[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11487-11488]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4595]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-P-0201]

Determination That NILSTAT (Nystatin Powder (Oral, 100%)) Was Not
Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or Effectiveness

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that
NILSTAT (nystatin powder (oral, 100%)) was not withdrawn from sale for
reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA
to approve abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for nystatin
powder (oral, 100%) if all other legal and regulatory requirements are
met.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer L. Stevens, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 6316, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-3602.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price
Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417)
(the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate
versions of drug products approved under an ANDA procedure. ANDA
applicants must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which
they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the
same strength and dosage form as the ``listed drug,'' which is a
version of the drug that was previously approved. ANDA applicants do
not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary
to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA). The only clinical
data required in an ANDA are data to show that the drug that is the
subject of the ANDA is bioequivalent to the listed drug.
    The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which
requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes
this list as part of the ``Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic
Equivalence Evaluations,'' which is generally known as the ``Orange
Book.'' Under FDA regulations, a drug is removed from the list if the
Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for
reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed
drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21
CFR 314.162). Under Sec.  314.161(a)(1) (21 CFR 314.161(a)(1)), the
Agency must determine whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for
reasons of safety or effectiveness before an ANDA that refers to that
listed drug may be approved. FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not
refer to a listed drug.
    NILSTAT (nystatin powder (oral, 100%)) is the subject of NDA
050576, held by Dava Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and was initially approved
on December 22, 1983. NILSTAT is indicated for the treatment of
intestinal and oral cavity infections caused by Candida (Monilia)
albicans. NILSTAT (nystatin powder (oral, 100%)) is currently listed in
the ``Discontinued Drug Product List'' section of the Orange Book.
    Paddock Laboratories, Inc., submitted a citizen petition dated
April 8, 2010 (Docket No. FDA-2010-P-0201), under 21 CFR 10.30,
requesting that the Agency determine whether NILSTAT (nystatin powder
(oral, 100%)) was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or
effectiveness.
    After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency
records, FDA has determined under Sec.  314.161 that NILSTAT (nystatin
powder (oral, 100%)) was not withdrawn for reasons of safety or
effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other
information suggesting that NILSTAT (nystatin powder (oral, 100%)) was

withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully
reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of NILSTAT
(nystatin powder (oral, 100%)) from sale. We have also independently
evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing
adverse events and have found no information that would indicate that
this product was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or
effectiveness.
    Accordingly, the Agency will continue to list NILSTAT (nystatin
powder (oral, 100%)) in the ``Discontinued Drug Product List'' section
of the Orange Book. The ``Discontinued Drug Product List'' delineates,
among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from
marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. ANDAs that
refer to NILSTAT (nystatin powder (oral, 100%)) may be approved by the
Agency as long as they meet all other legal and regulatory requirements
for the approval of ANDAs. If FDA determines that labeling for this
drug product should be revised to meet current standards, the Agency
will advise ANDA applicants to submit such labeling.

    Dated: February 24, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-4595 Filed 3-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 114 (Friday, June 12, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35995-35996]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12770]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2020-0055 (Notice No. 2020-04)]

Hazardous Materials: Information Collection Activities

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the
process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, PHMSA
seeks comment on the development of a Generic Information Collection
Request for the collection of qualitative feedback on agency service
delivery for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act. This notice
announces PHMSA's intent to submit this collection to the Office of
Management and Budget for approval and allows for an additional 30 days
of public comment.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
July 13, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this notice to the Office of
Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for PHMSA, via fax at 202-
395-6974 or email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(Include reference to
``PHMSA Fast Track Generic Clearance comment'' in the subject line of
the message.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Andrews or Shelby Geller,
Standards and Rulemaking Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Fast Track Generic Clearance for the Collection of
Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.
    OMB Number: To be determined.
    Needs and Uses: The proposed information collection provides a
means to garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an
efficient and timely manner, in accordance with the agency's commitment
to improving service delivery. Qualitative feedback means information
that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but is not a
statistical survey that yields quantitative results that can be
generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide
insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences, and
expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus
attention on areas where communication, training, or changes in
operations might improve delivery of products or services. These
collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative, and actionable
communications between the agency and its customers and stakeholders.
It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement
of program management.
    PHMSA expects to use various methods (e.g., customer satisfaction
surveys, comment cards), to solicit feedback. Responses will be
assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or maintain the quality
of service offered to the public and other agency stakeholders. If this
information is not collected, vital feedback from customers and
stakeholders on the agency's services will be unavailable.
    The agency will only submit a collection for approval under this
generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
     The collections are voluntary;
     The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on
considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or
burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents
and the Federal Government;
     The collections are non-controversial;
     The collections are focused on the awareness,
understanding, attitudes, preferences, or experiences of the public or
other stakeholders in order to improve existing or future services,
products, or communication materials;
     Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected
only to the extent necessary;
     Information gathered will be used only internally for
general service improvement and program management purposes and is not
intended for release to the public;
     Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of
substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
     Information gathered will yield qualitative information;
the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically
reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the
population of study.
    Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful
information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the
overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative
information will not be used for quantitative information collections
that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as
monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such
data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target
population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame,
the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the
precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed
sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing
potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any
testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding
the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely
to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for
other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative
results.
    As a general matter, information collections submitted under this
generic clearance will not result in any new system of records
containing privacy information and will not ask questions of a
sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious
beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
    A Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting
comments on this information collection was published on December 10,
2010 [75 FR 80542].
    Current Action: New information collection request (generic).
    Type of Review: New.
    Affected Public: Individuals; Business or Other For-Profit
Institutions; Not-For-Profit Institutions; State or Local Government.
    Average Expected Annual Number of Activities: 75.
    Average Number of Respondents per Activity: 50.
    Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 3,750.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 3,750.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 312.5.
    Projected Average Burden Hour Estimates for the next three years:
937.5.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 9, 2020.
William A. Quade,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Programs and Policy, Hazardous
Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2020-12770 Filed 6-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 111 (Tuesday, June 10, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33140-33145]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13528]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0366; Notice No. 25-14-04-SC]

Special Conditions: Embraer S.A.; Model EMB-550 Airplane; Flight
Envelope Protection: High Incidence Protection System

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Special Conditions.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes special conditions for the Embraer S.A.
Model EMB-550 airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual
design feature when compared to the state of technology and design
envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category
airplanes. This design feature is a high incidence protection system
that limits the angle of attack at which the airplane can be flown
during normal low speed operation. The applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for
this design feature. These proposed special conditions contain the
additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary
to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: Send your comments on or before July 10, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-0366
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Jacobsen, 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
(425) 227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing
date for comments. We may change these special conditions based on the
comments we receive.

