[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 164 (Friday, August 25, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58435-58436]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18330]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2023-0002-N-14]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the Information
Collection Request (ICR) summarized below. Before submitting this ICR
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is
soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities
identified in the ICR.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
October 24, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR
should be submitted on regulations.gov to the docket, Docket No. FRA-
2023-2002. All comments received will be posted without change to the
docket, including any personal information provided. Please refer to
the assigned OMB control number (2130-0602) in any correspondence
submitted. FRA will summarize comments received in response to this
notice in a subsequent notice, made available to the public, and
include them in its information collection submission to OMB for
approval.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Arlette Mussington, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, at email: [email protected] or
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or Ms. Joanne Swafford, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, at email: [email protected] or
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to
provide 60-days' notice to the public to allow comment on information
collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
See 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. Specifically,
FRA invites interested parties to comment on the following ICR
regarding: (1) whether the information collection activities are
necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether
the activities will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's
estimates of the burden of the information collection activities,
including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to
determine the estimates; (3) ways for FRA to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (4) ways
for FRA to minimize the burden of information collection activities on
the public, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology. See 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A); 5
CFR 1320.8(d)(1).
    FRA believes that soliciting public comment may reduce the
administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of
information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, comments
received will advance three objectives: (1) reduce reporting burdens;
(2) organize information collection requirements in a ``user-friendly''
format to improve the use of such information; and (3) accurately
assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce

information requested. See 44 U.S.C. 3501.
    The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB
clearance as the PRA requires:
    Title: Critical Incident Stress Plans.
    OMB Control Number: 2130-0602.
    Abstract: Under 49 CFR part 272, Class I, intercity passenger, and
commuter railroads are required to develop, and submit to FRA for
approval, a critical incident stress plan (CISP) that provides for
appropriate support services to be offered to their employees who are
affected by a critical incident as defined in 49 CFR 272.9. FRA uses
the information collected to ensure the minimum standards of part 272
are met.
    In this 60-day notice, FRA adjusted the respondent universe from 41
railroads to 40 railroads to reflect the current number of Class I,
intercity passenger, and commuter railroads required to comply with
part 272 requirements. FRA adjusted the total estimated annual burden
in the PRA table from 467 hours to 246 hours. Specifically, under Sec.
272.103(e), FRA adjusted the burden from 24 hours to 12 hours because
FRA anticipates that the annual submissions of modified and existing
CISP plans will decrease from 4 plans to 2 plans. Additionally, under
Sec.  272.103(f), FRA adjusted the burden from 416 hours to 208 hours
because FRA anticipates that railroads will increasingly provide their
employees with electronic copies of the CISPs rather than hard copies.
    Type of Request: Extension without change (with changes in
estimates) of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses/Rail Labor Unions.
    Form(s): N/A.
    Respondent Universe: 40 railroads.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion.
    Reporting Burden:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total cost
           CFR section              Respondent  universe     Total annual  responses          Average time per       Total annual    equivalent in U.S.
                                                                                response           burden hours          dollar
                                   .....................  (A)..........................  (B)......................     (C = A * B)  (D = C * wage rates)
                                                                                \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
272.103(a)--Railroad submission    1 new railroad.......  1 plan.......................  12 hours.................           12.00             $1,031.16
 of critical incident stress plan
 (CISP) to FRA for approval.
    --(b) Railroad CISP copy to 5  1 new railroad.......  5 plan copies................  5 minutes................            0.42                $36.09
     labor organizations.
    --(c)(1) Rail labor            5 employee labor       5 comments...................  2 hours..................           10.00                859.30
     organization comment to FRA    organizations.
     on CISP submission.
    --(c)(2) Rail labor            5 employee labor       5 certifications.............  5 minutes................            0.42                 36.09
     affirmative statement to FRA   organizations.
     that comment copy has been
     served on railroad.
    --(e) Railroad submission of   40 railroads.........  2 updated/modified plans.....  6 hours..................           12.00              1,031.16
     updated/modified existing
     CISP to FRA for approval.
    --(f) Copy to RR employees of  40 railroads.........  2,500 copies.................  5 minutes................          208.33             17,901.80
     updated/modified CISP.
    --(g) Railroads make copies    40 railroads.........  25 plan copies...............  5 minutes................            2.08                178.73
     of CISP available to FRA
     inspector upon request.
272.105--Requirement to file CISP  40 railroads.........  3 CISP electronic submissions  8 minutes................            0.40                 34.37
 electronically.
                                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total \2\....................  40 railroads; 5        2,546 responses..............  N/A......................             246                21,109
                                    employee labor
                                    organizations.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 2,546.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The dollar equivalent cost is derived from the 2022 Surface
Transportation Board Full Year Wage A&B data series using employee
group 200 (Professional & Administrative) hourly wage rate of
$49.10. The total burden wage rate (straight time plus 75%) used in
the table is $85.93 ($49.10 x 1.75 = $85.93).
    \2\ Totals may not add due to rounding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 246.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent: $21,109.
    FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or
sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection
of information that does not display a currently valid OMB control
number.
    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520.

Christopher S. Van Nostrand,
Acting Deputy Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2023-18330 Filed 8-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 159 (Tuesday, August 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50055-50056]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20326]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 31746; 812-14496]

Principal ETMF Trust, et al.; Notice of Application

August 11, 2015.
AGENCY:  Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION:  Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of
the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from
sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e) of the Act and rule 22c-1
under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an
exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and (a)(2) of the Act, and under
section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from sections
12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act.

