[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 23, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63179-63180]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24741]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP14-3-000]

 Notice of Request Under Blanket Authorization; Petal Gas
Storage, LLC.

    Take notice that on October 9, 2013, Petal Gas Storage, L.L.C.
(Petal), 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, filed in
Docket No. CP14-3-000, a prior notice request pursuant to sections
157.205 and 157.214 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural
Gas Act (NGA) as amended, requesting authorization to increase its
maximum storage capacity in the Petal Salt Dome's Cavern 12A, located
in Forrest County, Mississippi, from 8.2 Bcf to 9.26 Bcf, all as more
fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission
and open to public inspection. The filing may also be viewed on the web
at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link.

Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at (866)
208-3676, or TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to J.
Kyle Stephens, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs or M.L. Gutierrez,
Director, Regulatory Affairs, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by
facsimile at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to section 7 of the NGA.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding, or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenter's will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commenter's will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentary, will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
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.

    Dated: October 16, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24741 Filed 10-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 167 (Friday, August 28, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52211-52212]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21247]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0627; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-021-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Airplanes

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that
proposed a new airworthiness directive (AD), which would have applied
to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 series airplanes
and Model Avro 146-RJ series airplanes. The NPRM would have superseded
AD 2011-24-06 and required revising the maintenance program to
incorporate new airworthiness limitations for reduced safe life limits
on certain nose landing gear fittings. Since the NPRM was issued, we
have received new data indicating that the airworthiness limitations
contained in section 5 of the aircraft maintenance manual has been
revised to include additional tasks and limitations. Accordingly, the
NPRM is withdrawn.

DATES: As of August 28, 2015, the proposed rule, which was published in
the Federal Register on July 24, 2013 (78 FR 44469), is withdrawn.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-
0627; 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 action, the NPRM (78 FR 44469, July 24, 2013), the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the
Docket 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: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We proposed to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(14 CFR part 39) with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for a new
AD for all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model BAe 146 series
airplanes and Model Avro 146-RJ series airplanes. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on July 24, 2013 (78 FR 44469). The NPRM would
have superseded AD 2011-24-06, Amendment 39-16870 (76 FR 73477,
November 29, 2011). The NPRM would have continued to require existing
limitations and would have required revising the maintenance program to
incorporate the following limitations:
     Subject 05-10-15, ``Aircraft Equipment Airworthiness
Limitations,'' of Chapter 05, ``Time Limits/Maintenance Checks,'' of
BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146-RJ Series Aircraft Maintenance Manual, Revision
105, dated July 15, 2011.
     Subject 05-20-02, ``Airframe Scheduled Maintenance--
Landing/Calendar Life Extended,'' of Chapter 05, ``Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks,'' of BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146-RJ Series Aircraft
Maintenance Manual, Revision 105, dated July 15, 2011.
     Subject 05-20-05, ``Airframe Scheduled Maintenance--Life
Extension Programme Landings Life Extended,'' of Chapter 05, ``Time
Limits/Maintenance Checks,'' of BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146-RJ Series
Aircraft Maintenance Manual, Revision 105, dated July 15, 2011.
    The NPRM was prompted by a determination that reduced safe life
limits on certain nose landing gear NLG fittings were necessary.
Analysis of these fittings showed the presence of forging indications
in the flash line, which could reduce the life limits of these
fittings. The proposed actions were intended to prevent fatigue
cracking of certain structural elements, which could adversely affect
the structural integrity of the airplane.

Actions Since NPRM (78 FR 44469, July 24, 2013) Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM (78 FR 44469, July 24, 2014), BAE Systems
(Operations) Limited has revised Chapter 05, ``Time Limits/Maintenance
Checks,'' of the BAe 146 Series/AVRO 146-RJ Series Aircraft Maintenance
Manual (AMM). Therefore, the NPRM proposal to incorporate new
airworthiness limitations with reduced safe life limits on certain nose
landing gear fittings contained in a previous issue of the AMM are no
longer relevant.

FAA's Conclusions

    Upon further consideration, we have determined that the changes to
the AMM proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 44469, July 24, 2013) are no longer
relevant and there is no benefit to proceeding with the publication of
a final rule. Accordingly, the NPRM is withdrawn. The FAA is
considering issuing a different rulemaking action to require
implementation of the current revision of BAE Systems (Operations)
Limited Chapter 05, ``Time Limits/Maintenance Checks,'' of the BAe 146
Series/AVRO 146-RJ Series AMM.
    Withdrawal of the NPRM (78 FR 44469, July 24, 2013) does not
preclude the FAA from issuing another related action or commit the FAA
to any course of action in the future.