Background

    On May 14, 2009, Embraer S.A. applied for a type certificate for
its new Model EMB-550 airplane. The Model EMB-550 airplane is the first
of a new family of jet airplanes designed for corporate flight,
fractional, charter, and private owner operations. The airplane has a
configuration with low wing and T-tail empennage. The primary structure
is metal with composite empennage and control surfaces. The Model EMB-
550 airplane is designed for 8 passengers, with a maximum of 12
passengers. It is equipped with two Honeywell AS907-3-1E medium bypass
ratio turbofan engines mounted on aft fuselage pylons. Each engine
produces approximately 6,540 pounds of thrust for normal takeoff.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Embraer S.A. must show that
the Model EMB-550 meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as
amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-127 thereto.
    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 EMB-550 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 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 Model EMB-550 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, and the FAA must issue a
finding of regulatory adequacy under Sec.  611 of Public Law 92-574,
the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    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.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Model EMB-550 will incorporate the following novel or unusual
design features: A high incidence protection system that replaces the
stall warning system during normal operating conditions, prohibits the
airplane from stalling, limits the angle of attack at which the
airplane can be flown during normal low speed operation, and that
cannot be overridden by the flightcrew. The application of this angle-
of-attack limit impacts the stall speed determination, the stall
characteristics and stall warning demonstration, and the longitudinal
handling characteristics. The current regulations do not address this
type of protection feature.

Discussion

    The high incidence protection function prevents the airplane from
stalling at low speeds, and, therefore, a stall warning system is not
needed during normal flight conditions. However, if there is a failure
of the high incidence protection function that is not shown to be
extremely improbable, stall warning must be provided in a conventional
manner. Also the flight characteristics at the angle of attack for
maximum lift coefficient (CLmax) must be suitable in the
traditional sense.
    Special conditions are proposed to address this novel or unusual
design feature on the EMB-550. These special conditions, which include
airplane performance requirements, will establish a level of safety
equivalent to the current regulations for reference stall speeds, stall
warning, stall characteristics, and miscellaneous other minimum
reference speeds.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Embraer Model EMB-550. Should Embraer S.A. apply at a later date 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 one model of 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 Proposed Special Conditions

    Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the
following special conditions as part of the type certification basis
for Embraer S.A. Model EMB-550.

Flight Envelope Protection: High Incidence Protection System

    The current airworthiness standards do not contain adequate safety
standards for the unique features of the high incidence protection
system on the Embraer EMB-550. Part I of the following proposed special
conditions are in lieu of the specified paragraphs of Sec. Sec.  25.21,
25.103, 25.145, 25.201, 25.203, 25.207, and 25.1323. Part II are in
lieu of the specified paragraphs of Sec. Sec.  25.103, 25.105, 25.107,
25.121, 25.123, 25.125, 25.143, and 25.207.

Special Conditions Part I

Stall Protection and Scheduled Operating Speeds

    The following special conditions are in lieu of Sec. Sec.
25.21(b), 25.103, 25.145(a), 25.145(b)(6), 25.201, 25.203, 25.207, and
25.1323(d).

Foreword

    In the following paragraphs, ``in icing conditions'' means with the
ice accretions (relative to the relevant flight phase) as defined in 14
CFR part 25, Amendment 121, appendix C.

1. Definitions

    These special conditions address a novel or unusual design feature
of the EMB-550 airplane and use terminology that does not appear in 14
CFR part 25.
    These terms relating to the novel or unusual design feature
addressed by these special conditions are the following:
     High incidence protection system: A system that operates
directly and automatically on the airplane's flying controls to limit
the maximum angle of attack that can be attained to a value below that
at which an aerodynamic stall would occur.
     Alpha-limit: The maximum angle of attack at which the
airplane stabilizes

with the high incidence protection system operating and the
longitudinal control held on its aft stop.
     Vmin: The minimum steady flight speed in the
airplane configuration under consideration with the high incidence
protection system operating. See section 3 Part I of these special
conditions.
     Vmin1g: Vmin corrected to 1g
conditions. See section 3 of Part I of these special conditions. It is
the minimum calibrated airspeed at which the airplane can develop a
lift force normal to the flight path and equal to its weight when at an
angle of attack not greater than that determined for Vmin.

2. Capability and Reliability of the High Incidence Protection System

    The capability and reliability of the high incidence protection
system can be established by flight test, simulation, and analysis as
appropriate. The capability and reliability required are proposed as
follows:
    1. It must not be possible during pilot-induced maneuvers to
encounter a stall, and handling characteristics must be acceptable, as
required by section 5 of Part I of these special conditions.
    2. The airplane must be protected against stalling due to the
effects of wind-shears and gusts at low speeds as required by section 6
of Part I of these special conditions.
    3. The ability of the high incidence protection system to
accommodate any reduction in stalling incidence must be verified in
icing conditions.
    4. The high incidence protection system must be provided in each
abnormal configuration of the high lift devices that is likely to be
used in flight following system failures.
    5. The reliability of the system and the effects of failures must
be acceptable in accordance with Sec.  25.1309.

3. Minimum Steady Flight Speed and Reference Stall Speed

    In lieu of Sec.  25.103, we propose the following requirements:
    (a) The minimum steady flight speed, Vmin, is the final
stabilized calibrated airspeed obtained when the airplane is
decelerated until the longitudinal control is on its stop in such a way
that the entry rate does not exceed 1 knot per second.
    (b) The minimum steady flight speed, Vmin, must be
determined in icing and non-icing conditions with:
    (1) The high incidence protection system operating normally;
    (2) Idle thrust and automatic thrust system (if applicable)
inhibited;
    (3) All combinations of flap settings and landing gear position for
which Vmin is required to be determined;
    (4) The weight used when reference stall speed, VSR, is
being used as a factor to determine compliance with a required
performance standard;
    (5) The most unfavorable center of gravity allowable; and
    (6) The airplane trimmed for straight flight at a speed achievable
by the automatic trim system.
    (c) The 1-g minimum steady flight speed, Vmin1g, is the
minimum calibrated airspeed at which the airplane can develop a lift
force (normal to the flight path) equal to its weight, while at an
angle of attack not greater than that at which the minimum steady
flight speed of subparagraph (a) was determined. It must be determined
in icing and non-icing conditions.
    (d) The reference stall speed, VSR, is a calibrated
airspeed defined by the applicant. VSR may not be less than
a 1g stall speed. VSR must be determined in non-icing
conditions and expressed as:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10JN14.005

    (e) VCLmax is determined in non-icing conditions with:
    (1) Engines idling, or, if that resultant thrust causes an
appreciable decrease in stall speed, not more than zero thrust at the
stall speed;
    (2) The airplane in other respects (such as flaps and landing gear)
in the condition existing in the test or performance standard in which
VSR is being used;
    (3) The weight used when VSR is being used as a factor
to determine

compliance with a required performance standard;
    (4) The center of gravity position that results in the highest
value of reference stall speed;
    (5) The airplane trimmed for straight flight at a speed achievable
by the automatic trim system, but not less than 1.13 VSR and
not greater than 1.3 VSR; and
    (6) The high incidence protection system adjusted, at the option of
the applicant, to allow higher incidence than is possible with the
normal production system.
    (7) Starting from the stabilized trim condition, apply the
longitudinal control to decelerate the airplane so that the speed
reduction does not exceed 1 knot per second.