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

    Applicants: Principal ETMF Trust (the ``Trust''), Principal
Management Corporation (the ``Manager''), and Principal Funds
Distributor, Inc. (the ``Distributor'').
SUMMARY: Summary of Application: Applicants request an order
(``Order'') that permits: (a) Actively managed series of certain open-
end management investment companies to issue shares (``Shares'')
redeemable in large aggregations only (``Creation Units''); (b)
secondary market transactions in Shares to occur at the next-determined
net asset value plus or minus a market-determined premium or discount
that may vary during the trading day; (c) certain series to pay
redemption proceeds, under certain circumstances, more than seven days
from the tender of Shares for redemption; (d) certain affiliated
persons of the series to deposit securities into, and receive
securities from, the series in connection with the purchase and
redemption of Creation Units; (e) certain registered management
investment companies and unit investment trusts outside of the same
group of investment companies as the series to acquire Shares; and (f)
certain series to create and redeem Shares in kind in a master-feeder
structure. The Order would incorporate by reference terms and
conditions of a previous order granting the same relief sought by
applicants, as that order may be amended from time to time (``Reference
Order'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Eaton Vance Management, et al., Investment Company Act Rel.
Nos. 31333 (Nov. 6, 2014) (notice) and 31361 (Dec. 2, 2014) (order).

DATES:  Filing Date: The application was filed on June 26, 2015.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on September 8, 2015, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts
bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES:  The Commission: Brent J. Fields, Secretary, U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.
Applicants: Principal ETMF Trust, Principal Management Corporation, and
Principal Funds Distributor, Inc., c/o Adam U. Shaikh, Esq., The
Principal

Financial Group, Des Moines, IA 50392-0300.

ADDRESSES:  Diane L. Titus, Paralegal Specialist, or Dalia Osman Blass,
Assistant Chief Counsel, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division of Investment
Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants

    1. The Trust will be registered as an open-end management
investment company under the Act and is a statutory trust organized
under the laws of Delaware. Applicants seek relief with respect to a
Fund (as defined below, and that Fund, the ``Initial Fund''). The
portfolio positions of the Fund will consist of securities and other
assets selected and managed by its Manager or Subadviser (as defined
below) to pursue the Fund's investment objective.
    2. The Adviser, an Iowa corporation, will be the investment adviser
to the Initial Fund. An Adviser (as defined below) will serve as
investment adviser to each Fund. The Adviser is, and any other Adviser
will be, registered as an investment adviser under the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act''). The Adviser and the Trust may
retain one or more subadvisers (each a ``Subadviser'') to manage the
portfolios of the Funds. Any Subadviser will be registered, or not
subject to registration, under the Advisers Act.
    3. The Distributor is a Washington corporation and a broker-dealer
registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and will act as
the principal underwriter of Shares of the Funds. Applicants request
that the requested relief apply to any distributor of Shares, whether
affiliated or unaffiliated with the Adviser (included in the term
``Distributor''). Any Distributor will comply with the terms and
conditions of the Order.

Applicants' Requested Exemptive Relief

    4. Applicants seek the requested Order under section 6(c) of the
Act for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), 22(d) and 22(e)
of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b)
of the Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the
Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from
sections 12(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act. The requested Order would
permit applicants to offer exchange-traded managed funds. Because the
relief requested is the same as the relief granted by the Commission
under the Reference Order and because the Adviser has entered into, or
anticipates entering into, a licensing agreement with Eaton Vance
Management, or an affiliate thereof in order to offer exchange-traded
managed funds,\2\ the Order would incorporate by reference the terms
and conditions of the Reference Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Eaton Vance Management has obtained patents with respect to
certain aspects of the Funds' method of operation as exchange-traded
managed funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Applicants request that the Order apply to the Initial Funds and
to any other existing or future open-end management investment company
or series thereof that: (a) Is advised by the Adviser or any entity
controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Adviser
(any such entity included in the term ``Adviser''); and (b) operates as
an exchange-traded managed fund as described in the Reference Order;
and (c) complies with the terms and conditions of the Order and of the
Reference Order, which is incorporated by reference herein (each such
company or series and Initial Fund, a ``Fund'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ All entities that currently intend to rely on the Order are
named as applicants. Any other entity that relies on the Order in
the future will comply with the terms and conditions of the Order
and of the Reference Order, which is incorporated by reference
herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security or transaction, or any class of persons,
securities or transactions, from any provisions of the Act, if and to
the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed
transaction from section 17(a) of the Act if evidence establishes that
the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or
received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on
the part of any person concerned, and the proposed transaction is
consistent with the policies of the registered investment company and
the general purposes of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act
provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or
transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities or
transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption
is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
    7. Applicants submit that for the reasons stated in the Reference
Order: (1) With respect to the relief requested pursuant to section
6(c) of the Act, the relief is appropriate, in the public interest and
consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly
intended by the policy and provisions of the Act; (2) with respect to
the relief request pursuant to section 17(b) of the Act, the proposed
transactions are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on
the part of any person concerned, are consistent with the policies of
each registered investment company concerned and consistent with the
general purposes of the Act; and (3) with respect to the relief
requested pursuant to section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act, the relief is
consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.

    By the Division of Investment Management, pursuant to delegated
authority.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-20326 Filed 8-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 127 (Friday, July 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38598-38599]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16225]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0115]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt thirty-seven
individuals from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs) in interstate commerce. The exemptions will enable these
individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions are effective July 2, 2010. The exemptions expire
on July 2, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Room W64-224,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's 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, or other
entity). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register (65 FR 19477, Apr. 11, 2000). This statement is also
available at http://www.regulations.gov.

