[Federal Register: September 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 182)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 53706-53709]
[DOCID:fr20se07-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29255; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-085-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -
300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500
series airplanes. This proposed AD would require doing repetitive
internal eddy current and detailed inspections to detect cracked
stringer tie clips; doing applicable corrective and related
investigative actions, if necessary; and measuring the fastener spacing
and the edge margin; as applicable. As a temporary alternative to doing
the actions described previously, this proposed AD would require
repetitive external general visual inspections of the skin and lap
joints for cracks and evidence of overload resulting from cracked
stringer tie clips, and applicable corrective actions if necessary.
This proposed AD results from a report of several cracked stringer tie
clips. We are proposing this AD to prevent multiple cracked stringer
tie clips and damaged skin and frames, which could lead to the skin and
frame structure developing cracks and consequent decompression of the
airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 5,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on
this proposed AD.

     DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow

the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Government-wide rulemaking web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
 and follow the instructions for sending your

comments electronically.
     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.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this
proposed AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne Lockett, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
917-6447; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number ``FAA-2007-
29255; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-085-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the
proposed AD in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We will

also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of
that web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our
dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or
signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union,
etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you
may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

Examining the Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov
, or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is located on the
ground level of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after the Docket Management System receives them.

Discussion

    We have received a report of 15 cracked stringer tie clips in the
crown skin area between station (STA) 500B and STA 907 between stringer
(S) 10L and S-10R, on a Boeing Model 737 airplane. The airplane had
accumulated total 31,415 flight cycles. This airplane had three
adjacent cracked clips at two consecutive body station frames (six
clips total). The six stringer tie clips were cracked along the joint
common to the stringer. The six total stringer tie clips were the same
formed bonded stringer tie clips that were installed as terminating
action in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1085, Revision
1, dated May 10, 1990.
    Stringer tie clip cracking along the joint common to the stringer
occurs primarily as a result of cyclic loading associated with cabin
pressure and flight loads. If three adjacent stringer tie clips on one
frame crack, it could result in an inability of the fuselage frame
structure to support operating loads. This could result in local skin
buckling and deformation of the skin and frame. Multiple cracked
stringer tie clips and damaged skin and frames, if not corrected, could
lead to the skin and frame structure developing cracks, which could
result in decompression of the airplane.

Other Relevant Rulemaking

    We previously issued AD 93-08-04, amendment 39-8551 (58 FR 25546,
April 27, 1993), for certain Boeing Model 737-100, -200, and -200C
series airplanes. That AD requires structural inspections of older
airplanes and is part of the Aging Airplane Service Bulletin Structural
Modification and Inspection Program. Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-
1085, Revision 1, is one of several service bulletins required by that
AD.
    This proposed AD would affect the requirements of AD 93-08-04
pertaining to Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1085, Revision 1.
    We previously issued AD 2002-07-08, amendment 39-12702 (67 FR
17917, April 12, 2002), applicable to certain Boeing Model 737-200, -
200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. That AD requires
repetitive inspections to find cracking of the lower skin at the lower
row of fasteners in the lap joints of the fuselage, and repair of
cracking found. That AD also requires modification of the fuselage lap
joints at certain locations, which constitutes terminating action for
certain repetitive inspections.
    This proposed AD would not affect the current requirements of AD
2002-07-08.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Special Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-
1268, dated August 25, 2006. This service bulletin supersedes Boeing
Service Bulletin 737-53-1085, Revision 1.
    The service bulletin describes one required inspection and one
temporary alternative inspection. Inspection A, the one required
inspection, involves the following:
     Doing repetitive internal eddy current and detailed
inspections to detect cracked stringer tie clips. The inspection area
is from STA 559 to STA 887, STA 360 to STA 540, and STA 907. The
inspections from STA 559 to STA 887 are identical to those specified in
Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1085, Revision 1. If the terminating
action was done in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1085,
the inspections need to be restarted in accordance with Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-53-1268.
     Doing applicable corrective and related investigative
actions, if necessary. The corrective actions include replacing any
cracked stringer tie clip with a new clip, contacting Boeing for repair
instructions, and repairing any damaged lap joints; as applicable. The
related investigative actions include doing an internal detailed
inspection to detect damaged or deformed skin and frame and to detect
damaged lap joints, and doing internal eddy current inspections to
detect cracked lap joints; as applicable.
     Measuring the fastener spacing and the edge margin; as
applicable.
    The initial compliance time for Inspection A is before the
accumulation of 25,000 or 35,000 total flight cycles (as applicable),
or within 2 or 3 years (as applicable) after the date of the service
bulletin, whichever occurs later. The repeat interval for Inspection A
is 15,000 or 20,000 flight cycles (as applicable).

    Inspection B, which is a temporary alternative to doing Inspection
A, involves the following:
     Doing repetitive external general visual inspections of
the skin and lap joints for cracks and evidence of overload resulting
from cracked stringer tie clips, and
     Doing applicable corrective actions if necessary. The
corrective actions include contacting Boeing for repair instructions,
and repairing any cracked or damaged lap joint and skin.
    For Inspection B, the threshold for the initial compliance times
ranges between 37,500 and 47,500 total flight cycles, and the grace
period for the initial compliance times is 25,000 flight cycles or 6 or
12 months, depending on the number of flight cycles on the airplane.
Inspection B must be done before exceeding an inspection period ranging
from 5,000 to 50,000 total flight cycles. The repeat interval for
Inspection B is 2,500 flight cycles.
    The service bulletin also describes procedures for an optional eddy
current inspection to detect damaged stringer tie clips and replacement
of any cracked clip with a new clip. The optional inspection can be
done in addition to and at the same time as Inspection A described
previously. The optional inspection will detect damaged stringer clips
earlier than the detailed inspection, which may prevent future costly
repairs.
    Accomplishing the actions specified in the service information is
intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.
    The service bulletin refers to Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53A1177,
Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001, as an additional source of service
information for doing an internal eddy current inspection of the lap
joint for certain airplane configurations.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes
of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD,
which would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service
information described previously, except as discussed under
``Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Information.''

Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Information

    The service information specifies to contact the manufacturer for
instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD
would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
     Using a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by an Authorized Representative
for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization
Organization whom we have authorized to make those findings.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 2,685 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
            Action              Work hours \1\   Average labor      Cost per       registered     Fleet cost \1\
                                                 rate per hour    airplane \1\      airplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection A.................  Between 40 and              $80  Between $3,200              787  Between
                                103.                             and $8,240,                      $2,518,400 and
                                                                 per inspection                   $6,484,880,
                                                                 cycle.                           per inspection
                                                                                cycle.
Inspection B (temporary        Between 2 and                80  Between $160                787  Between
 alternative to Inspection A).  109.                             and $8,720.                      $125,920 and
                                                                                $6,862,640,
                                                                                per inspection
                                                                                cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Depending on the airplane configuration.

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 have 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 that the 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); and
    3. 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. See the
ADDRESSES section for a location to examine the regulatory evaluation.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, 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

    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]

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

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2007-29255; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
085-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by November
5, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) AD 93-08-04, amendment 39-8551.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300,
-400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any category; as
identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1268, dated August 25,
2006.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report of several cracked stringer
tie clips. We are issuing this AD to prevent multiple cracked
stringer tie clips and damaged skin and frames, which could lead to
the skin and frame structure developing cracks and consequent
decompression of the airplane.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Service Bulletin References

    (f) The term ``the service bulletin,'' as used in this AD, means
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-
1268, dated August 25, 2006.

Inspection A: Required Internal Inspections, Applicable Corrective and
Related Investigative Actions, and Measurement

    (g) Do repetitive internal eddy current and detailed inspections
to detect cracked stringer tie clips; do applicable corrective and
related investigative actions, if necessary; and measure the
fastener spacing and the edge margin; as applicable. Do all
applicable actions at the applicable compliance times and repeat
intervals identified in tables 2 through 8 inclusive of paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of the service bulletin; except as provided by
paragraphs (i), (j), and (k) of this AD. Do all applicable actions
in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service
bulletin, except as provided by paragraph (m) of this AD.

    Note 1: The service bulletin refers to Boeing Service Bulletin
737-53A1177, Revision 6, dated May 31, 2001, as an additional source
of service information for doing an internal eddy current inspection
of the lap joint for certain airplane configurations.

Inspection B: Temporary Alternative External Inspections and Corrective
Actions

    (h) As a temporary alternative to doing the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, do repetitive external general visual
inspections of the skin and lap joints for cracks and evidence of
overload resulting from cracked stringer tie clips, and applicable
corrective actions if necessary. Do all applicable actions at the
applicable compliance times and repeat intervals identified in
tables 9 through 12 inclusive of paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
the service bulletin, but not to exceed the flight cycles in the
``Inspection Period Allowed'' column of the tables; except as
provided by paragraphs (i) and (l) of this AD. Do all applicable
actions in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the
service bulletin, except as provided by paragraph (m) of this AD.

    Note 2: The eddy current inspection along the stringer tie clip
radius to detect damage and replacement, as applicable, specified in
paragraph 3.B.5. of the Accomplishment Instructions of the service
bulletin are not required by this AD. The actions are optional and
can be done in addition to and at the same time as the actions
required by paragraph (g) of this AD.

Exceptions to Service Information

    (i) Where the service bulletin specifies a compliance time after
the date of the service bulletin, this AD requires compliance within
the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
    (j) For Model 737-100, -200, and -200C series airplanes, on
which Boeing Service Bulletin 737-53-1085, Revision 1, dated May 10,
1990, has not been done in accordance with AD 93-08-04: As of the
effective date of this AD, do the applicable inspections from STA
559 to STA 887 in accordance with paragraph (g) of this AD, at the
applicable compliance times specified in paragraph (b) of AD 93-08-
04.
    (k) In the first row of tables 5 and 6 of paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of the service bulletin, where the service bulletin
specifies a compliance time of before 25,000 total airplane flight
cycles, this AD requires a compliance time of before the
accumulation of 25,000 total flight cycles, or within 2 years after
the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (l) Where the service bulletin specifies no starting point
(e.g., ``after the date on the service bulletin'') for a grace
period, this AD requires compliance within the specified grace
period after the effective date of this AD.
    (m) Where the service bulletin specifies to contact Boeing for
appropriate action: Before further flight, repair the discrepancy
using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified
in paragraph (o) of this AD.

Certain Actions End Certain Requirements of AD 93-08-04

    (n) Accomplishment of the internal eddy current and detailed
inspections for STA 559 to STA 887 in accordance with paragraph (g)
of this AD constitutes compliance with the inspections required by
paragraph (a) of AD 93-08-04, as it pertains to Boeing Service
Bulletin 737-53-1085, Revision 1, dated May 10, 1990. Accomplishment
of the internal eddy current and detailed inspections does not
terminate the remaining requirements of AD 93-08-04, as it applies
to other service bulletins. Operators are required to continue to
inspect and/or modify per the other service bulletins listed in that
AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (o)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested in
accordance with the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair must meet the certification basis
of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this
AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 12, 2007.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
 [FR Doc. E7-18554 Filed 9-19-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 76 (Tuesday, April 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22204-22205]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09091]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0882]

Generic Drug User Fees; Public Meeting; Request for Comments

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public
meeting on the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 (GDUFA). The
legislative authority for GDUFA expires at the end of September 2017.
At that time, new legislation will be required for FDA to continue to
collect generic drug user fees for future fiscal years. The Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) requires that before FDA
begins negotiations with the regulated industry on GDUFA
reauthorization; we publish a notice in the Federal Register requesting
public input on the reauthorization, hold a public meeting at which the
public may present its views on the reauthorization, including specific
suggestions for changes to the goals referred to in the Generic Drug
User Fee Act Program Performance Goals and Procedures (i.e., the
Commitment Letter), provide a period of 30 days after the public
meeting to obtain written comments from the public, and publish the
comments on FDA's Web site. FDA invites public comment on the GDUFA
program and suggestions regarding the features FDA should propose for
the next GDUFA program.