4. Stall Warning

    In lieu of Sec.  25.207, we propose the following requirements:
4.1 Normal Operation
    If the capabilities of the high incidence protection system are
met, then the conditions of section 2, ``Capability and Reliability of
the High Incidence Protection System,'' are satisfied. These conditions
provide safety equivalent to Sec.  25.207, Stall warning, so the
provision of an additional, unique warning device is not required.
4.2 High Incidence Protection System Failure
    Following failures of the high incidence protection system, not
shown to be extremely improbable, such that the capability of the
system no longer satisfies items (a), (b), and (c) of section 2,
``Capability and Reliability of the High Incidence Protection System,''
stall warning must be provided and must protect against encountering
unacceptable stall characteristics and against encountering stall.
    (a) Stall warning with the flaps and landing gear in any normal
position must be clear and distinctive to the pilot and meet the
requirements specified in paragraphs (d) and (e) below.
    (b) Stall warning must also be provided in each abnormal
configuration of the high lift devices that is likely to be used in
flight following system failures.
    (c) The warning may be furnished either through the inherent
aerodynamic qualities of the airplane or by a device that will give
clearly distinguishable indications under expected conditions of
flight. However, a visual stall warning device that requires the
attention of the crew within the cockpit is not acceptable by itself.
If a warning device is used, it must provide a warning in each of the
airplane configurations prescribed in paragraph (a) above and for the
conditions prescribed in paragraphs (d) and (e) below.
    (d) In non-icing conditions stall warning must provide sufficient
margin to prevent encountering unacceptable stall characteristics and
encountering stall in the following conditions:
    (1) In power off straight deceleration not exceeding 1 knot per
second to a speed 5 knots or 5 percent calibrated airspeed, whichever
is greater, below the warning onset.
    (2) In turning flight stall deceleration at entry rates up to 3
knots per second when recovery is initiated not less than 1 second
after the warning onset.
    (e) In icing conditions stall warning must provide sufficient
margin to prevent encountering unacceptable characteristics and
encountering stall, in power-off straight and turning flight
decelerations not exceeding 1 knot per second, when the pilot starts a
recovery maneuver not less than three seconds after the onset of stall
warning.
    (f) An airplane is considered stalled when the behavior of the
airplane gives the pilot a clear and distinctive indication of an
acceptable nature that the airplane is stalled. Acceptable indications
of a stall, occurring either individually or in combination are:
    (1) A nose-down pitch that cannot be readily arrested;
    (2) Buffeting, of a magnitude and severity that is strong and
effective deterrent to further speed reduction; or
    (3) The pitch control reaches the aft stop and no further increase
in pitch attitude occurs when the control is held full aft for a short
time before recovery is initiated.
    (g) An aircraft exhibits unacceptable characteristics during
straight or turning flight decelerations if it is not always possible
to produce and to correct roll and yaw by unreversed use of aileron and
rudder controls, or abnormal nose-up pitching occurs.

5. Handling Characteristics at High Incidence

    In lieu of both Sec. Sec.  25.201 and 25.203, we propose the
following requirements:
5.1 High Incidence Handling Demonstration
    In lieu of Sec.  25.201:
    (a) Maneuvers to the limit of the longitudinal control, in the
nose-up pitch, must be demonstrated in straight flight and in 30[deg]
banked turns with:
    (1) The high incidence protection system operating normally;
    (2) Initial power conditions of:
    i. Power off; and
    ii. The power necessary to maintain level flight at 1.5
VSR1, where VSR1 is the reference stall speed
with flaps in approach position, the landing gear retracted, and
maximum landing weight;
    (3) Flaps, landing gear, and deceleration devices in any likely
combination of positions;
    (4) Representative weights within the range for which certification
is requested; and
    (5) The airplane trimmed for straight flight at a speed achievable
by the automatic trim system.
    (b) The following procedures must be used to show compliance in
non-icing and icing conditions:
    (1) Starting at a speed sufficiently above the minimum steady
flight speed to ensure that a steady rate of speed reduction can be
established, apply the longitudinal control so that the speed reduction
does not exceed 1 knot per second until the control reaches the stop;
    (2) The longitudinal control must be maintained at the stop until
the airplane has reached a stabilized flight condition and must then be
recovered by normal recovery techniques;
    (3) Maneuvers with increased deceleration rates:
    (i) In non-icing conditions, the requirements must also be met with
increased rates of entry to the incidence limit, up to the maximum rate
achievable; and
    (ii) In icing conditions, with the anti-ice system working
normally, the requirements must also be met with increased rates of
entry to the incidence limit, up to 3 knots per second; and
    (4) Maneuver with ice accretion prior to operation of the normal
anti-ice system. With the ice accretion prior to operation of the
normal anti-ice system, the requirements must also be met in
deceleration at 1 knot per second up to full back stick.
5.2 Characteristics in High Incidence Maneuvers
    In lieu of Sec.  25.203:
    In icing and non-icing conditions:
    (a) Throughout maneuvers with a rate of deceleration of not more
than 1 knot per second, both in straight flight and in 30[deg] banked
turns, the airplane's characteristics must be as follows:
    (1) There must not be any abnormal nose-up pitching.
    (2) There must not be any uncommanded nose-down pitching, which
would be indicative of stall. However, reasonable attitude changes
associated with stabilizing the incidence at Alpha limit as the
longitudinal control reaches the stop would be acceptable.