Background

    On May 21, 2010, FMCSA published a Notice of receipt of Federal
diabetes exemption applications from thirty-seven individuals and
requested comments from the public (75 FR 28677). The public comment
period closed on June 21, 2010 and one comment was received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the thirty-seven applicants
and determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level
that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The Agency established the current standard for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a
higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The
diabetes rule provides that ``A person is physically qualified to drive
a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control'' (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the
Agency's July 2000 study entitled ``A Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated
Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the
Transportation Act for the 21st Century.'' The report concluded that a
safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to
operate CMVs is feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441) Federal
Register Notice in conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777)
Federal Register Notice provides the current protocol for allowing such
drivers to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    These thirty-seven applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 31
years. These applicants report no hypoglycemic reaction that resulted
in loss of consciousness or seizure, that required the assistance of
another person, or resulted in impaired cognitive function without
warning

symptoms in the past 5 years (with one year of stability following any
such episode). In each case, an endocrinologist verified that the
driver has demonstrated a willingness to properly monitor and manage
his/her diabetes mellitus, received education related to diabetes
management, and is on a stable insulin regimen. These drivers report no
other disqualifying conditions, including diabetes-related
complications. Each meets the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were
stated and discussed in detail in the May 21, 2010, Federal Register
Notice and they will not be repeated in this Notice.

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants
to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and
reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:
(1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist
completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual
checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each
individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes
of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to
manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other
adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is
related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide
a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical
examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that
each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to
the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep
a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-
employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when
driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local
enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The comment was
considered and discussed below.
    The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation stated that it had
reviewed the driving record for Scott A. Yon and was in favor of
granting a Federal diabetes exemption to this individual.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the thirty-seven exemption
applications, FMCSA exempts, Billy Banks, Joseph P. Beagan, John M.
Charlton, Stuart A. Dietz, Marie C. Eddy, Michael G. Eikenberry,
Francisco K. Gallardo, John P. Gould, David B. Graef, Jason C. Green,
Kimmy D. Hall, Bruce G. Hammill, Jr., Edward G. Harbin, Timothy R.
Hefling, Christopher M. Hultman, Michael R. Jackson, Gerald A. Johnson,
Jay T. Kirschmann, Duane K. Kohls, John F. Lohmuller, Rodney A.
Markham, Christopher P. Martin, H. Alan Miller, Andrew D. Monson,
Cheryl T. Murphy, Kurt D. Oertelt, Joseph M. Pirrello, Audrey R. Roddy,
Theodore J. Rolfe, Ross R. Romano, Max S. Sklarski, Gerald J. Solwey,
Darren G. Steil, Jason D. Sweet, Robert M. Thomson, Kevin R. Welch and
Scott A. Yon, from the ITDM standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), subject to
the conditions listed under ``Conditions and Requirements'' above.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption will
be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption
will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and
conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower
level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3)
continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals
and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the exemption is
still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the person may apply
to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at that time.

    Issued on: June 28, 2010.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administration for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-16225 Filed 7-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 136 (Friday, July 15, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41669-41673]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17205]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0139; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-057-AD;
Amendment 39-16743; AD 2011-14-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; B/E Aerospace, Continuous Flow
Passenger Oxygen Mask Assembly, Part Numbers 174006-( ), 174080-( ),
174085-( ), 174095-( ), 174097-( ), and 174098-( )

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above, except for those that are currently affected by
similar action through any of five ADs applicable to Boeing products.
This AD requires an inspection/records check to determine the
manufacturer and part number of the oxygen mask assemblies installed,
an inspection to determine the manufacturing date and modification
status if certain oxygen mask assemblies are installed, and corrective
action for certain oxygen mask assemblies. This AD was prompted by a
report that several oxygen mask assemblies with broken in-line flow
indicators were found following a mask deployment. We are issuing this
AD to prevent the in-line flow indicators of the oxygen mask assembly
from fracturing and separating, which could inhibit oxygen flow to the
masks. This condition could consequently result in occupants developing
hypoxia following a depressurization event.

DATES: This AD is effective August 19, 2011.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of August 19,
2011.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact B/E
Aerospace, 10800 Pflumm Road, Lenexa, Kansas 66215; telephone: (913)
338-9800; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://www.beaerospace.com.
You may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Document Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Fairback, Aerospace Engineer,
Wichita Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room
100, Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (316) 946-
4107; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an airworthiness directive (AD) that would apply to
the specified products. That NPRM published in the Federal Register on
February 23, 2011 (76 FR 9984). That NPRM proposed to require an
inspection/records check to determine the manufacturer and part number
of the oxygen mask assemblies installed, an inspection to determine the
manufacturing date and modification status if certain oxygen mask
assemblies are installed, and corrective action for certain oxygen mask
assemblies.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
and the FAA's response to each comment. B/E Aerospace supports the
NPRM.