Regulatory Impact

    Since this action only withdraws an NPRM (78 FR 44469, July 24,
2013), it is neither a proposed nor a final rule and therefore is not
covered under Executive Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26,
1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Withdrawal

    Accordingly, we withdraw the NPRM, Docket No. FAA-2013-0627,
Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-021-AD, which was published in the
Federal Register on July 24, 2013 (78 FR 44469).

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 20, 2015.
Kevin Hull,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-21247 Filed 8-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 50 (Thursday, March 14, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 9403]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04729]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-482, OMB Control No. 3235-0540]

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-25

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``PRA''), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 17a-25 (17 CFR 204.17a-
25) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et. seq.).
    Paragraph (a)(1) of Rule 17a-25 requires registered broker-dealers
to electronically submit securities transaction information, including
identifiers for prime brokerage arrangements, average price accounts,
and depository institutions, in a standardized format when requested by
the Commission staff. In addition, Paragraph (c) of Rule 17a-25
requires broker-dealers to submit, and keep current, contact person
information for electronic blue sheets (``EBS'') requests. The
Commission uses the information for enforcement inquiries or
investigations and trading reconstructions, as well as for inspections
and examinations.
    The Commission estimates that it sends approximately 13,493
electronic blue sheet requests per year to clearing broker-dealers that
in turn submit an average 528,551 responses.\1\ It is estimated that
each broker-dealer that responds electronically will take 8 minutes,
and each broker-dealer that responds manually will take 1\1/2\ hours to
prepare and submit the securities trading data requested by the
Commission. The annual aggregate hour burden for electronic and manual
response firms is estimated to be 34,577 (253,705 x 8 / 60 = 33,827
hours) + (500 x 1.5 = 750 hours), respectively.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A single EBS request has a unique number assigned to each
request (e.g., ``0900001''). However, the number of broker-dealer
responses generated from one EBS request can range from one to
several thousand. EBS requests are sent directly to clearing firms,
as the clearing firm is the repository for trading data for
securities transactions information provided by it and correspondent
firms. Clearing brokers respond for themselves and other firms they
clear for. There were 528,551 responses during the 25 month period
for an average of 21,142 responses per month or an average of
253,705 annual responses.
    \2\ Few respondents submit manual EBS responses. The small
percentage of respondents that submit manual responses do so by
hand, via email, spreadsheet, disk, or other electronic media. Thus,
the number of manual submissions (approximately 500 per year) has
minimal effect on the total annual burden hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate 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.
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: Charles Riddle, Acting
Director/Chief Information Office, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 11, 2019.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-04729 Filed 3-13-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 54 (Monday, March 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15321-15322]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6520]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-P-0176]

SEDASYS Computer-Assisted Personalized Sedation System; Ethicon
Endo-Surgery, Inc.'s, Petition for Review of FDA's Denial of Premarket
Approval

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that it
intends to refer for review before an advisory committee Ethicon Endo-
Surgery Inc.'s (EES's), petition for review of the Agency's denial of
premarket approval for its SEDASYS computer-assisted personalized
sedation system (SEDASYS system).