    (3) There must not be any uncommanded lateral or directional motion
and the pilot must retain good lateral and directional control, by
conventional use of the controls, throughout the maneuver.
    (4) The airplane must not exhibit buffeting of a magnitude and
severity that would act as a deterrent from completing the maneuver
specified in paragraph 5.1(a).
    (b) In maneuvers with increased rates of deceleration, some
degradation of characteristics is acceptable, associated with a
transient excursion beyond the stabilized Alpha limit. However, the
airplane must not exhibit dangerous characteristics or characteristics
that would deter the pilot from holding the longitudinal control on the
stop for a period of time appropriate to the maneuver.
    (c) It must always be possible to reduce incidence by conventional
use of the controls.
    (d) The rate at which the airplane can be maneuvered from trim
speeds associated with scheduled operating speeds such as V2
and VREF up to Alpha limit must not be unduly damped or be
significantly slower than can be achieved on conventionally controlled
transport airplanes.
5.3 Characteristics up to Maximum Lift Angle of Attack
    Also in lieu of Sec.  25.201:
    (a) In non-icing conditions:
    Maneuvers with a rate of deceleration of not more than 1 knot per
second up to the angle of attack at which VCLmax was
obtained as defined in section 3, ``Minimum Steady Flight Speed and
Reference Stall Speed,'' must be demonstrated in straight flight and in
30[deg] banked turns in the following configurations:
    (1) The high incidence protection deactivated or adjusted, at the
option of the applicant, to allow higher incidence than is possible
with the normal production system;
    (2) Automatic thrust increase system inhibited (if applicable);
    (3) Engines idling;
    (4) Flaps and landing gear in any likely combination of positions;
and
    (5) The airplane trimmed for straight flight at a speed achievable
by the automatic trim system.
    (b) In icing conditions:
    Maneuvers with a rate of deceleration of not more than 1 knot per
second up to the maximum angle of attack reached during maneuvers from
paragraph 5.1(b)(3)(ii) must be demonstrated in straight flight with:
    (1) The high incidence protection deactivated or adjusted, at the
option of the applicant, to allow higher incidence than is possible
with the normal production system;
    (2) Automatic thrust increase system inhibited (if applicable);
    (3) Engines idling;
    (4) Flaps and landing gear in any likely combination of positions,
and
    (5) The airplane trimmed for straight flight at a speed achievable
by the automatic trim system.
    (c) During the maneuvers used to show compliance with paragraphs
(a) and (b) above, the airplane must not exhibit dangerous
characteristics, and it must always be possible to reduce angle of
attack by conventional use of the controls. The pilot must retain good
lateral and directional control, by conventional use of the controls,
throughout the maneuver.

6. Atmospheric Disturbances

    Operation of the high incidence protection system must not
adversely affect aircraft control during expected levels of atmospheric
disturbances, nor impede the application of recovery procedures in case
of wind-shear. This must be demonstrated in non-icing and icing
conditions.

7. Proof of Compliance

    We propose the following requirement be added in lieu of Sec.
25.21(b), [Reserved]:
    (b) The flying qualities must be evaluated at the most unfavorable
center-of-gravity position.

8. Sections 25.145(a), 25.145(b)(6), and 25.1323(d)

    We propose the following requirements:
     For Sec.  25.145(a), add ``Vmin'' in lieu of
``stall identification.''
     For Sec.  25.145(b)(6), and ``Vmin'' in lieu of
``VSW.''
     For Sec.  25.1323(d), add ``From 1.23 VSR to
Vmin . . . ,'' in lieu of, ``1.23 VSR to stall
warning speed . . . ,'' and, ``. . . speeds below Vmin . .
.'' in lieu of, ``. . . speeds below stall warning . . .''

Special Conditions Part II

Credit for Robust Envelope Protection in Icing Conditions

    The following special conditions are in lieu of the specified
paragraphs of Sec. Sec.  25.103, 25.105, 25.107, 25.121, 25.123,
25.125, 25.143, and 25.207.
    1. Define the stall speed as provided in these special conditions,
Part I, in lieu of Sec.  25.103.
    2. We propose the following requirements in lieu of Sec.
25.105(a)(2)(i):
    In lieu of Sec.  25.105(a)(2)(i) Takeoff:
    (i) The V2 speed scheduled in non-icing conditions does
not provide the maneuvering capability specified in Sec.  25.143(h) for
the takeoff configuration, or
    3. In lieu of Sec.  25.107(c) and (g) we propose the following
requirements, with additional sections (c') and (g'):
    In lieu of Sec.  25.107(c) and (g) Takeoff speeds:
    (c) In non-icing conditions V2, in terms of calibrated
airspeed, must be selected by the applicant to provide at least the
gradient of climb required by Sec.  25.121(b) but may not be less
than--
    (1) V2MIN;
    (2) VR plus the speed increment attained (in accordance
with Sec.  25.111(c)(2)) before reaching a height of 35 feet above the
takeoff surface; and
    (3) A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in
Sec.  25.143(h).
    (c') In icing conditions with the ``takeoff ice'' accretion defined
in part 25, appendix C, V2 may not be less than--
    (1) The V2 speed determined in non-icing conditions; and
    (2) A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in
Sec.  25.143(h).
    (g) In non-icing conditions, VFTO, in terms of
calibrated airspeed, must be selected by the applicant to provide at
least the gradient of climb required by Sec.  25.121(c), but may not be
less than--
    (1) 1.18 VSR; and
    (2) A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in
Sec.  25.143(h).
    (g') In icing conditions with the ``final takeoff ice'' accretion
defined in part 25, appendix C, VFTO, may not be less than--
    (1) The VFTO speed determined in non-icing conditions.
    (2) A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in
Sec.  25.143(h).
    4. In lieu of Sec. Sec.  25.121(b)(2)(ii)(A), 25.121(c)(2)(ii)(A),
and 25.121(d)(2)(ii), we propose the following requirements:
    In lieu of Sec.  25.121(b)(2)(ii)(A):
    (A) The V2 speed scheduled in non-icing conditions does
not provide the maneuvering capability specified in Sec.  25.143(h) for
the takeoff configuration; or
    In lieu of Sec.  25.121(c)(2)(ii)(A):
    (A) The VFTO speed scheduled in non-icing conditions
does not provide the maneuvering capability specified in Sec.
25.143(h) for the en-route configuration; or
    In lieu of Sec.  25.121(d)(2)(ii):
    (d)(2) The requirements of subparagraph (d)(1) of this paragraph
must be met: (ii) In icing conditions with the approach ice accretion
defined in appendix C, in a configuration

corresponding to the normal all-engines-operating procedure in which
Vmin1g for this configuration does not exceed 110% of the
Vmin1g for the related all-engines-operating landing
configuration in icing, with a climb speed established with normal
landing procedures, but not more than 1.4 VSR
(VSR determined in non-icing conditions).
    5. In lieu of Sec.  25.123(b)(2)(i) we propose the following
requirements:
    In lieu of Sec.  25.123(b)(2)(i):
    (i) The minimum en-route speed scheduled in non-icing conditions
does not provide the maneuvering capability specified in Sec.
25.143(h) for the en-route configuration, or
    6. In lieu of Sec.  25.125(b)(2)(ii)(B) and Sec.
25.125(b)(2)(ii)(C), we propose the following requirement:
    (B) A speed that provides the maneuvering capability specified in
Sec.  25.143(h) with the landing ice accretion defined in part 25,
appendix C.
    7. In lieu of Sec.  25.143(j)(2)(i), we propose the following
requirement:
    (i) The airplane is controllable in a pull-up maneuver up to 1.5 g
load factor or lower if limited by angle of attack protection; and
    8. In lieu of Sec.  25.207, Stall warning, to read as the
requirements defined in these special conditions Part I, Section 4.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 2, 2014.
Michael Kaszycki,
Assistant Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-13528 Filed 6-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 79 (Monday, April 26, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21523-21527]
[FR Doc No: 2010-9588]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 33

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0398; Notice No. 10-06]
RIN 2120-AJ62

Airworthiness Standards; Rotor Overspeed Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to amend the aircraft turbine engine rotor
overspeed type certification standards. This action would establish
uniform rotor overspeed design and test requirements for aircraft
engines and turbochargers certificated by the FAA and the European
Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The proposed rule would also establish
uniform standards for the design and testing of engine rotor parts in
the United States and in Europe, eliminating the need to comply with
two differing sets of requirements. The proposed rule would improve
safety by clarifying existing overspeed requirements for aircraft
turbine engine rotor parts.