Request To Address Past Production Cut Over Point Airplanes

    The Boeing Company (Boeing) stated that a statement should be
included in the final rule AD action to address installation of the
affected oxygen mask assemblies on Boeing airplanes that are not
included in existing Boeing service bulletins because these airplanes
are past production cut over point.
    Boeing stated that, due to long-time lag between production cut
over change and the release of the AD, there is a high likelihood that
on Boeing airplanes past production cut over point, but prior to
release of this AD due to lack of awareness of the pending AD release,
operators could have installed one of the affected oxygen mask
assemblies during routine maintenance. The Applicability section of the
proposed AD could mislead operators to not take corrective actions on
Boeing airplanes even if they had unknowingly installed affected oxygen
mask assemblies on airplanes past production cut over prior to release
of the AD. This could also apply to installation of affected oxygen
mask assemblies on Boeing airplanes through supplemental type
certificate (STC) or through field approval.
    We agree with the commenter. However, the unsafe condition on
Boeing airplanes will be addressed separately from this AD. If
additional action is necessary to address Boeing's concerns, additional
rulemaking may be taken specific to Boeing airplanes.
    We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Request for Applicability Clarification

    Boeing stated that there is confusion between the statements in the
Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information section
and the Applicability section in the proposed AD. The statements are
contradictory and could mislead operators. In the proposed AD, it is
stated in the Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service
Information section that oxygen mask

assemblies affected by AD 2007-26-06, AD 2008-08-08, AD 2008-12-05, AD
2008-13-21, or AD 2010-14-06 are not affected by this proposed AD. In
the Applicability section of the proposed AD, it is stated that the AD
applies to B/E Aerospace, Continuous Flow Passenger Oxygen Mask
Assembly; Part Numbers 174006-( ), 174080-( ), 174085-( ), 174095-( ),
174097-( ), and 174098-( ) as listed in B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin
174080-35-04, Rev 000, dated September 6, 2010, that are installed on
any aircraft except for those Boeing airplanes specified in the ADs
referenced in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(5) of
this AD.
    The Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information
section excludes mask assemblies by part number from the proposed AD if
they are included in the previously referenced ADs. The Applicability
section provides relief for Boeing airplanes covered by the previously
referenced ADs. This information is contradictory and needs to be
clarified in the final rule AD action.
    We agree with the commenter. The statement in the Differences
Between the Proposed AD and the Service Information section is
incorrect. The template used for preparing final rule AD actions does
not include the Differences Between the Proposed AD and the Service
Information section, which is part of the Discussion section and not
part of the actual AD. The Applicability section in the proposed AD is
correct. We regret any confusion this may have caused.
    We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Request To Exclude Certain Airplanes From the Applicability Section

    Airbus, jetBlue Airways, and All Nippon Airways stated Airbus
airplanes in compliance with B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin 174080-35-
02, Rev. 1, as specified in European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2010-0165, dated August 5, 2010, should be excluded from the
applicability of the proposed AD.
    The commenters state that this change would harmonize the EASA AD
with the FAA AD and avoid duplicate work.
    We partially agree with the commenters. We do not agree to exclude
Airbus airplanes affected by the EASA AD because the EASA AD does not
include all of the oxygen mask assembly part numbers that contain the
potentially defective in-line flow indicators. We do agree that
duplicate work should be avoided and that credit for compliance with
the EASA AD could be given, but only if it can be positively determined
that no oxygen mask assembly part number listed in B/E Aerospace
Service Bulletin 174080-35-04, Rev 000, dated September 6, 2010, or
listed in EASA AD 2010-0165, dated August 5, 2010, is installed by STC
or alternation.
    We have revised the final rule AD action to include a statement in
paragraph (g)(1) giving conditional credit for compliance with the EASA
AD 2010-0165, dated August 5, 2010, or EASA AD 2010-0165R1, correction
dated January 31, 2011.

Request To Allow an Additional Method of Compliance

    Airbus stated that compliance with the final rule AD action should
include inspection of the oxygen mask assembly container for a
manufacture date of oxygen mask assemblies that were fitted at time of
production delivery providing that no replacement of masks occurred up
to the effective date of the final rule AD action.
    Airbus stated that they received a statement from B/E Aerospace
stating that ``container assemblies that were manufactured after March
1, 2006, do not contain masks that were manufactured before March 1,
2006.'' Airbus confirms that no modification is performed on the
container assemblies and/or subassemblies before aircraft delivery.
    We partially agree with the commenter. We agree that inspection of
the oxygen mask assembly container for manufacture date is adequate
only if it can be verified that the original oxygen masks in the
container assembly are installed. We disagree that relying on the
container assembly manufacture date alone addresses the safety concern
because the masks in the container assembly may have been changed after
it was manufactured.
    We have revised the final rule AD action based on this comment to
include inspection of the container assembly date only if it can be
positively determined that the passenger oxygen masks within the
container assembly have not been modified since it was manufactured.

Request To Change Replacement Compliance Time

    Airbus stated that replacement of the in-line flow indicator before
further flight after the inspection would only be necessary if, during
the physical check of the oxygen mask assembly, it is found broken.
Based on difficulties in getting spare parts from the supplier in
sufficient time, the compliance time for modifying the affected oxygen
masks should be changed to 36 months after the effective date of the AD
or within 6,500 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of
the AD, whichever occurs first.
    We agree with the commenter. Changing the compliance time for
modifying the affected oxygen masks will still address the safety
concern of the unsafe condition identified in the proposed AD.
    We have revised the final rule AD action to change the replacement/
modification compliance time in paragraph (h).