ADDRESSES: Submissions related to the petition should be filed with the
Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration,
5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tarita Rooths, Regulations, Policy,
and Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 26, 2010, the Center for Devices
and Radiological Health (CDRH) issued a not approvable letter in
response to the premarket approval application (PMA) (PMA P080009)
submitted by EES for the SEDASYS system. The SEDASYS system is intended
for use by gastroenterologists as a drug-delivery system for the
administration of propofol for minimal-to-moderate sedation in healthy
patients undergoing a colonoscopy or esophagogastroduodenoscopy. CDRH
determined the PMA for the SEDASYS system not to be approvable under
Sec.  814.44(f) (21 CFR 814.44(f)) because it concluded that the data
and information offered in support of the PMA did not provide a
reasonable assurance that the device is safe under the conditions of
use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the proposed labeling, as
required by section 515(d)(2)(A) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act).
    On March 25, 2010, EES requested administrative review of the not
approvable letter. Submitted in the form of a petition for
reconsideration under 21 CFR 10.33 (see Sec.  814.44(f)(2)), EES's
request stated that, in accordance with Sec.  814.44(f), EES considered
the not approvable letter to be a denial of approval of PMA P080009
under Sec.  814.45 (21 CFR 814.45). Pursuant to section 515(d)(4) of
the FD&C Act, EES requested review of this denial under section
515(g)(2) (21 U.S.C. 360e(g)(2)) of the FD&C Act.
    Accordingly, as required by Sec.  814.45(e)(3), CDRH issued an
order denying approval of the PMA for the SEDASYS system on October 26,
2010 (Ref. 1). Pursuant to section 515(g)(2) of the FD&C Act, on
November 5, 2010, FDA granted EES's petition for review of the order
denying PMA P080009.
    In accordance with section 515(g)(2) of the FD&C Act, the
Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner) or her designee is
referring PMA P080009 and the basis for the order denying its approval
to an advisory committee of qualified experts. After independent study
of the data and information furnished by the parties, and other data
and information before it, the advisory committee will submit to the
Commissioner a report and recommendation with respect to the order,
together with the underlying data and information and a statement of
the reasons or basis for the recommendation (section 515(g)(2)(A) of
the FD&C Act). The Commissioner will provide a copy of that report and
recommendation to the petitioner (id.), as well as to CDRH. At this
time, the Commissioner also anticipates offering both the petitioner
and CDRH the opportunity to submit comments on the report and
recommendation before the final order is rendered. In keeping with
section 515(g)(2)(C) of the FD&C Act, the Commissioner will make the
report and recommendation public and issue an order either affirming or
reversing the denial of approval.
    In 1999, FDA established a standing advisory committee known as the
Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel to provide advice to the
Commissioner on complex or contested scientific issues between FDA and
medical device sponsors, applicants, or manufacturers relating to
specific products, marketing applications, regulatory decisions and
actions by FDA, and Agency guidance and policies (see the charter for
the Medical Devices Advisory Committee (MDAC charter)) (Ref. 2). In a
guidance document entitled ``Resolving Scientific Disputes Concerning
the Regulation of Medical Devices, A Guide to Use of the Medical
Devices Dispute Resolution Panel'' (July 2, 2001) (the Guidance), FDA
clarified that the Medical Devices Dispute Resolution Panel was
established, in part, to receive referrals of petitions for advisory
committee review under section 515(g)(2) of the FD&C Act (Ref. 3).
    Accordingly, the Commissioner will refer EES's petition for review
to this advisory committee for a report and recommendation with respect
to the order denying PMA P080009. The Office of the Commissioner will
select the temporary members of, and any consultants to, the advisory
committee, and otherwise ensure that the proceeding is conducted in
accordance with section 515(g)(2) of the FD&C Act, the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, FDA's regulations in 21 CFR part 14 governing its public
advisory committees, the MDAC charter, and any other applicable laws or
regulations. The Office of the Commissioner will also perform the other
duties assigned to FDA under section 515(g)(2) of the FD&C Act. The
Office of the Commissioner will publish a Federal Register notice
concerning the advisory committee meeting at a later date.
    Although no statute or regulation requires that separation of
functions be applied to this proceeding, the Agency is observing
separation of functions as a matter of policy in this matter. As the
Center responsible for the action under review, CDRH will be, like EES,
a party to the advisory committee hearing and will be responsible for
presenting its position at that meeting.
    In addition, as a corollary to its decision to observe a separation
of functions, until the Commissioner issues an order either affirming
or reversing the order denying approval of PMA P080009, the Office of
the Commissioner will not engage in any ex parte communication (see 21
CFR 10.3(a)) with anyone participating as a party to the hearing or any
person outside the Agency with respect to the matter under
consideration.\1\ Any written ex parte communication will be
immediately served on the two parties and filed in the docket. Any oral
ex parte communication will be immediately memorialized in writing,
served on both parties to the hearing, and filed in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Communications regarding procedural matters between the
Office of the Commissioner and the advisory committee will not be
treated as ex parte communications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All documents filed in this matter are filed under Docket No. FDA-
2010-P-0176 and are available for public review in the Division of
Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday. Persons with access to the Internet may obtain