DATES: Send your comments on or before July 26, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by docket number FAA-2010-
0398 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send Comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Take comments to Docket Operations in Room
W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.

For more information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for 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://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time and follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this proposed rule, contact Tim Mouzakis, Engine and Propeller
Directorate Standards Staff, ANE-111, Engine and Propeller Directorate,
Federal Aviation Administration, 12 New England Executive Park,
Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5299; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(781) 238-7199; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal questions
concerning this proposed rule contact Vincent Bennett, ANE-7, Office of
Regional Counsel, Federal Aviation Administration, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5299; telephone (781)
238-7044; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Later in this preamble under the Additional
Information section, we discuss how you can comment on this proposal
and how we will handle your comments. Included in this discussion is
related information about the docket, privacy, and the handling of
proprietary or confidential business information. We also discuss how
you can get a copy of

this proposal and related rulemaking documents.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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, including minimum safety
standards for aircraft engines. This proposed rule is within the scope
of that authority because it updates existing regulations for rotor
overspeed for aircraft turbine engines.

Background

    Part 33 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations prescribes
aircraft engine airworthiness certification standards for products
certified in the United States. The Certification Specifications for
Engines (CS-E) prescribe the corresponding airworthiness standards for
products certified in Europe by the European Aviation Safety Agency.
While part 33 and CS-E are similar, they differ in several respects.
    The FAA tasked the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee through
its Engine Harmonization Working Group to review existing regulations
and recommend changes that would eliminate differences between the U.S.
and European engine certification standards by harmonizing to the
higher standards. This proposed rule is a result of this harmonization
effort.
    This proposed rule would harmonize rotor overspeed requirements
found in 14 CFR part 33 with EASA CS-E specifications in CS-E 840,
Rotor Integrity. The proposed rule would improve safety by establishing
one harmonized standard requiring:
    (1) Rotors be designed with a burst/failure speed that exceeds the
certified operating speeds;
    (2) Burst speeds to exceed overspeed conditions that can result
from the failure of other engine components; and
    (3) Limits on the amount of rotor growth or damage that results
from an overspeed.

Definition of Terms Used in the Rule

    For the purposes of the rule, the following definitions, which are
consistent with part 33 and CS-E, apply:
    Maximum permissible rotor speed. The maximum approved rotor speed,
including transients, for the maximum approved rating, including One-
Engine-Inoperative (OEI) ratings.
    Overspeed Capability. The r.p.m. (revolutions per minute) at which
the part fails or bursts.
    Rotor Growth. The permanent increase in a rotor part's radial
dimensions caused by an overspeed condition.

General Discussion of the Proposal

    The proposed rule would require that rotor parts be designed with a
safety margin large enough that the parts have an overspeed capability
that exceeds the engine's certified operating conditions, including
overspeed conditions which can occur in the event of a failure of
another engine component and/or system malfunction. For failures that
may result in an overspeed, the proposed rule would limit rotor growth
to that which would not lead to a hazardous condition as defined by
Sec.  33.75.
    The proposed rule would harmonize U.S. requirements with EASA's by:
     Changing the current FAA overspeed design margin from 115
to 120 percent of maximum permissible speed for all engine ratings
except OEI ratings of less than 2\1/2\ minutes;
     Changing the current FAA overspeed design margin from100
to 105 percent for operating conditions associated with multiple
failures;
     Introducing similar OEI overspeed design requirements;
     Requiring new similar rotor pass/fail design criteria;
     Requiring similar overspeed margin requirements;
     Allowing the use of validated structural analysis tools to
demonstrate compliance;
     Requiring that validated structural analysis tools be
calibrated to actual overspeed tests of similar rotors; and
     Allowing engine test durations of less than 5 minutes for
failure conditions for which a 5-minute duration is not realistic.
    Like EASA's CS-E, the proposed rule would specify that rotors may
not burst for overspeed conditions that do not involve component or
system failure. For component or engine failures that result in an
overspeed, the proposed rule specifies that rotors may not burst and
limits the amount of rotor growth.

Overspeed Test Requirements

    The current rule allows the rotor part being tested to be selected
at random and does not require the test speed to be adjusted to ensure
a minimum specification rotor can achieve the required overspeed. The
proposed rule would allow the test speed to be adjusted/increased to
account for the most adverse combination of material properties and
dimensional tolerances. This proposed change harmonizes our overspeed
test requirements with CS-E 840(a) and (d).
    Single or multiple failures of components and/or systems can result
in an overspeed that is sudden, transient and continues for a brief
period of time. In this situation, the FAA considers it unrealistic to
require an engine test that is attempting to duplicate these types of
failures to maintain an overspeed beyond that which can be expected to
occur. Under the proposed rule, the FAA would accept the actual
overspeed duration provided the required maximum rotor speed is
achieved.

Overspeed Requirements for OEI Ratings

    The current rule does not specify the overspeed requirements for
one-engine inoperative ratings and assumes overspeed requirements are
the same for any engine rating. The current rule requires an overspeed
margin of 115 percent of the maximum permissible speed if tested in an
engine. The proposed rule requires an overspeed margin of 120 percent
for all ratings, except for 115 percent for OEI ratings less than 2\1/
2\ minutes. The proposed change to overspeed requirements for OEI
ratings would harmonize with CS-E 840(b).

Overspeed Events Due to Failure of Components or Systems

    The current rule requires a 5 percent overspeed margin for the
failure of a single component or system and zero overspeed margin for
the failure of multiple components. The proposed rule specifies a 5
percent overspeed margin for both single and combined failure
situations for all ratings except OEI ratings of less than 2\1/2\
minutes.
    When operating at an OEI rating of less than 2\1/2\-minute duration
and a single failure occurs, the proposed rule requires that rotor
components be designed and tested to withstand 100 percent of the
resulting overspeed. The proposed changes to overspeed requirements for
OEI ratings harmonize with those in CS-E 840(b).

Exclusion of Certain Shaft Sections From Overspeed Tests

    The current rule in Sec.  33.27(c)(2)(v) requires that all shaft
locations be considered in determining the terminal rotor speed due to
failure and be tested to 105 percent of the highest terminal rotor
speed. The proposed rule in Sec.  33.27(f) would exclude certain shaft
sections, but not the whole shaft system, from this requirement. The
FAA finds the proposed rule is consistent with the way the FAA has
applied the current rule to industry in certification tests. The FAA
has consistently accepted engineering assessments that support the
applicant's findings that certain location(s) (sections) of a shaft
system are considered ``prime reliable,'' which means that these shaft
locations are not likely to fail during the life of the engine. The FAA
is, therefore, proposing to change the current rule to be consistent
with the current certification practices. The proposed changes to
overspeed requirements due to shaft failures would be consistent with
those in CS-E-850(b).