DATES: The public meeting will be held on June 15, 2015, from 9 a.m. to
5 p.m. The public meeting may be extended or may end early depending on
the level of public participation.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at the FDA White Oak Campus,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31 Conference Center, the Great Room
(Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Entrance for the public
meeting participants (non-FDA employees) is through Building 1, where
routine security check procedures will be performed. For parking and
security information, refer to http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/BuildingsandFacilities/WhiteOakCampusInformation/ucm241740.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Connie Wisner, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1718, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-
7946<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Kimberly Giordano, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1611, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-
1071<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On July 9, 2012, the Food and Drug Administration Safety and
Innovation Act, which included GDUFA (Pub. L. 112-144, title III), was
signed into law by the President. GDUFA authorizes FDA to collect fees
from drug companies that submit marketing applications for certain
generic human drug applications, certain drug master files, and certain
facilities. Designed to speed access to safe and effective generic
drugs to the public, GDUFA requires that generic drug manufacturers pay
user fees to finance critical and measurable generic drug program
enhancements. GDUFA also requires that generic drug facilities around
the world provide identification information annually to FDA.
    Additional information concerning GDUFA, including the text of the
law, the Commitment Letter, key Federal Register documents, GDUFA-
related guidances, performance reports, and financial reports may be
found on the FDA Web site at http://www.fda.gov/gdufa.

II. Purpose of Public Meeting

    FDA is announcing a public meeting on GDUFA. The authority for
GDUFA expires at the end of September 2017. Without new legislation,
FDA will no longer be able to collect user fees to fund the human
generic drug review process. Section 744(C)(d)(2) (21 U.S.C. 379j-
43(d)(2)) of the FD&C Act requires that before FDA begins negotiations
with the regulated industry on GDUFA reauthorization, we do the
following: (1) Publish a notice in the Federal Register requesting
public input on the reauthorization, (2) hold a public meeting at which
the public may present its views on the reauthorization, including
specific suggestions for changes to the goals referred to in the
Commitment Letter, (3) provide a period of 30 days after the public
meeting to obtain written comments from the public, and (4) publish the
comments on the FDA Web site. This notice, the public meeting, the 30-
day comment period after the meeting, and the posting of the comments
on the FDA Web site will satisfy these requirements. The purpose of the
public meeting is to receive public input on the reauthorization of
GDUFA, including specific suggestions for changes to the goals referred
to in the Commitment Letter. FDA is interested in responses to the
following two general questions and welcomes any other relevant
information the public would like to share:
     What is your assessment of the overall performance of the
GDUFA program to date?
     What aspects of GDUFA should be retained, changed, or
discontinued to further strengthen and improve the program?
    In general, the meeting format will include presentations by FDA,
scientific and academic experts, health care professionals,
representatives of patient and consumer advocacy groups, the generic
drug industry, and the general public. The amount of time available for
public testimony will be determined by the number of persons who
register to present at the meeting. A draft agenda and other background
information for the public meeting will be posted at http://www.fda.gov/gdufa by June 8, 2015.

 III. Meeting Attendance and Participation

    FDA is seeking participation (i.e., attendance and oral
presentations) at the public meeting by all interested parties,
including but not limited to scientific and academic experts, health
care professionals, representatives of patient and consumer advocacy
groups, the generic drug industry, and the general public. If you wish
to attend the meeting, please email your registration information to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by June 1, 2015. Your email should
contain complete contact information for each attendee, including name,
title, affiliation, address, email address, and telephone number.
Registration is free and is on a first-come, first-served basis. Early
registration is recommended because seating is limited. Registrants
will receive confirmation once they have been accepted. If registration
becomes full prior to the meeting, FDA will place a notice on http://www.fda.gov/gdufa. Onsite registration on the day of the

meeting will be based on space availability.
    If you wish to present at the meeting, please include your
presentation materials along with your registration information to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by June 1, 2015. Early requests for oral
presentations are recommended due to possible space and time
limitations. FDA will accommodate as many requests for oral
presentations as possible and will do so on a first-come, first-served
basis. The time allotted for presentations may depend on the number of
persons who wish to speak. Those requesting to present will receive
confirmation once they have been accepted. If presentations exceed time
and space limitations prior to the meeting, FDA will place a notice on
http://www.fda.gov/gdufa. Onsite requests for oral presentations on the
day of the meeting will be based on time and space availability. If the
entire meeting time is not needed, FDA may end the public meeting
early.
    If you need special accommodations because of a disability, please
contact Connie Wisner or Kimberly Giordano (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT) by June 8, 2015.
    For those unable to attend in person, FDA will provide a live Adobe
Connect Webcast of the meeting. In order to connect to the Webcast, you
must have Adobe Connect. To join the meeting via the Adobe Connect
Webcast, please go to: https://collaboration.fda.gov/gdufaii.

IV. Comments

    Regardless of participation at the public meeting, interested
persons may submit either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. To ensure consideration, all comments should be received by
July 15, 2015. Submission of comments prior to the meeting is strongly
encouraged.
    Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit
written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food
and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD
20852. Identify all comments with the docket number found in the
brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments may be seen
in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday.

V. Transcripts

    Please be advised that as soon as a transcript is available, it
will be accessible at http://www.regulations.gov and http://www.fda.gov/gdufa. It may be viewed at the Division of Dockets
Management (see section IV). A transcript also will be available in
either hard copy or on CD-ROM upon submission of a Freedom of
Information request. Send written requests to the Division of Freedom
of Information (ELEM-1029), Food and Drug Administration, 12420
Parklawn Dr., Element Bldg., Rockville, MD 20857.