documents in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

References

    The following references are on display in the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20857, under Docket No. FDA-2010-P-0176 and may
be seen by interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
    1. Letter from Christy Foreman, FDA, CDRH, to Ken Charak, Ethicon
Endo-Surgery, Inc., containing the order denying approval of the PMA
for the SEDASYS system, October 26, 2010.
    2. Charter Medical Devices Advisory Committee; Charter Amendment,
Medical Devices Advisory Committee; FDA; July 15, 2008, http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/MedicalDevices/MedicalDevicesAdvisoryCommittee/ucm124098.htm.
    3. ``Resolving Scientific Disputes Concerning the Regulation of
Medical Devices, A Guide To Use of the Medical Devices Dispute
Resolution Panel; Final Guidance for Industry and FDA'' FDA, CDRH; July
2, 2001, http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm.

    Dated: March 11, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-6520 Filed 3-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4549-4550]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1635]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 799

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0531; FRL-8862-6]
RIN 2070-AD16

Testing of Certain High Production Volume Chemicals; Second Group
of Chemicals; Technical Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; technical correction.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a final rule in the Federal Register issue of
January 7, 2011, concerning testing of certain high production volume
(HPV) chemical substances to obtain screening level data for health and
environmental effects and chemical fate. This document is being issued
to correct a typographical error concerning the required date of
submission for letters of intent to test and exemption applications.
The correct date by which EPA must receive a letter of intent to test
or an exemption application from manufacturers (including importers) in
Tier 1 is March 9, 2011.

DATES: This final rule is effective February 7, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0531. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation
are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202)
566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic
identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor
log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and
subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must
be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Paul Campanella or John Schaeffer, Chemical Control Division (7405M),
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001;
telephone numbers:<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail addresses:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this action apply to me?

    The Agency included in the final rule a list of those who may be
potentially affected by this action. If you have questions regarding
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. What does this technical correction do?

    The codified text for FR Doc. 2010-33313, published in the Federal
Register issue of January 7, 2011 (76 FR 1067) (FRL-8846-9) is
corrected to fix a typographical error concerning the required date of
submission for letters of intent to test and exemption applications.
The correct date by which EPA must receive a letter of intent to test
or an exemption application from manufacturers (including importers) in
Tier 1 is March 9, 2011 (not February 7, 2011, as stated in Sec.
799.5087, paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(4) of the initial publication).

III. Why is this correction issued as a final rule?

    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B), provides that, when an Agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary
to the public interest, the Agency may issue a final rule without
providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has
determined that there is good cause for making this technical
correction final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment,
because this is a correction of a typographical error, not a change in
the regulation as intended by EPA. Notice and comment are not necessary
to correct a typographical error, especially when the corrected text
gives persons subject to the rule more time to file a letter of intent
and an exemption application. EPA finds that this constitutes good
cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

IV. Do any of the statutory and executive order reviews apply to this
action?

    No. As described previously, this final rule corrects a
typographical error in the original final rule concerning the required
date by which EPA must receive a letter of intent to test or an
exemption application from manufacturers (including importers) in Tier
1. As a technical correction, this action is not subject to review by
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866,
entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).
This action does not impose or change any information collection burden
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.). Because this action is not subject to notice and comment
requirements under the APA or any other statute, it is not subject to
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) or sections 202
and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531-
1538). Nor does this action significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. This final rule does not have Tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), or federalism implications as specified in Executive Order
13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Since this
action is not economically significant under Executive Order 12866, it
is not subject to Executive Orders 13045, entitled Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), and 13211, Actions concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001). This action does not involve technical standards; thus,
the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. For the
reasons already stated, the Agency is not required to and has not
considered environmental justice-related issues as specified in
Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income

Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The Agency's actions
regarding these requirements in relation to the original final rule,
are discussed in the preamble to that rule.

V. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the Agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 799

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Incorporation by reference, Laboratories, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: January 19, 2011.
Stephen A. Owens,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 799 is corrected as follows:

PART 799--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 799 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2603, 2611, 2625.

0
2. In Sec.  799.5087, revise paragraphs (c)(2) and (c)(4) to read as
follows:

Sec.  799.5087  Chemical testing requirements for second group of high
production volume chemicals (HPV2).