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined there is
no current or new information collection requirements associated with
this proposed rule.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. We determined
that no conflict with ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices exists,
since there are no corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended
Practices.

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Proposed changes to Federal regulations must undergo several
economic analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each
Federal agency propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354)
requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes
on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39)
prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing
U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by private sector,
of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with base year
of 1995). This portion of the preamble contains the FAA's analysis of
the economic impacts of this proposed rule.
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this
proposed rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs, (2) is not an
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(5) would not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States; and (6) would not impose an unfunded mandate on
State, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by
exceeding the threshold identified above.

Total Estimated Benefits and Costs of This Proposed Rule

    Presently, turbine aircraft engine manufacturers must satisfy both
FAA part 33 and EASA CS-E regulations to certify their products in the
United States and Europe. Certification to one standard would improve
certification efficiency by eliminating duplicate testing and
documentation. We have not attempted to quantify the cost savings that
may accrue due to this improved certification efficiency beyond noting
that these are expected to be minor. We have drawn that conclusion
based on the consensus among potentially affected aircraft engine
manufacturers.
    Industry must currently certificate to the two standards that are
substantively similar, but have a few slightly different testing and
documentation procedures and requirements. The proposed rule would
harmonize these procedures and requirements to the higher standard and,
thereby, may increase safety. In addition, by reducing the amount of
duplicative testing that would need to be either witnessed or analyzed
by the FAA, the FAA would be better able to prioritize its resources to
other, more safety critical areas. Consequently, the FAA determines
there could be unquantifiable future minimal benefits from the proposed
rule.
    As a result, the FAA concludes that the combination of cost savings
and potential increased safety benefits would make this proposed rule
cost beneficial.
    The FAA requests comments on these estimates of potential cost
savings and benefits from this proposed rule.
    The FAA has, therefore, determined that this proposed rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the agency determines that it will, the agency must
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
    The net effect of this proposed rule would provide regulatory cost
relief. Second, all but one U.S. aircraft turbine engine manufacturer
exceeds the Small

Business Administration small-entity criteria for aircraft engine
manufacturers of 1,500 employees. U.S. transport category aircraft
engine manufacturers include: General Electric (GE); CFM International
(a joint company of GE and Snecma); Pratt & Whitney (P&W); Honeywell;
Rolls-Royce Corporation (formerly Allison Engines); International Aero
Engines (a privately-held consortium that includes P&W, Rolls-Royce,
Japanese Aero Engines Corporation, and MTU Aero Engines); and Williams
International. Williams International is the only one of these
manufacturers that is categorized as a U.S. small business by the SBA
criteria. This proposed rule would reduce costs, and there is only one
small entity manufacturing part 33 aircraft engines. Therefore, the FAA
certifies that this action would not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The FAA solicits comments
regarding this determination.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The statute also
requires consideration of international standards and, where
appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA
assessed the potential effect of this proposed rule and determined that
it uses European standards as the basis for regulation and thus is
consistent with the Trade Assessments Act.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $136.1 million in lieu of $100
million. This proposed rule does not contain such a mandate, therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this proposed rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action 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, and therefore would not have federalism implications.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E defines FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this proposed rulemaking action qualifies for the
categorical exclusion identified in Chapter 3, paragraph 312d, and
involves no extraordinary circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this NPRM under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

Additional Information

Comments Invited
    The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. We also
invite comments relating to the economic, environmental, energy, or
federalism impacts that might result from adopting the proposals in
this document. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion
of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, please send only one copy of written comments, or
if you are filing comments electronically, please submit your comments
only one time.
    We will file in the docket all comments we receive, as well as a
report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel
concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, we
will consider all comments we receive on or before the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed after the comment period has
closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay.
We may change this proposal in light of the comments we receive.
Proprietary or Confidential Business Information
    Do not file in the docket information that you consider to be
proprietary or confidential business information. Send or deliver this
information directly to the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. You must mark the
information that you consider proprietary or confidential. If you send
the information on a disk or CD-ROM, mark the outside of the disk or
CD-ROM and also identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is proprietary or confidential.
    Under 14 CFR 11.35(b), when we are aware of proprietary information
filed with a comment, we do not place it in the docket. We hold it in a
separate file to which the public does not have access, and we place a
note in the docket that we have received it. If we receive a request to
examine or copy this information, we treat it as any other request
under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552). We process such a
request under the DOT procedures found in 49 CFR part 7.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy using the Internet by--
    (1) Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    (2) Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/; or
    (3) Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to identify the docket number or notice number of this rulemaking.
    You may access all documents the FAA considered in developing this
proposed rule, including economic analyses and technical reports, from
the Internet through the Federal eRulemaking Portal referenced in
paragraph (1).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 33

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations as follows:

PART 33--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES

    1. The authority citation for part 33 continues to read as follows:

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

    2. Revise Sec.  33.27 to read as follows:

Sec.  33.27  Turbine, compressor, fan, and turbosupercharger rotor
overspeed.