    Dated: April 15, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-09091 Filed 4-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 98 (Friday, May 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31927-31928]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11943]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2934-028]

New York State Electric & Gas Corporation; Notice of Intent To
File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document (PAD),
Commencement of Pre-Filing Process, and Scoping; Request for Comments
on the PAD and Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and
Associated Study Requests

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application for
a New License and Commencing Pre-filing Process.
    b. Project No.: 2934-028.
    c. Dated Filed: March 30, 2016.
    d. Submitted By: New York State Electric & Gas Corporation.
    e. Name of Project: Upper Mechanicville Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Hudson River, in Saratoga and Rensselaer
Counties, New York. The project does not occupy federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR part 5 of the Commission's
Regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Steve Mullin, Hydro-License
Coordinator, Lead Analyst--Environmental Compliance, New York State
Electric & Gas Corporation, 89 East Avenue, Rochester, NY 14649.
    i. FERC Contact: Jody Callihan at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item o below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency
regulations thereunder at 50 CFR, part 402 and (b) the State Historic
Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historic
Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating New York State Electric &
Gas

Corporation as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying
out informal consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. New York State Electric & Gas Corporation filed with the
Commission a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a proposed
process plan and schedule), pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's
regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at
the address in paragraph h.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and
Commission's staff Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests.
All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to
the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD
and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and
all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits
of the potential application must be filed with the Commission.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at 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>In lieu of electronic filing, please send a
paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing
should include docket number P-2934-028.
    All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading:
``Comments on Pre-Application Document,'' ``Study Requests,''
``Comments on Scoping Document 1,'' ``Request for Cooperating Agency
Status,'' or ``Communications to and from Commission Staff.'' Any
individual or entity interested in submitting study requests,
commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating
status must do so by July 15, 2016.
    p. Although our current intent is to prepare an environmental
assessment (EA), there is the possibility that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) will be required. Nevertheless, this meeting will
satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether an EA or
EIS is issued by the Commission.

Scoping Meetings

    Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of
the project at the time and place noted below. The daytime meeting will
focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental
organization concerns, while the evening meeting is primarily for
receiving input from the public. We invite all interested individuals,
organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and
to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the
scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental
document. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:

Evening Scoping Meeting

    Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2016.
    Time: 7:00 p.m.
    Location: Hilton Garden Inn (Whitney/Travers Room), 30 Clifton
Country Road, Clifton Park, New York 12065.
    Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Daytime Scoping Meeting

    Date: Thursday, June 16, 2016.
    Time: 9:00 a.m.
    Location: Hilton Garden Inn (Whitney/Travers Room), 30 Clifton
Country Road, Clifton Park, New York 12065.
    Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Scoping Document 1 (SD1), which outlines the subject areas to be
addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals
and entities on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of SD1 will be
available at the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the Web at
http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Follow the directions
for accessing information in paragraph n. Based on all oral and written
comments, a Scoping Document 2 (SD2) may be issued. SD2 may include a
revised process plan and schedule, as well as a list of issues,
identified through the scoping process.

Environmental Site Review

    The potential applicant and Commission staff will conduct an
Environmental Site Review of the project on Wednesday, June 15, 2016,
starting at 9:00 a.m. All participants should meet at the Upper
Mechanicville Hydroelectric Plant, located at 40 Hudson Avenue,
Mechanicville, New York 12118. All participants are responsible for
their own transportation. Anyone with questions about the site visit
should contact Mr. Steve Mullin of New York State Electric & Gas
Corporation at<PHONE_NUMBER> on or before June 1, 2016.

Meeting Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Initiate scoping of the
issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions and resource
management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing information and
identify preliminary information and study needs; (4) review and
discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that
incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's
regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of
federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and
(5) discuss the appropriateness of any federal or state agency or
Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for development of an
environmental document.
    Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues
and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping
meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are
included in item n. of this document.

Meeting Procedures

    The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will be placed
in the public records of the project.

    Dated: May 16, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-11943 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 133 (Friday, July 10, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41395-41397]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13561]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0812; FRL-10011-07-Region 9]

Air Quality State Implementation Plan Approval; Nevada;
Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide National
Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
remaining portion of a state implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Nevada. This revision addresses the
interstate transport requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) with
respect to the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) primary
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). In this action, the EPA
has determined that Nevada will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

DATES: This rule will be effective on August 10, 2020.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0812. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Kelly, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), EPA Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of the Proposed Action

    On June 22, 2010, the EPA promulgated a revised primary NAAQS for
SO2 at a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-
year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations.\1\ Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are
required to submit SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section
110(a)(2) within three years after promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS or a shorter period as the EPA may prescribe. These SIPs, which
the EPA has historically referred to as ``infrastructure SIPs,'' are to
provide for the ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of
such NAAQS, and the requirements are designed to ensure that the
structural components of each state's air quality management program
are adequate to meet the state's responsibility under the CAA. Section
110(a) of the CAA imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP
submission to the EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of
individual state submissions may vary depending upon the facts and
circumstances. The content of the revisions proposed in SIP submissions
may also vary depending upon what provisions are already contained in
the state's approved SIP. Section 110(a)(2) requires states to address
basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring, basic program
requirements, and legal authority that are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 75 FR 35520 (June 22, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires SIPs to include
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity
in one state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will
contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The two clauses of this
section are referred to as prong 1 (significant contribution to
nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance of the
NAAQS).
    On June 3, 2013, the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection
(NDEP) submitted a SIP revision addressing the requirements of section
110(a)(2) of the CAA with respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
(``2013 Nevada SIP revision''). On November 3, 2015, the EPA partially
approved and partially disapproved portions of the 2013 Nevada SIP
revision for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS.\2\ However, in that
rulemaking, the EPA did not take action on the section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), interstate transport portion of the 2013 Nevada SIP
revision.\3\ On March 31, 2020, the EPA proposed to approve the portion
of Nevada's infrastructure submittal for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
pertaining to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The EPA's final rule (80 FR 67652) addressed most elements
of three separate SIP submittals for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the 2010
nitrogen dioxide (NO2) NAAQS, and the 2010 SO2
NAAQS.
    \3\ In addition to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) provisions for
SO2, the EPA did not act on the section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) provisions of Nevada's SIP submittal for the 2008
ozone NAAQS. The EPA approved the section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) portion
of Nevada's submittal for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in a subsequent
rulemaking on February 3, 2017 (82 FR 9164).
    \4\ 85 FR 17810.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our proposed rulemaking, the EPA described Nevada's analysis and
provided supplemental information to support the conclusion of the 2013
Nevada SIP Revision that Nevada meets the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) prohibition against significant contribution to
nonattainment in another state and interference with maintenance in
another state for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The NDEP considered
monitoring data, emissions data, predominant wind direction in Nevada,
as well as nonattainment and maintenance areas for the 1971
SO2 NAAQS and potential nonattainment areas for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in contiguous and noncontiguous states, and the
distance between Nevada and these areas.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Because the EPA had not designated nonattainment areas for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS prior to submittal of the 2013 Nevada
SIP revision, Nevada addressed potential nonattainment areas for the
2010 SO2 NAAQS. The EPA has subsequently completed
designations for Nevada and most other contiguous and noncontiguous
states in separate rulemaking actions (78 FR 47191, August 5, 2013;
81 FR 45039, July 12, 2016; 81 FR 89870, December 13, 2016; 83 FR
1098, January 18, 2018). The EPA designated the state of Nevada as
Attainment/Unclassifiable for the 2010 SO2 standard (83
FR 1098, January 9, 2018).