Request To Include Other Oxygen Mask Assemblies in the Applicability
Section

    BOS Aviation Ltd. stated that the Applicability section should also
include additional in-line flow indicator part numbers because faulty
in-line flow indictors are fitted to more masks than identified in B/E
Aerospace Service Bulletin 174080-35-04, Rev 000, dated September 6,
2010. BOS Aviation Ltd. stated that some technical documentation
suggests that a very popular series of AVOX oxygen masks contain the
same in-line flow indicator, although it masquerades under AVOX part
number 804273-01. They also stated that examination of the failure mode
of the suspect in-line flow indicator showed that the failure was where
the two halves are glued together, not as was suggested at the ``weak''
sharp molded joint stated in the B/E Aerospace service bulletin and
other communication.
    We do not agree with the commenter. AVOX stopped using the B/E
Aerospace in-line flow indicator in their passenger oxygen masks
several years before 2002 when the AVOX part number 804273-01 was
introduced. The B/E Aerospace part number 118023-02 in-line flow
indicator is not glued; it is welded together. The photos provided by
BOS Aviation Ltd. show that the failure did not occur at the weld since
the opaque material is still bonded to the transparent material.
    The FAA issued Special Alert Information Bulletin (SAIB) NM-11-25
to address an issue with AVOX in-line flow indicators that is different
from the B/E Aerospace in-line flow indicators.
    We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Request To Include Other In-Line Flow Indicators in the Applicability
Section

    BOS Aviation Ltd. stated that the manufacturer date window be
removed from the final rule AD action because several suspect part
number in-line flow indicators are in service that were manufactured
before the January 1, 2002

date specified in B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin 174080-35-04, Rev 000,
dated September 6, 2010. BOS Aviation Ltd. stated that the date is not
carried on the in-flow indicator, thereby making it difficult to
confirm the age of the in-line flow indicator regardless of the age of
the oxygen mask. The same ambiguity applies if there has been any
repair to the unit.
    We do not agree with the commenter. Based on the failure data we
have, we determined that no AD action is necessary for other in-line
flow indicators or for in-line flow indicators manufactured before
2002.
    We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Request To Show Compliance Through Permanent Marking

    BOS Aviation Ltd. requested that the personal safety unit (PSU) (as
well as the actual oxygen mask assembly) be marked to show compliance
with the AD; thereby negating the need to open the PSU and drop the
oxygen mask assembly to confirm compliance in the future.
    We partially agree with the commenter. We agree that the oxygen
mask assembly needs to be marked to show it has been modified as
specified in the service bulletin. However, we do not agree to require
marking of the oxygen mask stowage container to show compliance with
the AD when compliance can be confirmed by checking the maintenance
records.
    We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Request To Add Additional Guidance

    BOS Aviation Ltd. stated that the FAA should instruct owner/
operators to use standard maintenance practices when doing the actions
required in the final rule AD action. This should be done for a myriad
of good reasons that relate primarily to safety, none of which goes
away simply because the maintenance is carried out as a result of an AD
or a service bulletin.
    We partially agree with the commenter. We agree that standard
maintenance practices should always be used. Appropriate personnel and
procedures must be used for the inspection and modification required by
this AD to ensure safety and not create additional hazards. We disagree
that language should be added to the AD to emphasize safety when doing
actions required in an AD.
    We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Request To Update Cost of Compliance Section

