[Federal Register: September 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 189)]
[Notices]
[Page 60456-60457]
[DOCID:fr30se10-78]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0817; FRL-9208-5]

Board of Scientific Counselors, Executive Committee Meeting--
October 2010

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and
Development (ORD), gives notice of a meeting of the Board of Scientific
Counselors (BOSC) Executive Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Monday, October 18, 2010, from 8:30
a.m. to 5 p.m., and will continue on Tuesday, October 19, 2010, from
8:30 a.m. until 1 p.m. All times noted are eastern time. The meeting
may adjourn early if all business is finished. Requests for the draft
agenda or for making oral presentations at the meeting will be accepted
up to one business day before the meeting.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Hilton Garden Inn, 815 14th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005. Submit your comments, identified by
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0817, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
     E-mail: Send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0817.
     Fax: Fax comments to:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0817.
     Mail: Send comments by mail to: Board of Scientific
Counselors, Executive Committee Meeting--February 2010 Docket,
Mailcode: 2822T, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-0817.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver comments to: EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), Room 3334, EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2010-
0817. Deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2010-0817. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
dockets.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Board of
Scientific Counselors, Executive Committee Meeting--October 2010
Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the ORD Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Designated Federal Officer via
mail at: Greg Susanke, Mail Code 8104-R, Office

of Science Policy, Office of Research and Development, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460;
via phone/voice mail at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; via fax at:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
via e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

General Information

    Any member of the public interested in receiving a draft BOSC
agenda or making a presentation at the meeting may contact Greg
Susanke, the Designated Federal Officer, via any of the contact methods
listed in the ``FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT'' section above. In
general, each individual making an oral presentation will be limited to
a total of three minutes.
    Proposed agenda items for the meeting include, but are not limited
to: an Informatics/Data Mining/Knowledgebase session; a Research
Program Performance Evaluation session; an ORD update; and future
business. The meeting is open to the public.
    Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For
information on access or services for individuals with disabilities,
please contact Greg Susanke<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To
request accommodation of a disability, please contact Greg Susanke,
preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much
time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: September 23, 2010.
M. Dannel,
Acting Director, Office of Science Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-24564 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


From:
"Ford, Luke"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Fri, 28 Apr 2023 09:36:49
To:
Coke ICR2<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: Cokenergy 114 Request Report

Cokenergy 114 ERT Files

I have attached a link to the ERT zip file and enclosure 2 spreadsheet.  Can you confirm if you can download.  If not, I will mail a drive with the data.

Thanks

Luke Ford
Director EH&S
Primary Energy
3210 Watling St.
MC 2-991
East Chicago, IN 46312
Desk  -<PHONE_NUMBER>
Cell  -<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

<< Coke-Enc2-Emission-Test-Data-Cokenergy-042723.xlsx >>
<< Cokenergy HRSG Main Stack Information St_04-27-2023_15-01_PKG.zip >>


[Federal Register: September 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 173)]
[Notices]
[Page 52833-52835]
[DOCID:fr07se06-97]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54388; File No. SR-BSE-2006-32]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Its Boston Options Exchange Trading Rules Regarding the
Extension of a Pilot Program That Increases the Standard Position and
Exercise Limits for Certain Options Traded

August 30, 2006.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on August 18, 2006, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (``BSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the BSE. The Exchange has
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' rule change pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\
which renders it effective upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The BSE proposes to amend the rules of the Boston Options Exchange
(``BOX''), an options trading facility of the BSE, to extend its
current pilot program to increase the standard position and exercise
limits for equity option contracts and options on the Nasdaq-100 Index
Tracking Stock (``QQQQ'') (``Pilot Program''). The text of the proposed
rule change is available on the BSE's Web site (http://www.bostonstock.com
), at the BSE's principal office, 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 BSE 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 Exchange 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
    The Pilot Program provides for an increase to the standard position
and exercise limits for equity option contracts and for options on
QQQQs for a six-month period.\5\ Specifically, the Pilot Program
increased the applicable position and exercise limits for equity

options and options on the QQQQ to the following levels:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Pilot Program, which commenced on March 3, 2005, was
extended on August 15, 2005 and February 22, 2006, and is set to
expire on September 1, 2006. See Securities Exchange Act Release
Nos. 51317 (March 3, 2005), 70 FR 12254 (March 11, 2005) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness of File No. SR-BSE-2005-10)
(``Pilot Program Notice''); 52264 (August 15, 2005), 70 FR 48992
(August 22, 2005) (notice of filing and immediate effectiveness of
File No. SR-BSE-2005-37, which extended the Pilot Program); and
53347 (February 22, 2006), 71 FR 10573 (March 1, 2006) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness of File No. SR-BSE-2006-07, which
extended the Pilot Program).
    \6\ Except when the Pilot Program is in effect.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Pilot program equity option          Pilot program equity option
          contract limit6                       contract limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         13,500                               25,000
                         22,500                               50,000
                         31,500                               75,000
                         60,000                              200,000
                         75,000                              250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               CurrenPilot program QQQQ option contract
                                                               limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        300,000                              900,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Except when the Pilot Program is in effect.

    The Exchange believes that extending the Pilot Program for six
months is warranted due to positive feedback from members and for the
reasons cited in the original rule filing that proposed the adoption of
the Pilot Program.\7\ In addition, BOX has not encountered any problems
or difficulties relating to the Pilot Program since its inception. For
these reasons, the BSE requests that the Commission extend the Pilot
Program for an additional six months, through and including March 1,
2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Pilot Program Notice, supra note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\8\ in general, and furthers the objective of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade and to protect investors and the
public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing rule change does not: (1) Significantly
affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (2) impose
any significant burden on competition; and (3) become operative for 30
days from the date of this filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\12\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \13\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange provided the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file this proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing the proposed rule
change. In addition, the Exchange has requested that the Commission
waive the 30-day pre-operative delay. The Commission believes that
waiving the 30-day pre-operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and in the public interest because it will
allow the Pilot Program to continue uninterrupted.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the pre-operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the Act.