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

    While the EPA relied on many of the same factors as the 2013 Nevada
SIP revision, we collected more recent monitoring and emissions data.
In addition, the EPA focused on a 50 kilometer (km) wide zone because
the physical properties of SO2 result in relatively
localized pollutant impacts near an emissions source. We identified no
violating monitors near the Nevada border, and the only violating
monitors in neighboring states are well outside the range within which
we might expect them to be significantly impacted by interstate
transport of SO2 from Nevada. Furthermore, we identified no
SO2 sources within 50 km of the Nevada border that are
likely to be contributing to a violation of the standard in another
state, and we concluded that it is unlikely that sources farther from
the border are leading to violations. Therefore, the EPA proposed that
Nevada was not significantly contributing to nonattainment of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS in another state.
    The EPA's evaluation of the State's analysis of whether emissions
sources within Nevada interfere with maintenance in other states also
considered state-wide and individual facility emissions trends as well
as SO2 emissions control rules from the three air quality
agencies in Nevada: The NDEP, the Clark County Department of Air
Quality (now part of the Clark County Department of Environment and
Sustainability), and the Washoe County Air Quality Management Division.
In proposing to conclude that the 2013 Nevada SIP revision demonstrates
that SO2 emissions in the State will not interfere with
maintenance of the 2010 SO2 NAAQS in any other state, we
cited the downward trend in SO2 emissions in Nevada and
neighboring states; the SIP-approved State and local measures within
Nevada that limit existing and new facility emissions; and the low
ambient concentrations of SO2 in Nevada and neighboring
states.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The public comment period for the proposed rule opened on March 31,
2020, the date of its publication in the Federal Register, and closed
on April 30, 2020. The EPA received no comments on the proposed action
during the public comment period.

III. Final Action

    Under CAA section 110(k)(3) and based on the evaluation and
rationale presented in the proposed rule, the EPA is approving the 2013
Nevada SIP revision as meeting CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The
State has demonstrated that Nevada's SIP has adequate provisions
prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity in the State
from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS in any other state.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 8, 2020. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Approval and promulgation of implementation
plans, Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, and Sulfur
oxides.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: June 17, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends Chapter I, title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart DD Nevada

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.1472 by revising paragraph (j) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1472  Approval status.

* * * * *
    (j) 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide NAAQS: The SIPs submitted on June 3,
2013, are disapproved for CAA elements 110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II),
(D)(ii), and (J) for the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the Nevada
SIP.

[FR Doc. 2020-13561 Filed 7-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 26)]
[Notices]
[Page 6648-6649]
[DOCID:fr10fe09-93]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2008-1036]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget: OMB Control Numbers: 1625-0079 and 1625-0088

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
request for comments announces that the U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding
two Information Collection Requests (ICRs), abstracted below, to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) requesting an extension of its approval for
the following collections of information: 1625-0079, Standards of
Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW), 1995 and
1997 Amendments to the International Convention; and 1625-0088, Voyage
Planning for Tank Barge Transits in the Northeast United States. Our
ICRs describe the information we seek to collect from the public.
Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens
commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Please submit comments on or before March 12, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2008-1036] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) or to OIRA. To avoid
duplication, please submit your comments by only one of the following
means:
    (1) Electronic submission. (a) To Coast Guard docket at http://
www.regulation.gov. (b) To OIRA by e-mail via: oira_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail or Hand delivery. (a) DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590-0001. Hand deliver between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is 202-
366-9329. (b) To OIRA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, to
the attention of the Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Fax. (a) To DMF,<PHONE_NUMBER>. (b) To OIRA at<PHONE_NUMBER>. To
ensure your comments are received in time, mark the fax to the
attention of the Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from
Commandant (CG-611), U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters, (Attn: Mr. Arthur
Requina), 2100 2nd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20593-0001. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Arthur Requina, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for
questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard invites comments on whether
this ICR should be granted based on it being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the
collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the collections; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of collections on respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
    Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the OMB Control Number
of the ICR. Comments to Coast Guard must contain the docket number of
this request, [USCG 2008-1036]. For your comments to OIRA to be
considered, it is best if they are received on or before the March 12,
2009.
    Public participation and request for comments: We encourage you to
respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials.
We will post all comments received, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal information you
provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their DMF. Please see the
paragraph on DOT's ``Privacy Act Policy'' below.
    Submitting comments: If you submit a comment, please include the
docket number [USCG-2008-1036], indicate the specific section of the
document to which each comment applies, providing a reason for each
comment. We recommend you include your name, mailing address, an e-mail
address, or other contact information in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail, fax, or
delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES; but please submit
them by only one means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. In response to your comments, we
may revise the ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for
this collection. The Coast Guard and OIRA will consider all comments
and material received during the comment period.
    Viewing comments and documents: Go to http://www.regulations.gov to
view documents mentioned in this Notice as being available in the
docket. Enter the docket number [USCG-2008-1036] in the Search box, and
click, ``Go>>.'' You may also visit the DMF in room W12-140 on the West
Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments
received in dockets by the name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Privacy
Act statement regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008
issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard has published the 60-day notice (73 FR 63720, October 27,
2008) required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no
comments.