    (a) For each fan, compressor, turbine, and turbosupercharger rotor,
the applicant must establish by test, analysis, or a combination of
both, that each rotor will not burst when operated in the engine for 5
minutes at whichever of the conditions defined in paragraph (b) of this
section is the most critical with respect to the integrity of such a
rotor.
    (1) Test rotors used to demonstrate compliance with this section
that do not have the most adverse combination of material properties
and dimensional tolerances must be tested at conditions which have been
adjusted to ensure the minimum specification rotor possesses the
required overspeed capability. This can be accomplished by increasing
test speed, temperature, and/or loads.
    (2) When an engine test is being used to demonstrate compliance
with the overspeed conditions listed in paragraph (b)(3) or (b)(4) of
this section and the failure of a component or system is sudden and
transient, it may not be possible to operate the engine for 5 minutes
after the failure. Under these circumstances, the actual overspeed
duration is acceptable if the required maximum overspeed is achieved.
    (b) When determining the maximum overspeed condition applicable to
each rotor in order to comply with paragraphs (a) and (c) of this
section, the applicant must evaluate the following rotor speeds taking
into consideration the part's operating temperatures and temperature
gradients throughout the engine's operating envelope:
    (1) 120 percent of the maximum permissible rotor speed associated
with any of the engine ratings except one-engine-inoperative (OEI)
ratings of less than 2\1/2\ minutes.
    (2) 115 percent of the maximum permissible rotor speed associated
with any OEI ratings of less than 2\1/2\ minutes.
    (3) 105 percent of the highest rotor speed that would result from
either:
    (i) The failure of the component or system which, in a
representative installation of the engine, is the most critical with
respect to overspeed when operating at any rating condition except OEI
ratings of less than 2\1/2\ minutes, or
    (ii) The failure of any component or system in a representative
installation of the engine, in combination with any other failure of a
component or system that would not normally be detected during a
routine pre-flight check or during normal flight operation, that is the
most critical with respect to overspeed, except as provided by
paragraph (c) of this section, when operating at any rating condition
except OEI ratings of less than 2\1/2\ minutes.
    (4) 100 percent of the highest rotor speed that would result from
the failure of the component or system which, in a representative
installation of the engine, is the most critical with respect to
overspeed when operating at any OEI rating of less than 2\1/2\ minutes.
    (c) The highest overspeed that results from a complete loss of load
on a turbine rotor, except as provided by paragraph (f) of this
section, must be included in the overspeed conditions considered by
paragraphs (b)(3)(i), (b)(3)(ii), and (b)(4) of this section,
regardless of whether that overspeed results from a failure within the
engine or external to the engine. The overspeed resulting from any
other single failure must be considered when selecting the most
limiting overspeed conditions applicable to each rotor. Overspeeds
resulting from combinations of failures must also be considered unless
the applicant can show that the probability of occurrence is not
greater than 10-9 per flight.
    (d) In addition, the applicant must demonstrate that each fan,
compressor, turbine, and turbosupercharger rotor complies with
paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section for the maximum overspeed
achieved when subjected to the conditions specified in paragraphs
(b)(3) and (b)(4) of this section. The applicant must use the approach
in paragraph (a) of this section which specifies the required test
conditions.
    (1) Rotor Growth must not cause the engine to:
    (i) Catch fire,
    (ii) Release hazardous fragments through the engine casing or
result in a hazardous failure of the engine casing,
    (iii) Generate loads greater than those ultimate loads specified in
Sec.  33.23(a), or
    (iv) Lose the capability of being shut down.
    (2) Following an overspeed event and after continued operation, the
rotor may not exhibit conditions such as cracking or distortion which
preclude continued safe operation.
    (e) The design and functioning of engine control systems,
instruments, and other methods not covered under Sec.  33.28 must
ensure that the engine operating limitations that affect turbine,
compressor, fan, and turbosupercharger rotor structural integrity will
not be exceeded in service.
    (f) Failure of a shaft section may be excluded from consideration
in determining the highest overspeed that would result from a complete
loss of load on a turbine rotor if the applicant:
    (1) Identifies the shaft as an engine life-limited-part and
complies with Sec.  33.70.
    (2) Uses material and design features that are well understood and
that can be analyzed by well-established and validated stress analysis
techniques.
    (3) Determines, based on an assessment of the environment
surrounding the shaft section, that environmental influences are
unlikely to cause a shaft failure. This assessment must include
complexity of design, corrosion, wear, vibration, fire, contact with
adjacent components or structure, overheating, and secondary effects
from other failures or combination of failures.
    (4) Identifies and declares, in accordance with Sec.  33.5, any
assumptions regarding the engine installation in making the assessment
described above in paragraph (f)(3) of this section.
    (5) Assesses, and considers as appropriate, experience with shaft
sections of similar design.
    (6) Does not exclude the entire shaft.
    (g) If analysis is used to meet the overspeed requirements, then
the analytical tool must be calibrated to prior overspeed test results
of a similar rotor. The tool must be calibrated for the same material,
rotor geometry, stress level, and temperature range as the rotor being
certified. Calibration includes the ability to accurately predict rotor
dimensional growth and the burst speed. The predictions must also show
that the rotor being certified does not have lower burst and growth
margins than rotors used to calibrate the tool.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 20, 2010.
Dorenda D. Baker,
Director, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-9588 Filed 4-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 89)]
[Notices]
[Page 25912-25913]
[DOCID:fr10my10-105]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0070]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Revision of a
Currently-Approved Information Collection Request: Transportation of
Household Goods; Consumer Protection

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review and approval and invites public comment. The information
collected will be used to help regulate motor carriers transporting
household goods for individual shippers.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before July 9, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2010-0070 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington DC 20590-0001 between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., est, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this Notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, 20590-0001 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each
day, 365 days each year. If you want acknowledgement that we received
your comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or
post card or print the acknowledgement page that appears after
submitting them on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19476). This information is also
available at http://docketsinfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James R. Dubose, Commercial
Enforcement Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, West
Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (Pub.
L. 106-159, 113 Stat. 1749, December 9, 1999) (MCSIA) authorized the
Secretary of Transportation to regulate household goods carriers
engaged in interstate operations for individual shippers. In earlier
legislation, Congress abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission and
transferred the Commission's jurisdiction over household goods
transportation to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) (ICC
Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-88). Prior to FMCSA's
establishment, the Secretary delegated this household goods
jurisdiction to the Federal Highway Administration, FMCSA's predecessor
organization within DOT.
    Sections 4202 through 4216 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Pub. L. 109-
59, 119 Stat. 1144, Aug. 10, 2005) (SAFETEA-LU) amended various
provisions of existing law regarding household goods transportation. It
specifically addressed: definitions (section 4202); payment of rates
(section 4203); registration requirements for household goods motor
carriers (section 4204); carrier operations (section 4205); enforcement
of regulations (section 4206); liability of carriers under receipts and
bills of lading (section 4207); arbitration requirements (section
4208); civil penalties for brokers and unauthorized transportation
(section 4209); penalties for holding goods hostage (section 4210);
consumer handbook (section 4211); release of broker information
(section 4212); working group for Federal-State relations (section
4213); consumer complaint information (section 4214); review of
liability of carriers (section 4215); and application of State laws
(section 4216). The FMCSA regulations that set forth Federal
requirements for movers that provide interstate transportation of
household goods are found in 49 CFR part 375, ``Transportation of
Household Goods; Consumer Protection Regulation.''
    Title: Transportation of Household Goods; Consumer Protection.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0025.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently-approved information
collection.
    Respondents: Motor carriers and individual shippers of household
goods.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 6,000 household goods movers.
    Estimated Time per Response: Varies from 5 minutes to display
assigned U.S. DOT number in created advertisement to 12.5 minutes to
distribute consumer publication.
    Expiration Date: October 31, 2010.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 5,556,000 hours [Informational
documents provided to prospective shippers 75,400 hours + written cost
estimates for prospective shippers 4,620,000 hours + service orders,
bills of lading 805,300 hours + in-transit service notifications 22,600
hours + complaint and inquiry records, including establishing records
system 32,700 hours = 5,556,000].
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2)
the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected

information; and (4) ways that the burden could be minimized without
reducing the quality of the collected information. The Agency will
summarize or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance
of this information collection.