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 No. SR-BSE-2006-32 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-BSE-2006-32. 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 Internet 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 inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such
filing will also be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the BSE. 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 No. SR-BSE-2006-32 and should be submitted on or before September
28, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant
to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-14792 Filed 9-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27895-27898]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12829]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 876

[Docket No. FDA-2018-N-1894]

Medical Devices; Gastroenterology-Urology Devices; Classification
of the Fluid Jet System for Prostate Tissue Removal

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final order.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is classifying
the fluid jet system for prostate tissue removal into class II (special
controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are
identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for
the fluid jet

system for prostate tissue removal's classification. We are taking this
action because we have determined that classifying the device into
class II (special controls) will provide a reasonable assurance of
safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will
also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices, in part
by reducing regulatory burdens.

DATES: This order is effective June 15, 2018. The classification was
applicable on December 21, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Cades, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. G246, Silver Spring, MD, 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Upon request, FDA has classified the fluid jet system for prostate
tissue removal as class II (special controls), which we have determined
will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. In
addition, we believe this action will enhance patients' access to
beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory burdens by
placing the device into a lower device class than the automatic class
III assignment.
    The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law
and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by
the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution
before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified as, and remains
within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA
takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (see 21 U.S.C.
360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as ``postamendments devices''
because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of
enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
    FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to
classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an
order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section
513(i) of the FD&C Act to a predicate device that does not require
premarket approval (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i)). We determine whether a new
device is substantially equivalent to a predicate by means of the
procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C
Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).
    FDA may also classify a device through ``De Novo'' classification,
a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the
FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)). Section 207 of the Food and Drug
Administration Modernization Act of 1997 established the first
procedure for De Novo classification (Pub. L. 105-115). Section 607 of
the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act modified the
De Novo application process by adding a second procedure (Pub. L. 112-
144). A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo
classification.
    Under the first procedure, the person submits a 510(k) for a device
that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from
FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of
the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section
513(f)(2).
    Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k)
and then a request for classification, if the person determines that
there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination
of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under
section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
    Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA shall
classify the device by written order within 120 days. The
classification will be according to the criteria under section
513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically within
class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial
classification of the device.
    We believe this De Novo classification will enhance patients'
access to beneficial innovation, in part by reducing regulatory
burdens. When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De
Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of
that type, including for 510(k)s (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(2)(B)(i)). As a
result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request
or PMA in order to market a substantially equivalent device (see 21
U.S.C. 360c(i), defining ``substantial equivalence''). Instead,
sponsors can use the less-burdensome 510(k) process, when necessary, to
market their device.

II. De Novo Classification

    On April 17, 2017, PROCEPT BioRobotics Inc. submitted a request for
De Novo classification of the AQUABEAM System. FDA reviewed the request
in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification
set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
    We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves
are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and
effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special
controls that, in combination with the general controls, provide
reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for
its intended use (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(a)(1)(B)). After review of the
information submitted in the request, we determined that the device can
be classified into class II with the establishment of special controls.
FDA has determined that these special controls, in addition to the
general controls, will provide reasonable assurance of the safety and
effectiveness of the device.
    Therefore, on December 21, 2017, FDA issued an order to the
requester classifying the device into class II. FDA is codifying the
classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 876.4350. We have named
the generic type of device fluid jet system for prostate tissue
removal, and it is identified as a prescription device intended for the
resection and removal of prostatic tissue for the treatment of benign
prostatic hyperplasia. The device cuts tissue by using a pressurized
jet of fluid delivered to the prostatic urethra. The device is able to
image the treatment area, or pairs with an imaging modality, to monitor
treatment progress.
    FDA has identified the following risks to health associated
specifically with this type of device and the measures required to
mitigate these risks in table 1.

     Table 1--Fluid Jet System for Prostate Tissue Removal Risks and
                           Mitigation Measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Identified risks                    Mitigation measures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Injury from device operation causing one    Clinical performance
 or more of the following:                   testing, Animal testing,
                                             Labeling, and Training.
     Bleeding
     Bruising
     Penile or pelvic pain

     Dysuria
     Incontinence
     Bladder or prostate capsule
     perforation
     Sexual dysfunction, including
     ejaculatory and erectile dysfunction
     Transurethral resection
     syndrome
     Urethral damage causing false
     passage or stricture
     Rectal incontinence/
     perforation
     Embolism
Adverse tissue reaction...................  Biocompatibility evaluation.
Infection.................................  Sterilization validation,
                                             Reprocessing validation,
                                             Shelf life testing, and
                                             Labeling.
Failure to remove target tissue or removal  Clinical performance
 of non-target tissue.                       testing, Animal testing,
                                             Software verification,
                                             validation, and hazard
                                             analysis, Non-clinical
                                             performance testing,
                                             Labeling, and Training.
Electrical shock or electromagnetic         Electrical safety testing,
 interference.                               Electromagnetic
                                             compatibility testing, and
                                             Labeling.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the
general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable
assurance of safety and effectiveness. In order for a device to fall
within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in
class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in
this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the
regulation codified by this order. We encourage sponsors to consult
with us if they wish to use a non-animal testing method they believe is
suitable, adequate, validated, and feasible. We will consider if such
an alternative method could be assessed for equivalency to an animal
test method. This device is subject to premarket notification
requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act.
    At the time of classification, fluid jet systems for prostate
tissue removal are for prescription use only. Prescription devices are
exempt from the requirement for adequate directions for use for the
layperson under section 502(f)(1) of the FD&C Act and 21 CFR 801.5, as
long as the conditions of 21 CFR 801.109 are met (referring to 21
U.S.C. 352(f)(1)).