Information Collection Requests

    1. Title: Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for
Seafarers (STCW), 1995 and 1997 Amendments to the International
Convention.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0079.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Owners and operators of vessels, training
institutions, and mariners.
    Abstract: Chapter 71 of 46 U.S.C. authorizes the Coast Guard to
issue regulations related to licensing of merchant mariners. These
regulations are contained in 46 CFR chapter I, subchapter B.
    Forms: None.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 23,767
hours to 17,928 hours a year.
    2. Title: Voyage Planning for Tank Barge Transits in the Northeast
United States.

    OMB Control Number: 1625-0088.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Owners and operators of towing vessels.
    Abstract: The information for a voyage plan will provide a
mechanism for assisting vessels towing tank barges to identify those
specific risks, potential equipment failures, or human errors that may
lead to accidents.
    Forms: None.
    Burden: The estimated burden has decreased from 31,651 hours to
2,692 hours a year.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: February 2 2009.
D.T. Glenn,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. E9-2672 Filed 2-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


Rethinking the NFIP:  Strawman Policy Options
Federal Assistance Policy Options
Description of Policy Theme:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you benefit from floodplain use and development?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This strawman policy alternative explores how best to distribute the costs of using the floodplain.  The Nation's losses due to flooding have been estimated to average over $7.7 billion annually (in 2009 dollars).  The Federal Government pays a significant portion of these costs through Federal disaster assistance programs, including Individual Assistance (IA), Public Assistance (PA), and claims against flood insurance policies that are sold at subsidized rates.  The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was created by Congress in 1968 to help the individual bear more easily the risks of flood damage and to discourage unwise occupancy of flood-prone areas.  It has partially accomplished both goals, but not sufficiently.  Reform of both the NFIP and the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act is necessary to reduce the ever increasing costs associated with flooding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This paper presents four propositions for changes in national flood policy that are intended to reduce the costs to individuals, businesses, and the Federal Government associated with flooding, in exchange for individuals and communities assuming a greater share of the responsibility for their actions.

Strawman Policy Options:
   * Federal Disaster Assistance and Mitigation Program:  Federally-backed flood insurance would be replaced by expanded eligibility for disaster assistance.  Federal tax-payers, rather than the individual at risk, would explicitly assume the costs of flooding.  Federal assistance would be made available to individuals, businesses, and public entities for flood damages experienced.  To encourage flood risk management, the extent of the available assistance, or the cost-share ratio, would be tied on the level of mitigation measures implemented by the community.  The more rigorous the mitigation measures the greater the percentage of damages eligible for compensation through disaster grants and loans.  Conversely, where a community would adopt and implement only minimal flood loss reduction measures, eligibility for Federal disaster assistance would be more limited.
   * Restrict Federal Investment in Floodplains:  It is alleged that the mere availability of flood insurance has prompted development in flood-prone areas.  Under this proposition, flood insurance would only be available through the Federal Government for structures built prior to a specific date.  For example, any building constructed beginning 10 years after enactment would be ineligible for flood insurance under the NFIP.  Further, structures built beginning 10 years following enactment would not be eligible for disaster assistance grants or loans.
   * Individual Accountability Model:  This proposition ties disaster assistance loans and grants directly to structures that are insured under the NFIP, but provides a mechanism to waive the mandatory purchase requirement.  The most contentious part of the NFIP is the mandatory-purchase requirement which, in most cases, is made known to home buyers during the closing process.  Lenders do not like it, buyers do not like it and, even though it is required by law, often lenders are not making sure the policies are renewed.  This proposition would allow FEMA to waive the requirement to purchase flood insurance where an individual agrees, in writing, to also waive their rights to disaster assistance.
   * Universal Coverage:  This proposition would create mechanisms for States to mandate that insurers include flood as a covered peril under standard property insurance policies.  Where policies are placed on properties within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) the Federal Government would underwrite the risk.  For policies placed on property outside the SFHA private insurers would underwrite the risk.  All communities within those States that fail to mandate coverage for flood would be ineligible to participate in the NFIP.  As an added incentive, disaster assistance grants and loans would be denied for flood damages.  This proposition would have the added benefit of drastically reducing the number of Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) and Letter of Map Revision  -  Based on Fill (LOMR-F) applications.


[Federal Register: February 10, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 28)]
[Notices]
[Page 7080-7081]
[DOCID:fr10fe06-121]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension:
    Rule 9b-1; SEC File No. 270-429; OMB Control No. 3235-0480.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.

Options Disclosure Document

    Rule 9b-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (17 CFR 240.9b-
1) sets forth the categories of information required to be disclosed in
an options disclosure document (``ODD'') and requires the options
markets to file an ODD with the Commission 60 days prior to the date it
is distributed to investors. In addition, Rule 9b-1 provides that the
ODD must be amended if the information in the document becomes
materially inaccurate or incomplete and that amendments must be filed
with the Commission 30 days prior to the distribution to customers.
Finally, Rule 9b-1 requires a broker-dealer to furnish to each customer
an ODD and any amendments, prior to accepting an order to purchase or
sell an option on behalf of that customer.
    There are 6 options markets that must comply with Rule 9b-1. These
6 respondents work together to prepare a single ODD covering options
traded on each market, as well as amendments to the ODD. These
respondents file no more than one amendment per year, which requires
approximately 8 hours per year for each respondent. Thus, the total
compliance burden for options markets per year is 48 hours. The
approximate cost per hour is $100, resulting in a total cost of
    In addition, approximately 2,000 broker-dealers must comply with
Rule 9b-1. Each of these respondents will process an average of three
new customers for options each week and, therefore, will have to
furnish approximately 156 ODDs per year. The postal mailing or
electronic delivery of the ODD takes respondents no more than 30
seconds to complete for an annual compliance burden for each of these
respondents of 78 minutes, or 1.3 hours. Thus, the total compliance
burden per year is 2,600 hours (2,000 broker-dealers x 1.3 hours). The
approximate cost per hour to these respondents is $10 per hour,
resulting in a total cost of compliance for these respondents of
    The total compliance burden for all respondents under this rule
(both options markets and broker-dealers) is 2648 hours per year (48 +
2,600), and total compliance costs of $30,800 ($4,800 + $26,000).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Office of Information Technology, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549.