    BOS Aviation Ltd. stated that B/E Aerospace has offered to supply
replacement in-line flow indicators to operators free of charge. The
FAA assessed the cost of compliance based on the manpower requirement
stated in B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin 174080-35-04, Rev 000, dated
September 6, 2011, and is grossly underestimated. In many applications,
the suspect oxygen masks are contained in a PSU that is live and
installed in operational aircraft. The proposed AD requires opening and
disassembling the oxygen mask assembly in order to carry out the
inspection, in addition to modifying any defective oxygen mask. To do
this task safely and following various manufacturers' maintenance
instructions, the oxygen mask assembly should be removed from the
aircraft, taken to an oxygen clean environment, and made safe in
preparation for maintenance.
    Once open, depending on type, the oxygen mask assemblies are
tightly wrapped with their tube specifically coiled and packaged with
the in-line flow indicator not immediately visible, which then requires
``unpacking'' the box that may contain up to four masks. The box then
requires proper ``re-packing'' before reinstallation and test in the
aircraft.
    BOS Aviation Ltd. stated that they have conducted tests that would
suggest the accomplishment time (as presented in AD 2007-26-06 for
example) is probably adequate for an aircraft of a half or a third the
capacity of the 747. Moreover, where aircraft PSUs use chemical oxygen
generators, the issue to ensure safety with respect to the oxygen
generating canister becomes paramount and increases the workhours
required. Our estimate, at the very best, for accomplishing the AD on
an airplane's set of PSUs on a 150 seat narrow body airplane, will
require a minimum of 3 days down time, not including transport of the
PSUs to a suitable workshop for accomplishment of the AD.
    We do not agree with the commenter. The cost estimate of $19,400,00
for the estimated number of affected oxygen mask assemblies is based on
the following:
     The cost estimate for the AD assumes that all of the
400,000 part number in-line flow indicators manufactured on or after
January 1, 2002, and before March 1, 2006, are replaced for compliance
with this AD. In reality, most of these in-line flow indicators are
installed in Boeing and Airbus airplanes and will be replaced in
compliance with the previously referenced ADs. The exact number that
will be replaced in accordance with this AD is unknown, but it will be
less than the estimated 400,000.
     The cost estimate assumes 30 minutes are required to do
the actions required in this AD for each affected oxygen mask assembly.
This estimate is much higher than the 3-minute time proposed in B/E
Aerospace Service Bulletin 174080-35-04, Rev 000, dated September 6,
2010.
     For the oxygen mask assemblies to be maintained in an
airworthy condition, a recurrent inspection for each oxygen mask is
necessary. The 6,500-hour TIS/36-month compliance time of this AD will
allow many operators to do the actions required in this AD at the same
time as the recurrent inspection.
    We have not changed the final rule AD action based on this comment.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     [Agr]re consistent with the intent that was proposed in
the NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 400,000 oxygen mask assemblies.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost           Parts cost      Cost per product      operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace the in-line flow           0.5 work-hour x $85              $6.00             $48.50        $19,400,000
 indicator per mask.                per hour = $42.50.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2011-14-08 B/E Aerospace: Amendment 39-16743; Docket No. FAA-2011-
0139; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-057-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD is effective August 19, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None. This AD does not revise or supersede any existing ADs.
The following ADs address the unsafe condition described in
paragraph (e) of this AD for certain installations on certain Boeing
airplanes:
    (1) AD 2007-26-06, Amendment 39-15308 (72 FR 71210, December 17,
2007), for certain Boeing Model 747-200B, 747-300, and 747-400
series airplanes identified in Boeing Service Bulletin 747-35-2119,
dated November 30, 2006;
    (2) AD 2008-08-08, Amendment 39-15460 (73 FR 19982, April 14,
2008), for certain Boeing Model 757-200, 757-200CB, 757-200PF, and
757-300 series airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 757-35-0028, dated April 9, 2007;
    (3) AD 2008-12-05, Amendment 39-15548 (73 FR 32996, June 11,
2008), for certain Boeing Model 777-200, 777-200LR, 777-300, and
777-300ER series airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention
Service Bulletin 777-35-0019, dated March 9, 2006;
    (4) AD 2008-13-21, Amendment 39-15584 (73 FR 37781, July 2,
2008), for certain Boeing Model 767-200, 767-300, and 767-400ER
series airplanes identified in Boeing Special Attention Service
Bulletin 767-35-0054, dated July 6, 2006; and
    (5) AD 2010-14-06, Amendment 39-16351 (75 FR 38014, July 1,
2010), for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-200, 737-300, 737-
400, and 737-500 series airplanes identified in Boeing Special
Attention Service Bulletin 737-35-1099, Revision 1, dated April 23,
2009.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to B/E Aerospace, Continuous Flow Passenger
Oxygen Mask Assembly; Part Numbers 174006-( ), 174080-( ), 174085-(
), 174095-( ), 174097-( ), and 174098-( ) as listed in B/E Aerospace
Service Bulletin 174080-35-04, Rev 000, dated September 6, 2010,
that are installed on any aircraft except for those Boeing airplanes
specified in the ADs referenced in paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2),
(b)(3), (b)(4), and (b)(5) of this AD.

    Note 1:  The service bulletin lists the part numbers with a
suffix of ``XX.'' The TSO Index lists the part numbers with the
suffix of ``( ).'' For the purposes of this AD, we have used ``(
).''

Subject

    (d) Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport
Association (ATA) of America Code 35: Oxygen.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD was prompted by a report that several oxygen mask
assemblies with broken in-line flow indicators were found following
a mask deployment. We are issuing this AD to prevent the in-line
flow indicators of the oxygen mask assembly from fracturing and
separating, which could inhibit oxygen flow to the masks. This
condition could consequently result in occupants developing hypoxia
following a depressurization event.

Compliance

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

Records Check/Inspection

    (g) Within 36 months after August 19, 2011 (the effective date
of this AD) or within 6,500 hours time-in-service (TIS) after August
19, 2011 (the effective date of this AD), whichever occurs first, do
the following:
    (1) Do a records check to determine if any oxygen mask assembly
part number listed in B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin 174080-35-04,
Rev 000, dated September 6, 2010, is installed in the aircraft.
    (i) If you cannot positively determine the manufacturer and part
number of any oxygen mask assembly installed, do a general visual
inspection to determine if any oxygen mask assembly part number
listed in B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin 174080-35-04, Rev. 000,
dated September 6, 2010, is installed in the aircraft.
    (ii) If you can positively determine that no oxygen mask
assembly part number listed in B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin
174080-35-04, Rev 000, dated September 6, 2010, is installed, no
further action is required by this AD.
    (iii) If you can positively determine that any Airbus airplane
affected by this AD is in compliance with European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD 2010-0165, dated August 5, 2010, or EASA AD 2010-
0165R1, correction dated January 31, 2011, and that no oxygen mask
assembly part number listed in B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin
174080-35-04, Rev 000, dated September 6, 2010 is

installed by STC or alteration, no further action is required by
this AD.
    (iv) If you can positively determine through inspection of the
oxygen mask container assembly that the date of manufacture is after
March 1, 2006, and you can verify that the original oxygen masks in
the container assembly are installed, no further action is required
by this AD.
    (2) If, as a result of any of the records checks/inspections
required in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, you determine that an
oxygen mask assembly part number listed in B/E Aerospace Service
Bulletin 174080-35-04, Rev 000, dated September 6, 2010, is
installed, inspect the oxygen mask assembly to determine if the in-
line flow indicator must be replaced following paragraph II.A. of B/
E Aerospace Service Bulletin 174080-35-04, Rev 000, dated September
6, 2010. If you can positively determine that the in-line flow
indicator does not require replacement, no further action is
required by this AD.