III. Analysis of Environmental Impact

    The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is
of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This final order establishes special controls that refer to
previously approved collections of information found in other FDA
regulations and guidance. These collections of information are subject
to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The collections
of information in the guidance document ``De Novo Classification
Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation)'' have been
approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of
information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding
premarket approval, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-
0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding
premarket notification submissions, have been approved under OMB
control number 0910-0120; and the collections of information in part
801, regarding labeling, have been approved under OMB control number
0910-0485.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 876

    Medical devices.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part
876 is amended as follows:

PART 876--GASTROENTEROLOGY-UROLOGY DEVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 876 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.

0
2. Add Sec.  876.4350 to subpart E to read as follows:

Sec.  876.4350  Fluid jet system for prostate tissue removal.

    (a) Identification. A fluid jet system for prostate tissue removal
is a prescription device intended for the resection and removal of
prostatic tissue for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia. The
device cuts tissue by using a pressurized jet of fluid delivered to the
prostatic urethra. The device is able to image the treatment area, or
pairs with an imaging modality, to monitor treatment progress.
    (b) Classification. Class II (special controls). The special
controls for this device are:
    (1) Clinical performance testing must evaluate the following:
    (i) All adverse events associated with the device, and
    (ii) Improvement in lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS).
    (2) Physician training must be provided that includes:
    (i) Information on key aspects and use of the device, and
    (ii) Information on how to override or stop resection.
    (3) Animal testing must demonstrate that the device resects
targeted tissue in a controlled manner without injury to adjacent non-
target tissues.
    (4) Non-clinical performance data must demonstrate that the device
performs as intended under anticipated conditions of use. The following
performance characteristics must be tested:
    (i) Measurement of targeting accuracy and reproducibility of high
velocity fluid jet, and
    (ii) High pressure fluid jet verification testing at target and
non-target tissues.
    (5) Software verification, validation, and hazard analysis must be
performed.
    (6) The patient-contacting elements of the device must be
demonstrated to be biocompatible.
    (7) Performance data must demonstrate the electrical safety and
electromagnetic compatibility of the device.
    (8) Performance data must demonstrate the sterility of the patient-
contacting components of the device.

    (9) Performance data must support the shelf life of the device by
demonstrating continued sterility, package integrity, and device
functionality over the identified shelf life.
    (10) Performance data must validate the instructions for
reprocessing and reliability of reusable components.
    (11) Labeling must include the following:
    (i) A section that summarizes the clinical testing results,
including the adverse event profile and improvement in LUTS;
    (ii) A shelf life for single use components;
    (iii) A use life for reusable components; and
    (iv) Reprocessing instructions for reusable components.

    Dated: June 8, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-12829 Filed 6-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: August 15, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 157)]
[Notices]
[Page 45805]
[DOCID:fr15au07-76]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2101-000]

Sacramento Municipal Utility District; Notice of Authorization
for Continued Project Operation

August 8, 2007.
    On July 15, 2005, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, licensee
for the Upper American River Hydroelectric Project, filed an
application for a new or subsequent license pursuant to the Federal
Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's regulations. The Upper American
River Hydroelectric Project is located on the Rubicon River, Silver
Creek, and South Fork of the American River near Placerville,
California.
    The license for Project No. 2101-000 was issued for a period ending
July 31, 2007. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1),
requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue
from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the
terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is
issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section
15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior
license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based
on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c),
and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project
has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may
continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license
expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee
of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent
license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to
continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a
license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 2101 is issued to
Sacramento Municipal Utility District, for a period effective August 1,
2007 through July 31, 2008, or until the issuance of a new license for
the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes first.
If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not take place
on or before July 31, 2008, notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 18
CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1) of the FPA is
renewed automatically without further order or notice by the
Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise. If the project is
not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is hereby given that
Sacramento Municipal Utility District, is authorized to continue
operation of the Upper American River Hydroelectric Project until such
time as the Commission acts on its application for a subsequent
license.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-15906 Filed 8-14-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14360-14362]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6060]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0003; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1110]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On April 14, 2010, FEMA published in the Federal Register a
proposed rule that contained an erroneous table. This notice provides
corrections to that table, to be used in lieu of the information
published at 75 FR 19320. The table provided here represents the
flooding sources, location of referenced elevations, effective and
modified elevations, and communities affected for Sumter County,
Alabama, and Incorporated Areas. Specifically, it addresses the
following flooding sources: Factory Creek (backwater effects from
Tombigbee River), Fenache Creek (backwater effects from Tombigbee
River), Folsum Branch (backwater effects from Tombigbee River), High
Run (backwater effects from Tombigbee River), Jones Creek (backwater
effects from Tombigbee River), Noxubee River (backwater effects from
Tombigbee River), Sandy Creek, Sucarnoochee River, Tombigbee River,
Tombigbee River Tributary 13 (backwater effects from Tombigbee River),
Tombigbee River Tributary 16 (backwater effects from Tombigbee River,
Tombigbee River Tributary 7 (backwater effects from Tombigbee River),
Tombigbee River Tributary 8 (backwater effects from Tombigbee River),
Toomsuba Creek, and Whiterock Creek (backwater effects from
Sucarnoochee River).