    February 1, 2006.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-1834 Filed 2-9-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 162 (Thursday, August 21, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49423-49426]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19821]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0801; Special Conditions No. 25-562-SC]

Special Conditions: Airbus Model A350-900 Airplanes; Permanently
Installed Rechargeable Lithium-Ion Batteries and Battery Systems

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for Airbus Model A350-900
airplanes. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature
associated with permanently installed rechargeable lithium-ion
batteries and battery systems. These batteries have certain failure,
operational, and maintenance characteristics that differ significantly
from those of the nickel-cadmium and lead-acid rechargeable batteries
currently approved for installation on large transport-category
airplanes. 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 date: September 22, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nazih Khaouly, FAA, Airplane and
Flight Crew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 25, 2008, Airbus applied for a type certificate for their
new Model A350-900 series airplane. Later, Airbus requested, and the
FAA approved, an extension to the application for FAA type
certification to November 15, 2009. The Model A350-900 series has a
conventional layout with twin wing-mounted Rolls-Royce Trent XWB
engines. It features a twin aisle, 9-

abreast, economy-class layout, and accommodates side-by-side placement
of LD-3 containers in the cargo compartment. The basic Model A350-900
series configuration accommodates 315 passengers in a standard two-
class arrangement. The design cruise speed is Mach 0.85 with a maximum
take-off weight of 602,000 lbs.
    Existing airworthiness regulations did not anticipate the use of
lithium-ion batteries and battery systems on aircraft. Lithium-ion
batteries and battery systems have new hazards that were not
contemplated when the existing regulations were issued. In Title 14,
Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 25.1353, the FAA provided an
airworthiness standard for lead-acid batteries and nickel-cadmium
batteries. These special conditions provide an equivalent level of
safety as that of the existing regulation. The current regulations are
not adequate for rechargeable lithium-battery and battery system
installations. Additional lithium-battery and battery system special
conditions are required to ensure the same level of safety as set forth
by the existing regulation intended for other battery technology.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Airbus must show that the
Model A350-900 series meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part
25, as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-129.
    The FAA has determined that Airbus Model A350-900 series airplanes
must comply with the following sections: Sec.  25.863(a) through (d),
Amendment 25-61 and Amendment 25-66.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Model A350-900 series because of a
novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed
under Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model or series
for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model
be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same
or similar novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions
would also apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Airbus Model A350-900 airplane must comply with the
fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, the
noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36, and the FAA must
issue a finding of regulatory adequacy under section 611 of Public Law
92-574, the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in Sec.  11.19, under
Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under
Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Airbus Model A350-900 airplane will incorporate the following
novel or unusual design features: Permanently installed rechargeable
lithium batteries and lithium battery systems.

Discussion

    The current regulations governing installation of batteries in
large transport-category airplanes were derived from Civil Air
Regulations (CAR) part 4b.625(d) as part of the re-codification of CAR
4b that established 14 CFR part 25 in February 1965. The new battery
requirements, Sec.  25.1353(c)(1) through (c)(4), basically reworded
the CAR requirements.
    Increased use of nickel-cadmium batteries in small airplanes
resulted in increased incidents of battery fires and failures which led
to additional rulemaking affecting large transport-category airplanes
as well as small airplanes. On September 1, 1977 and March 1, 1978, the
FAA issued Sec.  25.1353(c)(5) and (c)(6), respectively, governing
nickel-cadmium battery installations on large transport-category
airplanes.
    The proposed use of lithium-ion batteries and battery systems for
equipment and systems on Airbus Model A350 airplanes has prompted the
FAA to review the adequacy of these existing regulations. Our review
indicates that the existing regulations do not adequately address
several failure, operational, and maintenance characteristics of
lithium-ion batteries and battery systems that could affect the safety
and reliability of the Airbus model A350-900 airplane rechargeable
lithium batteries and rechargeable lithium-battery-system
installations.
    At present, commercial aviation has limited experience with use of
rechargeable lithium-ion batteries and battery systems in applications
involving commercial aviation. However, other users of this technology,
ranging from wireless telephone manufacturers to the electric-vehicle
industry, have noted potential hazards with lithium-ion batteries and
battery systems. These problems include overcharging, over-discharging,
and flammability of cell components.

1. Overcharging

    In general, lithium-ion batteries and battery systems are
significantly more susceptible to internal failures that can result in
self-sustaining increases in temperature and pressure (i.e., thermal
runaway) than their nickel-cadmium or lead-acid counterparts. This
condition is especially true for overcharging, which causes heating and
destabilization of the components of the cell, leading to the formation
(by plating) of highly unstable metallic lithium. The metallic lithium
can ignite, resulting in a self-sustaining fire or explosion. Finally,
the severity of thermal runaway, due to overcharging, increases with
increasing battery capacity due to the higher amount of electrolyte in
large batteries.

2. Over-Discharging

    Discharge of some types of lithium-ion batteries and battery
systems, beyond a certain voltage (typically 2.4 volts), can cause
corrosion of the electrodes of the cell, resulting in loss of battery
capacity that cannot be reversed by recharging. This loss of capacity
may not be detected by the simple voltage measurements commonly
available to flightcrews as a means of checking battery status--a
problem shared with nickel-cadmium batteries.