    Issued on: April 23, 2010.
Terry Shelton,
Associate Administrator for Research and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2010-10940 Filed 5-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 160 (Thursday, August 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 51438]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21030]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension:
    Rule 17f-2(e); SEC File No. 270-37; OMB Control No. 3235-0031.

    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'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget a request for approval of extension of the previously
approved collection of information provided for in Rule 17f-2(e) (17
CFR 240.17f-2(e)) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78a et seq.).
    Rule 17f-2(e) requires members of national securities exchanges,
brokers, dealers, registered transfer agents, and registered clearing
agencies claiming exemption from the fingerprinting requirements of
Rule 17f-2 to prepare and maintain a statement supporting their claim
exemption. There is no filing requirement. Instead, Rule 17f-2(e)(2)
requires covered entities to make and keep current a copy of the notice
required by Rule 17f-2(e) in an easily accessible place at the
organization's principal office and at the office employing the persons
for whom exemptions are claimed and shall be made available upon
request for inspection by the Commission, appropriate regulatory agency
(if not the Commission) or other designated examining authority.
Notices prepared pursuant to Rule 17f-2(e) must be maintained for as
long as the covered entity claims an exemption from the fingerprinting
requirements of Rule 17f-2. The recordkeeping requirement under Rule
17f-2(e) assists the Commission and other regulatory agencies with
ensuring compliance with Rule 17f-2. This rule does not involve the
collection of confidential information.
    We estimate that approximately 75 respondents will incur an average
burden of 30 minutes per year to comply with this rule, which
represents the time it takes for a staff person at a covered entity to
properly document a claimed exemption from the fingerprinting
requirements of Rule 17f-2, and properly retain that document according
to the entities record retention policies and procedures. The total
annual burden for all covered entities is approximately 38 hours (75
entities x .5 hours).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be 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.
    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
    Background documentation for this information collection may be
viewed at the following link, http://www.reginfo.gov. Comments should
be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information
Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon,
6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-mail to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days
of this notice.

    August 12, 2011.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-21030 Filed 8-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 72691]
[DOCID:fr21de07-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ08-4-000]

East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of Filing

December 14, 2007.
    Take notice that on December 7, 2007, East Kentucky Power
Cooperative, Inc. tendered for filing a revised Attachment M to its
``safe harbor'' Open Access Transmission Tariff and waiver of the
filing fee.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on January 7, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-24754 Filed 12-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48882-48883]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22834]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0166]

Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; MBI
Energy Services (MBI)

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; denial of application for
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny the application of MBI
Energy Services (MBI) from the requirement that a motor carrier install
and require each of its drivers to use an electronic logging device
(ELD) to record the driver's hours of service (HOS) no later than
December 18, 2017. MBI had requested the exemption for all of its
vehicles equipped with a single-passenger cab, which are used in
applications where travel is incidental to normal work activities and
which require special oversize/overweight permits to travel on public
roads. FMCSA has analyzed the exemption application and public
comments, and has determined that the applicant would not achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption. FMCSA therefore denies MBI's
application for exemption.

DATES: FMCSA denies this application for exemption effective October
20, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
notice, contact Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier
Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety
Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    FMCSA reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, and
determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reason for the grant or denial, and, if granted,
the specific person or class of persons receiving the exemption, and
the regulatory provision or provisions from which exemption is granted.
The notice must also specify the effective period of the exemption (up
to 5 years), and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

Request for Exemption

    MBI is a provider of water management logistics and well-
intervention services in North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana,
and Colorado. The requested exemption would affect 65 MBI Energy
Services drivers operating 42 single-cab vehicles classified in North
Dakota as Special Mobile Equipment (SME). These vehicles meet the
definition of a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in 49 CFR 390.5 and
therefore are subject to the ELD or AOBRD mandate. These specialized
vehicles perform various work activities in an environment where
connectivity is limited, working and road conditions are rough, and the
necessity for driving on public roads is sporadic and incidental to the
overall work being performed. The vehicles may sit on work locations
for long periods of time, up to weeks or even months. These vehicles
are typically oversize and overweight, requiring special permits for
transport. Many States do not require registration, as they build the
registration fees into the permit process.
    Examples of SMEs meeting the definition of a CMV having a single
cab include cranes, workover rigs, and swab units. Single cabs have
reduced space for installing rough-terrain-capable AOBRDs or ELDs. The
devices used must be capable of satellite communication where cell
communication is poor to non-existent. The installation of rugged
logging units, weighing more than typical units used in highway
applications, would reduce driver visibility in an already large
vehicle due to the limited space found in single-cab vehicles.
Additionally, installation may require a unit being positioned over the
driver's head, increasing the risk of the unit falling on the driver
resulting in injury given the rough terrain upon which the vehicles
travel or a vehicle accident involving the travelling public.
    While these vehicles normally travel little, business demand may
require MBI vehicles to move more often than 8 days in a 30-day period,
the maximum frequency allowed by 49 CFR 395.8(a)(1)(iii)(A)(1) for the
use of paper RODS instead of ELDs. According to MBI, the current
regulations do not address circumstances where the vehicle's exemption
status is sporadic in nature, thus requiring MBI to install an ELD to
remain compliant during times not covered by the exemption. While
alternatives exist to industrial-grade logging units, the alternatives
usually involve cell phones or cell-capable tablets where the terrain
or remote locations of work may inhibit logging device communication
for extended periods of time. Many worksites prohibit cell phone usage
due to safety concerns. Additionally, installations in special vehicles
will increase costs substantially due to the unusual configurations of
single cab vehicles requiring specialized wiring harnesses and custom
installation kits. MBI requested a 5-year exemption.

Public Comments

    On July 10, 2017, FMCSA published MBI's application for exemption
and requested public comment (82 FR 31798). The Agency received five
comments to the docket, from CMV drivers, a Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance (CVSA) inspector, and the Owner-Operator Independent Driver's
Association (OOIDA). All of the commenters opposed the MBI application
for exemption. According to commenters, MBI's request would place a
burden on law enforcement officers in tracking exceptions from the
regulations and open the door for other oil field service companies and
crane operating companies to request similar exception status.
Commenters stated that the purpose of the ELDs is to force drivers and
carriers to record their HOS

accurately due to years of abuse by the industry.
    All comments are available for review in the docket for this
notice.

FMCSA Decision

    When FMCSA published the rule mandating ELDs, it relied upon
research indicating that the rule improves commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) safety and reduces the overall paperwork burden for both motor
carriers and drivers by increasing the use of ELDs within the motor
carrier industry, which will in turn, improve compliance with the HOS
rules. The primary reason for denial of this exemption is that MBI did
not demonstrate how, without using ELDs, they would maintain a level of
safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level achieved without the
exemption.
    For these reasons, FMCSA has denied the applicant's request for
exemption.

    Issued on: September 28, 2017.
Daphne Y. Jefferson,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-22834 Filed 10-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P