Modification/Replacement

    (h) After the inspection in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD and it
was determined the in-line flow indicator must be replaced, within
36 months after August 19, 2011 (the effective date of this AD) or
within 6,500 hours TIS after August 19, 2011 (the effective date of
this AD), whichever occurs first, modify the oxygen mask assembly by
replacing the in-line flow indicator following B/E Aerospace Service
Bulletin 174080-35-04, Rev 000, dated September 6, 2010. As an
alternative to modifying the oxygen mask assembly, you may replace
the oxygen mask assembly with an airworthy oxygen mask assembly FAA-
approved for installation on the aircraft.

Parts Installation

    (i) As of August 19, 2011 (the effective date of this AD), do
not install a B/E Aerospace oxygen mask having a part number listed
in B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin 174080-35-04, Rev 000, dated
September 6, 2010, with a manufacturing date on or after January 1,
2002, and before March 1, 2006, on any aircraft, unless it has been
modified following the requirements of paragraph (h) of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (j)(1) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD.
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your Principal
Maintenance Inspector or Principal Avionics Inspector, as
appropriate, or lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight
Standards District Office.

Related Information

    (k) For more information about this AD, contact David Fairback,
Aerospace Engineer, Wichita ACO, FAA, 1801 Airport Road, Room 100,
Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (316) 946-
4107; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (l) For service information identified in this AD, contact B/E
Aerospace, 10800 Pflumm Road, Lenexa, Kansas 66215; telephone: (913)
338-9800; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://www.beaerospace.com.
You may review copies of the referenced service information at the
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (m) You must use B/E Aerospace Service Bulletin 174080-35-04,
Rev 000, dated September 6, 2010, to do the actions required by this
AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information under 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact B/E
Aerospace, 10800 Pflumm Road, Lenexa, Kansas 66215; telephone: (913)
338-9800; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: http://www.beaerospace.com.
    (3) You may review copies of the referenced service information
at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at an NARA facility, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on July 1, 2011.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-17205 Filed 7-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 111 (Friday, June 8, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 34034]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13885]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP12-750-000.
    Applicants: Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Company.
    Description: Report of Questar Southern Trails Pipeline Company
Annual Fuel Gas Reimbursement Report.
    Filed Date: 5/24/12.
    Accession Number: 20120524-5201.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-751-000.
    Applicants: Big Sandy Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Negotiated Rates May 2012 Cleanup to be effective 6/
25/2012.
    Filed Date: 5/25/12.
    Accession Number: 20120525-5030.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/6/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-752-000.
    Applicants: White River Hub, LLC.
    Description: Report of White River Hub, LLC's Annual Fuel Gas
Reimbursement Report.
    Filed Date: 5/24/12.
    Accession Number: 20120524-5204.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/5/12.

    Docket Numbers: RP12-753-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Amendments related to PXS service to be effective 6/1/
2012.
    Filed Date: 5/29/12.
    Accession Number: 20120529-5036.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/11/12.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service can be found at:
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other
information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: May 29, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-13885 Filed 6-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 149)]
[Notices]
[Page 44022-44023]
[DOCID:fr03au06-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-393-002]

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Compliance Filing

July 27, 2006.
    Take notice that on July 5, 2006, National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation (National Fuel) filed in RP06-393-002 to comply with a
Commission Letter Order issued June 29, 2006 [115 FERC ] 61,381
(2006)]. In its filing, National Fuel filed an explanation of section
3.4 of Rate Schedule FT as it relates to discounting fuel charges.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a
protest must serve a copy of that document on all parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests 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 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 August 3, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-12509 Filed 8-2-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 20 (Wednesday, January 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6402-6403]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01958]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2013-0015]

Pipeline Safety: Accident and Incident Notification Time Limit

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA);
DOT.

ACTION: Notice; Issuance of Advisory Bulletin.

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

SUMMARY: Owners and operators of gas and hazardous liquid pipeline
systems and liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities are already required
to provide telephonic reports of pipeline incidents and accidents to
the National Response Center (NRC) promptly, accurately, and fully
communicate the estimated extent of the damages. PHMSA is issuing this
advisory bulletin to notify the owners and operators that, as required
by the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of
2011, the agency will issue a proposed rule to revise telephonic
reporting regulations to establish specific time limits for telephonic
or electronic notice of accidents and incidents involving pipeline
facilities to the NRC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cameron Satterthwaite by phone at 202-
366-1319 or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Information
about PHMSA may be found at http://phmsa.dot.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On January 3, 2012, President Obama signed into law the Pipeline
Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (Pub. L.
112-90). Section 9 of the Act requires PHMSA to require a specific time
limit for telephonic or electronic reporting of pipeline accidents and
incidents. Specifically, Section 9 of the Act states:
    SEC. 9. ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT NOTIFICATION.
    (a) REVISION OF REGULATIONS.--Not later than 18 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall
revise regulations issued under sections 191.5 and 195.52 of title 49,
Code of Federal Regulations, to establish specific time limits for
telephonic or electronic notice of accidents and incidents involving
pipeline facilities to the Secretary and the National Response Center.
    (b) MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.--In revising the regulations, the
Secretary, at a minimum, shall--
    (1) Establish time limits for telephonic or electronic notification
of an accident or incident to require such notification at the earliest
practicable moment following confirmed discovery of an accident or
incident and not later than 1 hour following the time of such confirmed
discovery;
    (2) Review procedures for owners and operators of pipeline
facilities and the National Response Center to provide thorough and
coordinated notification to all relevant State and local emergency
response officials, including 911 emergency call centers, for the
jurisdictions in which those pipeline facilities are located in the
event of an accident or incident, and revise such procedures as
appropriate; and
    (3) Require such owners and operators to revise their initial
telephonic or electronic notice to the Secretary and the National
Response Center with an estimate of the amount of the product released,
an estimate of the number of fatalities and injuries, if any, and any
other information determined appropriate by the Secretary within 48
hours of the accident or incident, to the extent practicable.
    (c) UPDATING OF REPORTS.--After receiving revisions described in
subsection (b)(3), the National Response Center shall update the
initial report on an accident or incident instead of generating a new
report.
    Currently, PHMSA requires pipeline owners and operators to notify
the NRC by telephone or electronically at the earliest practicable
moment following discovery (Sec. Sec.  191.5 and 195.52). In a
September 6, 2002, (67 FR 57060) advisory bulletin, PHMSA advised
owners and operators of gas and hazardous liquids pipeline systems and
LNG facilities that, ``at the earliest practicable opportunity,''
usually means one-to-two hours after discovery of the incident.