3. Flammability of Cell Components

    Unlike nickel-cadmium and lead-acid batteries, some types of
lithium-ion batteries and battery systems use liquid electrolytes that
are flammable. The electrolyte can serve as a source of fuel for an
external fire if there is a breach of the battery container.
    The problems lithium-ion battery and battery-system users
experience raise concern about the use of these batteries in commercial
aviation. The intent of the proposed special conditions is to establish
appropriate airworthiness standards for lithium-ion battery
installations in Airbus Model A350-900 airplanes and to ensure, as
required by Sec. Sec.  25.1309 and 25.601, that these lithium-ion
batteries and battery systems will not result in an unsafe condition.
To address these concerns, these special conditions adopt the following
requirements:
     Those sections of 14 CFR 25.1353 that are applicable to
lithium ion batteries.
     The flammable fluid fire protection requirements of 14 CFR
25.863. In the past, this rule was not applied to batteries of
transport category airplanes, since the electrolytes used in lead-acid
and nickel-cadmium batteries are not flammable.

     New requirements to address the hazards of overcharging
and over-discharging that are unique to lithium ion batteries.
     New maintenance requirements to ensure that batteries used
as spares are maintained in an appropriate state of charge.
    These special conditions are similar to lithium-ion batteries and
battery systems special conditions adopted for the Boeing Model 787
(72FR57842; October 11, 2007).
    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.

Discussion of Comments

    Notice of proposed special conditions No. 25-13-41-SC for the
Airbus Model A350-900 series airplane was published in the Federal
Register on December 19, 2013 (78 FR 76772). No comments were received,
and the special conditions are adopted as proposed.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Airbus Model A350-900 series airplanes. Should Airbus apply later for a
change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating
the same novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would
apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on Airbus Model A350-900 series airplanes. It is not a rule of general
applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

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

The Special Conditions

0
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 Airbus Model A350-900 airplanes.
    The following special conditions apply to all rechargeable lithium-
ion batteries and battery systems on Airbus Model A350-900 airplanes,
in lieu of the requirements of Sec.  25.1353(b)(1) through (b)(4) at
Amendment 25-123.
    These special conditions require that (1) all characteristics of
the rechargeable lithium-ion batteries and battery systems, and their
installation, that could affect safe operation of Airbus Model A350-900
airplanes, are addressed, and (2) appropriate Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness, which include maintenance requirements, are
established to ensure the availability of electrical power, when
needed, from the batteries.
    Rechargeable lithium-ion batteries and battery systems on Airbus
Model A350-900 airplanes must be designed and installed as follows:
    1. Safe cell temperatures and pressures must be maintained during
any foreseeable charging or discharging condition, and during any
failure of the charging or battery monitoring system not shown to be
extremely remote. The rechargeable lithium-ion batteries and battery
systems must preclude explosion in the event of those failures.
    2. Design of the rechargeable lithium-ion batteries and battery
systems must preclude the occurrence of self-sustaining, uncontrolled
increases in temperature or pressure.
    3. No explosive or toxic gases emitted by any rechargeable lithium-
ion batteries and battery systems in normal operation, or as the result
of any failure of the battery charging system, monitoring system, or
battery installation that is not shown to be extremely remote, may
accumulate in hazardous quantities within the airplane.
    4. Installations of rechargeable lithium-ion batteries and battery
systems must meet the requirements of Sec.  25.863(a) through (d).
    5. No corrosive fluids or gases that may escape from any lithium-
ion batteries and battery systems may damage surrounding structure or
any adjacent systems, equipment, or electrical wiring of the airplane
in such a way as to cause a major or more severe failure condition, in
accordance with Sec.  25.1309 (b) and applicable regulatory guidance.
    6. Each rechargeable lithium-ion battery and battery system must
have provisions to prevent any hazardous effect on structure or
essential systems caused by the maximum amount of heat the battery can
generate during a short circuit of the battery or of its individual
cells.
    7. Rechargeable lithium-ion batteries and battery systems must have
a system to automatically control the charging rate of the battery, so
as to prevent battery overheating or overcharging, and:
    i. A battery-temperature sensing and over-temperature warning
system with a means for automatically disconnecting the battery from
its charging source in the event of an over-temperature condition, or,
    ii. A battery-failure sensing and warning system with a means for
automatically disconnecting the battery from its charging source in the
event of battery failure.
    8. Any rechargeable lithium-ion batteries and battery systems, the
function of which are required for safe operation of the airplane, must
incorporate a monitoring and warning feature that will provide an
indication to the appropriate flight crewmembers whenever the state-of-
charge of the batteries has fallen below levels considered acceptable
for dispatch of the airplane.
    9. The Instructions for Continued Airworthiness required by Sec.
25.1529 must contain maintenance requirements to assure that the
lithium-ion batteries are sufficiently charged at appropriate intervals
specified by the battery manufacturer and the equipment manufacturer of
the rechargeable lithium-ion battery or rechargeable lithium-ion
battery system. This is required to ensure that rechargeable lithium-
ion batteries and battery systems will not degrade below specified
ampere-hour levels sufficient to power the aircraft system, for
intended applications. The Instructions for Continued Airworthiness
must also contain procedures for the maintenance of batteries in spares
storage to prevent the replacement of batteries with batteries that
have experienced degraded charge-retention ability or other damage due
to prolonged storage at a low state of charge. Replacement batteries
must be of the same manufacturer and part number as approved by the
FAA. Precautions should be included in the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness maintenance instructions to prevent mishandling of the
rechargeable lithium-ion batteries and battery systems, which could
result in short-circuit or other unintentional impact damage caused by
dropping or other destructive means.

    Note 1:  The term ``sufficiently charged''' means that the
battery will retain enough of a charge, expressed in ampere-hours,
to ensure that the battery cells will not be damaged. A battery cell
may be damaged by lowering the charge below a point where the
battery experiences a reduction in the ability to charge and retain
a full charge. This reduction would be greater than the reduction
that may result from normal operational degradation.

    Note 2: These special conditions are not intended to replace
Sec.  25.1353(b) at

Amendment 25-123 in the certification basis for Airbus Model A350-
900 airplanes. These special conditions apply only to rechargeable
lithium-ion batteries and battery systems and their installations.
The requirements of Sec.  25.1353(b) at Amendment 25-123 remain in
effect for batteries and battery installations on Airbus Model A350-
900 airplanes that do not use rechargeable lithium-ion batteries.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on July 30, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-19821 Filed 8-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P