, including
Appendixes 01, 02, and 03, dated June 23, 2015.
    (2) For cabin structural parts for Model A330 airplanes: Airbus
Service Bulletin
    A330-53-3262, including Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 23,
2015.
    (3) For cargo compartment structural parts for Model A340
airplanes: Airbus Service Bulletin A340-53-5072, including
Appendixes 01 and 02, dated June 23, 2015.

  Table 1 to Paragraphs (g) and (h) of This AD--Parts To Be Inspected/
                                Installed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Acceptable
        Affected part No.          replacement  part         Area
                                          No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F5347126620600..................  F5347126620000....  Cabin
F5347126621000..................  F5347126620400....  Cabin
F5347170420400..................  F5347170420400....  Cargo
F5347170420600..................  F5347170420600....  Cargo
F5377004320300..................  F5377004320051....  Cargo
F5397096620200..................  F5397096620200....  Cargo
G5367131300000..................  G5367131300000....  Cargo
G5367173700000..................  G5367173700000....  Cargo
G5367173800000..................  G5367173800000....  Cargo
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(h) Replacement

    If during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
any affected part having a part number specified in table 1 to
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD is found to have a measured value
greater than that specified in Figure A-GFAAA, Sheet 02,
``Inspection Flowchart,'' of the applicable service information
identified in paragraphs (g)(1), (g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD:
Before further flight, replace with an acceptable replacement part
having a part number specified in table 1 to paragraphs (g) and (h)
of this AD, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
the applicable service information identified in paragraphs (g)(1),
(g)(2), and (g)(3) of this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN: Vladimir
Ulyanov, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): If any service information
contains procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those
procedures and tests must be done to comply with this AD; any
procedures or tests that are not identified as RC are recommended.
Those procedures and tests that are not identified as RC may be
deviated from using accepted methods in accordance with the
operator's maintenance or inspection program without obtaining
approval of an AMOC, provided the procedures and tests identified as
RC can be done and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition. Any substitutions or changes to procedures or tests
identified as RC require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0206, dated October 12,
2015, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7264.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAL, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 45 80; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.com. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 9, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-14430 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


April 25, 2019  -  WA HHC Reconsideration
Tribal Informational Call #2

Tribal Attendees:
Hoh
Lower Elwha
RTOC
Chehalis
Sauk-Suiattle
Nooksack
Stillaguamish
Suquamish
Nez Perce
Puyallup
Skokomish
Nisqually
Swinomish
Muckleshoot
NWIFC
Affiliated tribes of the NW Indians
Port Gamble S'Klallam
Umatilla
Yakama
Nooksack

EPA attendees: Chris Hladick, Angela Chung, Wenona Wilson, Hanh Shaw, Stacy Murphy, Lucy Edmondson, Andrew Baca, Matt Szelag

Questions and Comments from Tribal Attendees

    Register opposition to reversing EPA's final rule; object to withdrawing standards; current rule is science based and defensible; not doing tribal consultation is inconsistent; RA's letter Feb 8 indicates that EPA will consult with tribes on a government-to-government basis  -  share rationale and detailed justification
    Yesterday we got cut off at the end of the call, can EPA please repeat what was said?
    Oppose repeal of the final rule applicable to WA; long process that led to the current WQS; it doesn't make sense that the petition from industry would result in rescinding a rule that was developed based on input from the public and tribes; FCR of 175 g/day  -  consideration of rate below that would be unjustifiable; this call does not constitute consultation with the tribes; informational and answering questions; EPA is just informing tribes; the first step should be requesting input from tribes before rescinding the decision; there needs to be true consultation with the tribes. Does EPA support the Toxics Reduction rule in place or is EPA interfering with the state's process?
    Given the extensive record supporting the HHC, how is this reconsideration consistent with EPA's trust responsibilities with the tribes? The tribe opposes EPA moving forward.
    Oppose EPA's repeal of the rule; Puget Sound Partnership  -  fisheries restoration and recovery; this is going backwards; don't know where this is going to go with lawsuits  -  you are in an awkward position with leadership; will go to our legal department; we completely oppose this.
    Regarding the rule process  -  we expect the science and rationale as part of consultation; so far I haven't heard the new science info and basis  -  what is R10's role in this decision?
    We're supposed to be working together, EPA is the trustee. Why is this taking place?
    You are not providing a basis at this time, but when a decision is made, then there will be a basis; would there be an opportunity to consult? Consultation after a decision is made is not consultation.
    I support the concerns about this not being consultation.
    What is the point of these calls? You are not listening  -  where do we go from here?
    What are the options for the tribes? Are we supposed to sue? Executive Order said federal agencies have to consult with tribes and you are not doing that.
    EPA made the standards stricter; aren't standards expected to contribute to maintenance and attainment; what is your thinking on that?
    I know you guys must feel awkward, but this is going to force us into a lawsuit; this is a terrible situation; the DC folks have put you in a bad position; this is putting us against the wall/unfortunate situation. Isn't EPA be obligated to establish more stringent standards? I don't put a lot of faith in the agency establishing more stringent standards if you just then turn around and reverse them.
    175 g/day FCR has always been too low; to my knowledge, it's based on consumption of fish flesh; we don't consume the flesh, we eat the eyes, the head; standards have to protect the most sensitive populations; different consumption patterns need to be considered; arbitrary and capricious to go backwards.
    EPA is not going to authorize consultation because you did it in 2016? New decision based on old information or new information from tribes?
    Is anyone from OW in DC on the call?
    Join my colleagues opposing repeal of the rule; agree that consultation is required prior to making the final decision.
    EPA laid out a 2 step process; 1-reconsideration 2-rulemaking to withdraw; yesterday there was a question on whether the record for step 1 would consist of petition from industry; somehow consultation from the prior process would be considered for decision making for step 1. Please clarify the scope of the record for step 1.
    The tribes will have to come together on this and decide what's suitable for tribes; go back to DC as a group, this is not fair.
    Oppose this new rule; you heard from 11 tribes that voiced the opinion yesterday; R10 is not the bad guy  -  you are the messenger; we have to wait for EPA to take action, then its too late; consultation after the fact is not consultation.
    What's the administrative record on the decision to grant reconsideration? WA's 2016 submittal is stale at this point; any new information for the reconsideration?
    Regarding the ID standards  -  you talked about the rationale, which is different from EPA's previous positions. We were not notified of the ID decision or about this call; you will not have new data  -  nothing has changed, this is simply a policy decision  -  is that accurate?
    As you are deliberating, 20 member tribes provided comments on July 10, 2017 in response to the petitions; Sept. 11, 2018 letter as well to AA Ross on this topic; Jan 25, 2019 to Wheeler again on this issue; please add the letters to the record; we will forward the letters again.
    You mentioned the state has made its position pretty clear; what does that mean? Has there been communication since between EPA and the state?
    Was not able to talk to council, I ask Chris to take back to DC; they should reconsider the intention to go back on the WQS; not a good idea to open pandora's box  -  not good for the environment, politics, or tribes.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 212 (Monday, November 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69384-69385]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24184]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2012-0123; FMCSA-2015-0326; FMCSA-2015-0328; FMCSA-
2015-0329; FMCSA-2017-0057; FMCSA-2017-0059; FMCSA-2017-0060; FMCSA-
2017-0061]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 18
individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf
individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on August 22, 2020. The
exemptions expire on August 22, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET,

Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Dockets
Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
Insert the docket number, FMCSA-2012-0123, FMCSA-2015-0326, FMCSA-2015-
0328, FMCSA-2015-0329, FMCSA-2017-0057, FMCSA-2017-0059, FMCSA-2017-
0060, or FMCSA-2017-0061, in the keyword box, and click ``Search.''
Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose the document
to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the
docket online by visiting Dockets Operations in Room W12-140 on the
ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help
you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting
Dockets Operations.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On September 2, 2020, FMCSA published a notice announcing its
decision to renew exemptions for 18 individuals from the hearing
standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in interstate
commerce and requested comments from the public (85 FR 54626). The
public comment period ended on October 2, 2020, and no comments were
received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of
safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved
by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(11).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced
whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or
without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric
device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a
hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American
National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5--1951.
    This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow
drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing
aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 18 renewal exemption applications,
FMCSA announces its decision to exempt the following drivers from the
hearing requirement in Sec.  391.41 (b)(11).
    As of August 22, 2020, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), the following 18 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (85 FR 54626):

Mataio Brown (MS)
Barry Carpenter (SD)
Lyle Eash (VA)
Clay Fitzpatrick (ID)
Berenice Martinez (TX)
Michael McCarthy (MN)
Steven Moorehead (KY)
Gary Nagel (MN)
Christopher Poole (OH)
Ricardo Porras-Payan (TX)
James Quinn (TN)
Willine Smith (GA)
Brandon Soto (MO)
Dennis Stotts (OH)
Michael Tayman (ME)
Carlos Torres (FL)
Paul Wentworth (WA)
Joseph Woodle (KY)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2012-0123, FMCSA-
2015-0326, FMCSA-2015-0328, FMCSA-2015-0329, FMCSA-2017-0057, FMCSA-
2017-0059, FMCSA-2017-0060, or FMCSA-2017-0061. Their exemptions were
applicable as of August 22, 2020, and will expire on August 22, 2022.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid
for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b).

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-24184 Filed 10-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 72 (Friday, April 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22310-22311]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8956]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-845-001.
    Applicants: Bishop Hill Interconnection LLC.
    Description: Compliance Filing of Common Facilities Agreement to be
effective 3/29/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120405-5046.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-846-001.
    Applicants: Bishop Hill Energy II LLC.
    Description: Compliance Filing of Common Facilities Agreement to be
effective 3/29/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120405-5051.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-847-001.
    Applicants: Bishop Hill Energy LLC.
    Description: Compliance Filing of Amended Shared Facilities
Agreement to be effective 3/29/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120405-5043.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-848-001.
    Applicants: Bishop Hill Energy II LLC.
    Description: Cancellation of Shared Facilities Agreement Compliance
Filing to be effective 3/29/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120405-5052.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-849-001.
    Applicants: Bishop Hill Energy III LLC.
    Description: Cancellation of Shared Facilities Agreement Compliance
Filing to be effective 3/29/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120405-5044.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-850-001.
    Applicants: Bishop Hill Interconnection LLC.
    Description: Compliance Filing of Amended Shared Facilities
Agreement to be effective 3/29/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120405-5045.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1418-001.
    Applicants: TC Ravenswood, LLC.
    Description: Rate Schedule to be effective 3/30/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/5/12.

    Accession Number: 20120405-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/12/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1447-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation SGIA SERVAG SCE-GBU 17300
Slover Fontana Roof Top Solar to be effective 8/29/2011.
    Filed Date: 4/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120405-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1448-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Amended SGIA with SCE and Littlerock for Littlerock
SGF1 Project to be effective 4/6/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120405-5001.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/26/12.

    Docket Numbers: ER12-1449-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of FERC Rate Schedule Nos. 545
and 550, Martinsdale LGIAs to be effective 5/23/2012.
    Filed Date: 4/5/12.
    Accession Number: 20120405-5082.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/26/12.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 5, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8956 Filed 4-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P