Advisory Bulletin (ADB-2013-01)

    To: Owners and Operators of Gas and Hazardous Liquids Pipeline
Systems and LNG Facilities
    Subject: Telephonic Notification Time Limit to NRC.
    Purpose: To advise owners and operators of gas and hazardous
liquids pipeline systems and LNG facilities that they should contact
the NRC within one hour of discovery of a pipeline incident and should
also file additional telephonic reports if there are significant
changes in the number of fatalities or injuries, product release
estimates or the extent of damages.
    Advisory: Owners and operators of gas and hazardous liquid
pipelines and LNG facilities are reminded that the pipeline safety
regulations already require operators to make a telephonic report of an
incident to the NRC in Washington, DC at the earliest practicable
opportunity (usually one-to-two hours after discovering the incident).
However, under Section 9(b)(1) of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory
Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, PHMSA is required to issue
regulations requiring owners and operators to notify the NRC within one
hour of discovery of a pipeline accident or incident. The 2011 Act
requires PHMSA to establish a time limit for telephonic or electronic
notification of an accident or incident to require such notification at
the earliest practicable moment following confirmed discovery of an
accident or incident that is not later than one hour following the time
of such confirmed discovery. PHMSA will issue a proposed rule at a
later date, but encourages owners and operators of the gas and
hazardous liquids pipeline systems and LNG facilities, as a practice,
to report such accidents and incidents within one hour of confirmed
discovery. The information required to be reported includes the name of
the operator, the name and telephone number of the person making the
report,

the location of the incident, the number of fatalities and injuries,
and all other significant facts that are relevant to the cause of the
incident or extent of the damages.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 25, 2013.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Deputy Associate Administrator Field Operations.
[FR Doc. 2013-01958 Filed 1-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19381-19382]
[FR Doc No: 2018-09093]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rule 17a-5(c), SEC File No. 270-199, OMB Control No. 3235-0199

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 17a-5(c) (17 CFR
240.17a-5(c)), under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a
et seq.). The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of
information to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for
extension and approval.
    Rule 17a-5(c) generally requires broker-dealers who carry customer
accounts to provide statements of the broker-dealer's financial
condition to their customers. Paragraph (c)(5) of Rule 17a-5 provides a
conditional exemption from this requirement. A broker-dealer that
elects to take advantage of the exemption must publish its statements
on its website in a prescribed manner, and must maintain a toll-free
number that customers can call to request a copy of the statements.
    The purpose of the Rule is to ensure that customers of broker-
dealers are provided with information concerning the financial
condition of the firm that may be holding the customers' cash and
securities. The Commission, when adopting the Rule in 1972, stated that
the goal was to ``directly'' send a customer essential information so
that the customer could ``judge whether his broker or dealer is
financially sound.'' The Commission adopted the Rule in response to the
failure of several broker-dealers holding customer funds and securities
in the period between 1968 and 1971.
    The Commission estimates that approximately 162 broker-dealer
respondents carrying approximately 132 million public customer accounts
incur a burden of approximately 161,037 hours per year to comply with
the Rule.
    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
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in

writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Pamela Dyson, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email
to: [email protected].

    Dated: April 24, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-09093 Filed 5-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1943-1944]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00604]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL16-29-000]

North Carolina Electric Membership Corporation, North Carolina
Municipal Power Agency Number 1, Piedmont Municipal Power Agency, City
of Concord, NC, City of Kings Mountain, NC v. Duke Energy Carolinas,
LLC; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on January 7, 2016, pursuant to Sections 206, 306,
and 309 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, 825e, and 825h
(2012), and Rules 206 and 212 of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.206 and 385.212 (2015), North Carolina Electric Membership
Corporation, North Carolina Municipal Power Agency Number 1, Piedmont
Municipal Power Agency, the City of Concord, North Carolina, and the
City of Kings Mountain, North Carolina (Complainants) filed a formal
complaint against Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (DEC--Respondent) alleging
that the 10.2% base return on common equity currently used to calculate
DEC's annual transmission revenue requirement pursuant to Attachment H
of the Joint Open Access Transmission Tariff of DEC, Duke Energy
Florida, LLC, and Duke Energy Progress, LLC is unjust and unreasonable.

    Complainants certify that copies of the complaint were served on
the contacts for DEC as listed on the Commission's list of Corporate
Officials as well as the North Carolina Utilities Commission and the
South Carolina Public Service Commission.
    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 and 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. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    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 5 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 email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 27, 2016.

    Dated: January 8, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-00604 Filed 1-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P