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before June 14, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
1110, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER> or (e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER> or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) publishes proposed determinations of Base (1% annual-chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs for communities participating
in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), 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 BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are minimum requirements.
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 proposed elevations 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 these elevations are made final,
and for the contents in those buildings.

Corrections

    In the proposed rule published at 75 FR 19321, in the April 14,
2010, issue of the Federal Register, FEMA published a table under the
authority of 44 CFR 67.4. The table, entitled ``Sumter County, Alabama,
and Incorporated Areas'' addressed the following flooding sources:
Factory Creek (Backwater effects from Tombigbee River), Fenache Creek
(Backwater effects from Tombigbee River), Folsum Branch (Backwater
effects from Tombigbee River), High Run (Backwater effects from
Tombigbee River), Jones Creek (Backwater effects from Tombigbee River),
Noxubee River (Backwater effects from Tombigbee River), Sandy Creek,
Sucarnoochee River, Tombigbee River, Tombigbee River Trib 13 (Backwater
effects from Tombigbee River), Tombigbee River Trib 16 (Backwater
effects from Tombigbee River, Tombigbee River Trib 7 (Backwater effects
from Tombigbee River), Tombigbee River Trib 8 (Backwater effects from
Tombigbee River), Toomsuba Creek, and Whiterock Creek (Backwater
effects from Sucarnoochee River). That table contained inaccurate
information as to the location of referenced elevation, effective and
modified elevation in feet, and/or communities affected for that
flooding source. In this notice, FEMA is publishing a table containing
the accurate information, to address these prior errors. The
information provided below should be used in lieu of that previously
published.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           * Elevation in feet  (NGVD)  +
                                                              Elevation in feet  (NAVD)
                                                             Depth in feet above
        Flooding source(s)               Location of        ground  [caret] Elevation in    Communities affected
                                     referenced elevation           meters  (MSL)
                                                          --------------------------------
                                                              Effective       Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Sumter County, Alabama, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Factory Creek (backwater effects    From the confluence              None            +115  Unincorporated Areas
 from Tombigbee River).              with the Tombigbee                                     of Sumter County.
                                     River to
                                     approximately 1,600
                                     feet upstream of
                                     County Road 21.
Fenache Creek (backwater effects    From the confluence              None            +126  Unincorporated Areas
 from Tombigbee River).              with the Tombigbee                                     of Sumter County.
                                     River to
                                     approximately 0.5
                                     mile downstream of
                                     County Road 4.
Folsum Branch (backwater effects    From the confluence              None            +120  Town of Gainesville.
 from Tombigbee River).              with the Tombigbee
                                     River to
                                     approximately 500
                                     feet upstream of
                                     Fulson Branch Road.
High Run (backwater effects from    From the confluence              None            +103  Unincorporated Areas
 Tombigbee River).                   with the Tombigbee                                     of Sumter County.
                                     River to
                                     approximately 2.3
                                     miles upstream of
                                     the confluence with
                                     the Tombigbee River.
Jones Creek (backwater effects      From the confluence              None            +114  Town of Epes.
 from Tombigbee River).              with the Tombigbee
                                     River to
                                     approximately 2,100
                                     feet upstream of
                                     County Road 20.
Noxubee River (backwater effects    From the confluence              None            +122  Unincorporated Areas
 from Tombigbee River).              with the Tombigbee                                     of Sumter County.
                                     River to
                                     approximately 7.3
                                     miles upstream of
                                     County Road 85.
Sandy Creek.......................  Approximately 1 mile             None            +115  Unincorporated Areas
                                     downstream of State                                    of Sumter County.
                                     Route 28.
                                    Approximately 1,673              None            +117
                                     feet downstream of
                                     East Park Road.
Sucarnoochee River................  Approximately 1.6                None            +115  Unincorporated Areas
                                     miles downstream of                                    of Sumter County.
                                     railroad.
                                    Approximately 1.4                None            +120
                                     miles upstream of
                                     U.S. Route 11.
Tombigbee River...................  Approximately 29.4               None             +95  Town of Epes.
                                     miles downstream of
                                     U.S. Route 11.
                                    Approximately 12.7               None            +130
                                     miles upstream of
                                     the Gainesville Dam.
Tombigbee River Tributary 13        From the confluence              None            +108  Unincorporated Areas
 (backwater effects from Tombigbee   with the Tombigbee                                     of Sumter County.
 River).                             River to
                                     approximately 585
                                     feet downstream of
                                     Port of Unnamed Road.
Tombigbee River Tributary 16        From the confluence              None            +113  Unincorporated Areas
 (backwater effects from Tombigbee   with the Tombigbee                                     of Sumter County.
 River).                             River to
                                     approximately 740
                                     feet downstream of
                                     Port of Epes Highway.
Tombigbee River Tributary 7         From the confluence              None             +96  Unincorporated Areas
 (backwater effects from Tombigbee   with the Tombigbee                                     of Sumter County.
 River).                             River to
                                     approximately 1.2
                                     miles downstream of
                                     Pine Top Road.
Tombigbee River Tributary 8         From the confluence              None            +101  Unincorporated Areas
 (backwater effects from Tombigbee   with the Tombigbee                                     of Sumter County.
 River).                             River to
                                     approximately 0.6
                                     mile upstream of
                                     Trails End Road.
Toomsuba Creek....................  Approximately 0.7                None            +148  Unincorporated Areas
                                     mile downstream of                                     of Sumter County.
                                     the railroad.
                                    Approximately 750                None            +164
                                     feet upstream of
                                     U.S. Route 11.
Whiterock Creek (backwater effects  From the confluence              None            +116  Unincorporated Areas
 from Sucarnoochee River).           with the                                               of Sumter County.
                                     Sucarnoochee River
                                     to approximately
                                     1,073 feet
                                     downstream of
                                     Arrington Street.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

                                                  Town of Epes
Maps are available for inspection at 40 Carrol Street, Epes, AL 35464.

                                               Town of Gainesville

Maps are available for inspection at 9380 State Street, Gainesville, AL 35464.

                                      Unincorporated Areas of Sumter County

Maps are available for inspection at 318 Washington Street, Livingston, AL 35470.

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

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

    Dated: March 7, 2011.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Mitigation,
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-6060 Filed 3-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION III

	1650 Arch Street

	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103

DATE:	March 24, 2008

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document - Maryland; Reasonable Available
Control Technology Requirements for Marine Vessel and Barge Loading

FROM:	Gobeail McKinley, Biologist

Air Quality Planning Branch /s/

TO:		File EPA-R03-OAR-2007-1120

THRU: 	Cristina Fernandez, Branch Chief

Air Quality Planning Branch /s/

A.  BACKGROUND

On October 24, 2007, the Maryland Department of Environment (MDE)
submitted a revision to its state implementation plan (SIP).  The SIP
revision (Maryland SIP #07-12) includes amendments to Regulation .01 and
adoption of new Regulation .08 under COMAR 26.11.13 Control of Gasoline
and Volatile Organic Compound Storage and Handling.  This adoption
controls emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) throughout the
state.  MDE submitted these SIP revision requests pursuant to the
reasonable available control technology (RACT) requirements of sections
182 and 184 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).  The EPA has developed a Maximum
Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard for barge loading (40 CFR
Part 63 Subpart Y).  However, the liquid throughput threshold requiring
controls is very high.  Therefore, it is necessary to develop RACT
requirements for this activity.  Maryland has adopted VOC regulations
for the amendments and new regulation to establish RACT requirements for
marine vessel and barge loading.

A marine vessel is defined as any tank ship or barge that transports
VOCs in bulk as cargo.  Marine tank vessel loading operations are
facilities that load and unload liquid commodities (e.g., crude oil,
gasoline, jet fuel, kerosene, toluene, alcohols, fuel oil Numbers 2 and
6, some chemicals, and groups of solvents or petrochemical products,
etc.) in bulk.  Due to the increased demand for ethanol which is blended
with gasoline, there is a renewed interest in transferring liquid
products from stationary storage tanks into marine vessels or barges for
further distribution.  During marine tank vessel and barge loading
operations, emissions result as the liquid that is being loaded into the
vessel displaces vapors from the vessel's tank.  VOC vapors are released
from the vent of the barge in quantities that may be significant and
contribute to ground level ozone.  VOC emissions, together with nitrogen
oxides are precursors to the formation of ground level ozone.  Ground
level ozone, one of the principal components of smog, is a serious air
pollutant that harms human health and the environment. High levels of
ozone can damage the respiratory system and cause breathing problems,
throat irritation, coughing, chest pains, and greater susceptibility to
respiratory infection.  High levels of ozone also cause serious damage
to forests and agricultural crops, resulting in economic losses to
logging and farming operations.  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r
1

For the transfer of gasoline, about 3 tons of VOC are discharged into
the air for a barge having a 2 million gallon capacity.  The 3 tons of
emissions are usually discharge within a 24-hour period. Typically, a
barge is retrofitted with a connection for a vapor return line that
captures the VOCs.  The captured vapors are transferred through the
return line into an efficient control device for collection or
destruction.  In Maryland, there is no requirement to install a control
device for the collective vapors.

B.    SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 EPA REQUIREMENTS

This SIP revision was submitted pursuant to the RACT requirements of the
CAA.

RACT is the lowest emission limit that a particular source is capable of
meeting by the application of the control technology that is reasonably
available considering technological and economic feasibility.  Maryland
is located in the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) that was statutorily
created by section 184 of the CAA.  Section 184(b)(1)(B) of the CAA
requires States to implement RACT regulations on all VOC sources that
have the potential to emit 50 tons per year (TPY) or more.  In addition,
section 182(b)(2) requires States to implement RACT regulations on all
“major” sources of VOC in moderate or above ozone nonattainment
areas.  Major VOC sources are those with the potential to emit at least
100 TPY in moderate areas, 50 TPY in serious areas, and 25 TPY in severe
areas.

Maryland is in the OTR and the State is required to implement RACT
regulations for all sources with the potential to emit 50 TPY or more,
throughout the State.  In Maryland's severe ozone nonattainment areas,
RACT is required for all VOC sources with the potential to emit 25 TPY
or more.

STATE SUBMITTAL

Maryland’s amendments and new regulation establish RACT requirements
for marine vessel and barging loading.  The new definition amended in
.01 of COMAR 26.11.13 is marine vessel which is defined as any tank ship
or barge that transports VOCs in bulk as cargo.

The proposed new regulation .08 of COMAR 26.11.13 requires the following
applicability: (1) in Allegheny, Caroline, Dorchester, Garrett, Kent,
Queen Anne’s, St. Mary’s, Somerset, Talbot, Washington, Wicomico, or
Worchester counties, the requirements of this regulation apply to the
transfer of VOCs from a stationary storage tank into a marine vessel if
the total emissions from all marine vessel loading at the premises
during a calendar year are equal to or exceed 50 tons; (2) in Baltimore
City or Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Calvert, Carroll, Cecil, Charles,
Frederick, Harford, Howard, Montgomery, or Prince George’s counties,
the requirements of this regulation apply to the transfer of VOCs from a
stationary storage tank into a marine vessel if the total emissions from
all marine vessel loading at the premises during a calendar year are
equal to or exceed 25 tons; (3) the proposed new regulation applies to
all transfers of any amount of VOCs, except fuel oils, from stationary
storage tank into a marine vessel.

The transfer of VOCs into a marine vessel subject to this regulation is
prohibited unless: (1) the marine vessel is equipped with a vapor return
line; and the vapor is vented into an air pollution control device that
is demonstrated to recover or destroy at least 90 percent of the
captured vapor; (2) the vapor control system shall be constructed,
operated, and maintained so that VOC vapor leaks are minimized during
the transfer of VOCs into a marine vessel; (3)VOCs may not be
transferred into a marine vessel unless the vessel has been leak tested
or pressure tested within the past 2 years using the Coast Guard
requirements at 33 CFR Section 156.150.

The owner and operator of a premises subject to this regulation shall
record and maintain the following information: the date and time when
each marine vessel commenced and completed the loading of VOCs;
identification of the product that was loaded into the marine vessel and
the total volume loaded; and the date the date when each marine vessel
used was leak tested or pressure tested.  The records shall be
maintained for a period of less than 5 years and made available to the
Department upon request and to members of the public subject to the
provisions of the Maryland Public Information Act, State Government
Article.

C.  EPA EVALUATION:

Maryland’s amendment to Regulation .01 and adoption of new Regulation
.08 under COMAR 26.11.13 Control of Gasoline and Volatile Organic
Compound Storage and Handling adequately describes the sources,
operators, and owners as well as the RACT requirements. Based on the
technically feasibility of the cost of controls, EPA believes that a
reduction level of 90 percent would be reasonable for marine vessel and
barge loading.  For sources that require controls, these amendments have
an estimated emissions reduction potential of 2.7 tons of VOCs for each
2,000,000 gallon barge that is loaded in Maryland.

D.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED AGENCY ACTION:

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 The new and amended VOC RACT regulations submitted
by the state of Maryland as SIP revisions on October 24, 2007 strengthen
Maryland's SIP.  The revisions will result in the reduction of VOC
emissions from the affected sources.  EPA approval of this SIP revision
is recommended.

 PAGE

 PAGE  2


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 48 (Monday, March 15, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14229-14231]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05308]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2019-1055; Special Conditions No. 25-778-SC]

Special Conditions: Boeing Commercial Airplanes Model 777-9
Airplanes; Structure-Mounted Airbags

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes (Boeing) Model 777-9 airplane. This airplane will have a
novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of
technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport-
category airplanes. This design feature is structure-mounted airbags
designed to limit occupant forward excursion in the event of an
emergency landing. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not
contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

DATES: Effective April 14, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shannon Lennon, Airframe and Cabin
Safety Section, AIR-675, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and
Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 6, 2013, Boeing applied for a change to Type
Certificate No. T00001SE for structure-mounted airbags installed in the
Boeing Model 777-9 airplane. The application date was extended to March
30, 2016, based on Boeing's request. The Boeing Model 777-9 airplane,
which is a derivative of the Boeing Model 777 airplane currently
approved under Type Certificate No. T00001SE, is a twin-engine,
transport-category airplane with seating for 495 passengers and a
maximum takeoff weight of 775,000 pounds.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.101, Boeing must show that the Model 777-9 airplane, as
changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations
listed in Type Certificate No. T00001SE, or the applicable regulations
in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier
amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (e.g., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Boeing Model 777-9 airplane
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 type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Boeing Model 777-9 airplane 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 Boeing Model 777-9 airplane will incorporate the following
novel or unusual design features:
    Airbags mounted to structure to prevent head injury.

Discussion

    Boeing will install structure-mounted airbags instead of inflatable
lap belts as a means to protect each occupant from serious injury in
the event of an emergency landing, as required by Sec.  25.562(c)(5),
on 777-9 airplanes.
    Such use of airbags to provide injury protection for the occupant
is a novel or unusual feature for this airplane model, and the
applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate airworthiness standards for these design features.
Therefore, special conditions are needed to address requirements
particular to installation of airbags in this manner.
    Special conditions exist for airbags installed on seat belts, known
as inflatable lap belts, which have been installed on Boeing airplane
passenger seats. Structure-mounted airbags, although a novel design,
were first introduced on Jetstream Aircraft Limited Model 4100 series
airplanes, which resulted in issuance of Special Conditions 25-ANM-127
on May 14, 1997. These special conditions supplemented 14 CFR part 25
and, more specifically, Sec. Sec.  25.562 and 25.785.
    The structure-mounted airbag, similar to the inflatable lap belt,
is designed to limit occupant forward excursion in the event of an
emergency landing. These airbags will reduce the potential for serious
injury, including reducing the head-injury criterion measurement
defined in part 25. However, structure-mounted airbags function
similarly as automotive airbags, where the airbag deploys from
furniture located in front of the passenger, relative to the airplane's
direction of flight, forming a barrier between the structure and

occupant. Also, unlike the inflatable lap belt, the structure-mounted
airbag does not move with the occupant. To account for out-of-position
and brace-position occupants, the airbag is designed to conform to the
curvature of the exposed structure in the head-strike zone.
    Because the airbag system is essentially a single-use device, it
could deploy under crash conditions that are not sufficiently so severe
as to require the injury protection the airbag system provides. Because
an actual crash is frequently composed of a series of impacts before
the airplane comes to rest, a larger impact following the initial
impact could render the airbag system unavailable. This potential
situation does not exist with standard upper-torso restraints, which
tend to provide continuous protection regardless of impact severity, or
number of impacts, in a crash event. Therefore, the airbag-system
installation should be such that it provides protection, when it is
required, by not expending its protection when it is not required. If
the airbag deployment threshold is unnecessarily low, the airbag would
need to continue to provide protection when an impact requiring
protection occurs.
    These special conditions are based upon special conditions 25-605-
SC for the Boeing Model 787-9 airplanes equipped with B/E Aerospace
Super-Diamond model business-class passenger seats and associated
furniture.
    The special conditions contain the additional safety standards that
the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

Discussion of Comments

    The FAA issued Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 25-20-05-
SC for the Boeing) Model 777-9 airplane, which was published in the
Federal Register on July 22, 2020 (85 FR 44244). No comments were
received, and the special conditions are adopted as proposed.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Boeing Model 777-9 airplane. Should Boeing apply at a later date for a
change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating
the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions
would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

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

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Boeing Model 777-9 airplanes.
    1. The applicant must demonstrate by test that the structure-
mounted airbag will deploy and provide protection under crash
conditions where it is necessary to prevent serious injury to a 50th
percentile occupant, as specified in Sec.  25.562. The means of
protection must provide a consistent approach to energy absorption for
a range of occupants, from a two-year-old child to a 95th percentile
male.
    2. The structure-mounted airbag must provide adequate protection
for each occupant regardless of the number of occupants of the seat
assembly.
    3. The structure-mounted airbag system must not be susceptible to
inadvertent deployment as a result of wear and tear, or inertial loads
resulting from in-flight or ground maneuvers (including gusts and hard
landings) likely to be experienced in service.
    4. Deployment of the structure-mounted airbag must not introduce
hazards or injury mechanisms to the seated occupant, including
occupants in the brace position. Deployment of the structure-mounted
airbag must also not result in injuries that could impede rapid exit
from the airplane.
    5. The applicant must demonstrate that an inadvertent deployment
that could cause injury to a standing or sitting person is improbable.
Inadvertent deployment must not cause injury to anyone who may be
positioned close to the structure-mounted airbag (e.g., seated in an
adjacent seat, or standing adjacent to the airbag installation or the
subject seat). Cases where a structure-mounted airbag is inadvertently
deployed near a seated occupant or an empty seat must be considered.
    6. Effects of the deflection and deformation of the structure to
which the airbag is attached must be taken into account when evaluating
deployment and location of the inflated airbag. The effect of loads
imposed by airbag deployment, or stowed components where applicable,
must also be taken into account.
    7. Inadvertent deployment of the structure-mounted airbag during
the most critical part of flight will either not cause a hazard to the
airplane or is extremely improbable.
    8. The applicant must demonstrate that the structure-mounted
airbag, when deployed, does not impair access to the seatbelt- or
harness-release means, and must not hinder evacuation. This will
include consideration of adjacent seat places and the aisle.
    9. The airbag, once deployed, must not adversely affect the
emergency-lighting system, and must not block escape-path lighting to
the extent that the light(s) no longer meet their intended function.
    10. The structure-mounted airbag must not impede occupants' rapid
exit from the airplane 10 seconds after its deployment.
    11. Where structure-mounted airbag systems are installed in or
close to passenger evacuation routes (other than for the passenger seat
for which the airbag is installed), possibility of impact on emergency
evacuation (e.g., hanging in the aisle, potential trip hazard, etc.)
must be evaluated.
    12. The airbag electronic system must be designed to be protected
from lightning per Sec.  25.1316(b), and high-intensity radiated fields
per Sec.  25.1317(c).
    13. The structure-mounted airbag system must not contain or release
hazardous quantities of gas or particulate matter into the cabin.
    14. The structure-mounted airbag installation must be protected
from the effects of fire such that no hazard to occupants will result.
    15. The inflatable bag material must meet the 2.5-inches-per-minute
horizontal flammability test defined in 14 CFR part 25, appendix F,
part I, paragraph (a)(1)(iv).
    16. The design of the structure-mounted airbag system must protect
the mechanisms and controls from external contamination associated with
that which could occur on or around passenger seating.
    17. The structure-mounted airbag system must have a means to verify
the integrity of the structure-mounted airbag activation system.
    18. The applicant must provide installation limitations to ensure
installation compatibility between the seat design and opposing
monument or structure.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on January 5, 2021.
Suzanne Masterson,
Manager, Transport Airplane Strategic Policy Section, Policy and
Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-05308 Filed 3-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 60422]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24354]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13480-001]

FFP Project 69 LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit Application
Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and
Competing Applications

    On September 4, 2012, FFP Project 69, LLC filed an application for
a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act
(FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of a hydropower project
located on the Mississippi River, near Fort Adams, in Wilkinson County,
Mississippi and Concordia Parish, Louisiana. The sole purpose of a
preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority
to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary
permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed Breeze Point hydrokinetic project would consist of the
following: (1) Up to 1,196 SmarTurbine generating units installed in
arrays on the bottom of the river; (2) the total capacity of the
installation would be up to 47,840 kilowatts; (3) flexible cables would
convey each arrays power to a metering station; and (4) a transmission
line would interconnect with the power grid. The proposed project would
have an average annual generation of 108,799,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh),
which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Free Flow Power Corporation,
239 Causeway Street, Boston, MA 02114; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13480) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: September 27, 2012.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-24354 Filed 10-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 164 (Friday, August 25, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40516-40518]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17828]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0313; Product Identifier 2017-NE-11-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; CFM International S.A. Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain CFM International S.A. (CFM) CFM56-7B turbofan engines. This
proposed AD was prompted by a report of an in-flight fan blade failure
and uncontained forward release of debris on a CFM56-7B turbofan
engine. This proposed AD would require an ultrasonic inspection (USI)
of certain fan blades and, if they fail the inspection, their
replacement with parts eligible for installation. We are proposing this
AD to correct the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 10,
2017.

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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact CFM
International Inc., Aviation Operations Center, 1 Neumann Way, M/D Room
285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may view this service
information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Policy
and Innovation Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 781-
238-7125.

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-2017-
0313; 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
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kasra Sharifi, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, ECO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness Division, 1200 District
Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2017-0313;
Directorate Identifier 2017-NE-11-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 because of 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

    We received a report of a fan blade failure and inlet separation on
a CFM56-7B engine that occurred during a revenue flight. This fan blade
failure was contained by the engine case, but there was subsequent
uncontained forward release of inlet cowl and other debris. The
fracture in the blade initiated from the fan blade dovetail. The
investigation, however, into the root cause of the fan blade failure is
not complete. This condition, if not

corrected, could result in fan blade failure, uncontained forward
release of debris, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed CFM Service Bulletin (SB) No. CFM56-7B S/B 72-1019,
Revision 1 dated June 13, 2017. The SB describes procedures for
performing a USI of the affected fan blades. 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.

Other Related Service Information

    CFM CFM56-7B Engine Shop Manual, Revision 55, dated January 15,
2017, task 72-21-01-200-001, provides guidance on performing an eddy
current inspection of the affected fan blades.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require a USI of the affected fan blades.

Interim Action

    We consider this proposed AD interim action. We will determine if
further action is needed based on the results of the root cause
investigation of the fan blade failure.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 220 engines installed on
airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USI................................  2 work-hours x $85 per hour              $0            $170         $37,400
                                      = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and
associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

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 to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, 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):

CFM International S.A.: Docket No. FAA-2017-0313; Product Identifier
2017-NE-11-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 10, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to CFM International S.A. (CFM) CFM56-7B20,
CFM56-7B22, CFM56-7B22/B1, CFM56-7B24, CFM56-7B24/B1, CFM56-7B26,
CFM56-7B26/B2, CFM56-7B27, CFM56-7B27A, CFM56-7B26/B1, CFM56-7B27/
B1, CFM56-7B27/B3, CFM56-7B20/2, CFM56-7B22/2, CFM56-7B24/2, CFM56-
7B26/2, CFM56-7B27/2, CFM56-7B20/3, CFM56-7B22/3, CFM56-7B22/3B1,
CFM56-7B24/3, CFM56-7B24/3B1, CFM56-7B26/3, CFM56-7B26/3B1, CFM56-
7B26/3B2, CFM56-7B27/3, CFM56-7B27/3B1, CFM56-7B27/3B3, CFM56-7B27A/
3, CFM56-7B26/3F, CFM56-7B26/3B2F, CFM56-7B27/3F, CFM56-7B27/3B1F,
CFM56-7B20E, CFM56-7B22E, CFM56-7B22E/B1, CFM56-7B22E/B2, CFM56-
7B24E, CFM56-7B24E/B1, CFM56-7B26E, CFM56-7B26E/B1, CFM56-7B26E/B2,
CFM56-7B27E, CFM56-7B27E/B1, CFM56-7B27E/B3, CFM56-7B26E/F, CFM56-
7B26E/B2F, CFM56-7B27E/F, and CFM56-7B27E/B1F engine models.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine
Compressor Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of an in-flight failure of a
fan blade on a CFM56-7B turbofan engine. We are issuing this AD to
prevent fan blade failure, uncontained forward release of debris,
damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) For engines, on the effective date of this AD, with more
than 15,000 cycles-in-service (CIS) since the last engine shop
visit, with any part number (P/N) fan blade installed, perform an
ultrasonic inspection (USI) of the fan blades within 6 months after
the effective date of this AD.
    (2) For engines, on the effective date of this AD, with 15,000
CIS or less since the last engine shop visit and with fan blades, P/
N 340-001-022-0, 340-001-027-0, 340-001-029-0, 340-001-037-01, or
340-001-039-0, installed, perform a USI of the fan blades within 18
months after the effective date of this AD or at the next fan blade
lubrication after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
first.
    (3) Use the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraphs 3.A (3)(a)
through (g), of CFM Service Bulletin (SB) No. CFM56-7B 72-1019,
Revision 1, dated June 13, 2017, to do the USI required by
paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) of this AD.
    (4) If any fan blade fails the inspection required by paragraphs
(f)(1) or (2) of this AD, replace with a part eligible for
installation.

(g) Definition

    (1) For the purpose of this AD, an ``engine shop visit'' is the
removal of an engine when the subsequent engine maintenance
performed prior to reinstallation of the engine entails:
    (i) A 360-degree separation of major mating engine flanges, or
    (ii) the removal of a disk, hub, or spool.
    (2) The following actions do not constitute an engine shop
visit:
    (i) Replacement of an engine module on-wing,
    (ii) Replacement of a gearbox, or
    (iii) Accomplishment of a top/bottom case.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    You may take credit for the USI required by paragraph (f) of
this AD, if you performed an eddy current inspection of the affected
fan blades before the effective date of this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, FAA, ECO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness
Division, may approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in
14 CFR 39.19 to make your request. You may email your request to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) 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.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kasra Sharifi,
Aerospace Engineer, FAA, ECO Branch, Compliance and Airworthiness
Division, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-
238-7773; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) CFM SB No. CFM56-7B 72-1019, Revision 1, dated June 13,
2017, and CFM CFM56-7B Engine Shop Manual (ESM), Revision 55, dated
January 15, 2017 can be obtained from CFM using the contact
information in paragraph (j)(3) of this proposed AD.
    (3) For service information identified in this proposed AD,
contact CFM International Inc., Aviation Operations Center, 1
Neumann Way, M/D Room 285, Cincinnati, OH 45125; phone: 877-432-
3272; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine and
Propeller Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 18, 2017.
Robert J. Ganley,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-17828 Filed 8-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P