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) If you are in Tier 1 with respect to a chemical substance
listed in Table 2 in paragraph (j) of this section, you must, for each
test required under this section for that chemical substance, either
submit to EPA a letter of intent to test or apply to EPA for an
exemption from testing. The letter of intent to test or the exemption
application must be received by EPA no later than March 9, 2011.
* * * * *
    (4) If no person in Tier 1 has notified EPA of its intent to
conduct one or more of the tests required by this section on any
chemical substance listed in Table 2 in paragraph (j) of this section
on or before March 9, 2011, EPA will publish a Federal Register
document that would specify the test(s) and the chemical substance(s)
for which no letter of intent has been submitted and notify
manufacturers in Tier 2A of their obligation to submit a letter of
intent to test or to apply for an exemption from testing.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-1635 Filed 1-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 153 (Monday, August 10, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47913-47914]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19554]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-2267-000]

Chevron Power Holdings Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Chevron Power Holdings Inc.'s application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is August 24, 2015.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the

Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for electronic 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>.

    Dated: August 4, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-19554 Filed 8-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 3, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 190)]
[Notices]
[Page 57573]
[DOCID:fr03oc05-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER02-1656-000 and ER02-1656-026]

California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of
Deadlines for Comments and Reply Comments

September 23, 2005.
    On September 13, 2005, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff
convened a technical conference to explore tariff issues related to
demand response options, including special case nodal pricing and the
establishment of zones for wholesale customers, in accordance with the
directive of the July 1, 2005 Order on Further Amendments to the
California Independent System Operator's Comprehensive Market Redesign
Proposal.\1\ As stated at the technical conference, comments concerning
the issues discussed at the technical conference are due on September
27, 2005, and reply comments are due on October 4, 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ California Independent System Operator, Inc., 112 FERC ]
61,013 at P 39 (2005).

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5370 Filed 9-30-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 25 (Friday, February 6, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6676-6679]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01705]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0471 [FRL-9922-13-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS26

Petition To Add n-Propyl Bromide to the List of Hazardous Air
Pollutants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Receipt of a complete petition.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing
the receipt of a complete petition requesting that the EPA add the
chemical n-Propyl Bromide (nPB) (Chemical Abstract Service No. 106-94-
5) to the list of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) contained in section
112(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). On October 28, 2010 and November
28, 2012, the Halogenated Solvent Industry Alliance (HSIA) submitted a
petition to list nPB as a HAP and a supplement to the petition,
respectively. In addition, on

November 24, 2011, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYSDEC) submitted a petition to add nPB to the HAP list.
We have determined that these petitions are complete for purposes of
this process, which means they provide sufficient information to assess
the human health impacts on people living in the vicinity of facilities
emitting nPB. Today's document initiates our comprehensive technical
review phase of the petition process. The EPA invites the public to
comment on these petitions and to provide additional data, beyond what
are in these petitions, on sources, emissions, exposure, health effects
and environmental impacts associated with nPB that may be relevant to
our technical review. These petitions and supporting information are
available through Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0471. Following completion
of the technical review phase that is initiated by today's notice and
runs through the EPA's evaluation of all the comments received, the EPA
will decide whether to grant or deny the petitions.

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before March 9, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0471, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>include Docket ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2014-0471 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0471.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), Mail Code 28221T, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0471, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please
include a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your
comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC
20503.
     Hand/Courier Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, EPA
WJC West Building, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20004,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0471. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: All submissions must include agency name and docket
number or Regulatory Information Number (RIN) for this rulemaking.
Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0471. The EPA's
policy is that all comments received will be included in the public
docket and may be made available online at: http://www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes information claimed to be confidential business information
(CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI, or otherwise
protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to the EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other
contact information in the body of your comment, and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties, and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not
be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use
of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any
defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0471. All documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically at: http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy
at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is (202)
566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Schaefer, U.S. EPA, Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs
Division, Policies and Strategies Group (D205-02), Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. General Information
    A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
II. Background Information for Petitions Received by the EPA
    A. What is the list of hazardous air pollutants?
    B. What is a listing petition?
    C. How does the EPA review a petition to list a HAP?
    D. How is the decision to list a HAP made?
III. Completeness Determination and Request for Public Comment
IV. Description of the Petitions

I. General Information

A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    Submitting CBI. Do not submit information that you consider to be
CBI electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Send or
deliver information identified as CBI to only the following address:
OAQPS Document Control Officer (Room C404-02), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attn:
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0471.
    Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to
be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the
EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. If you submit a CD-ROM or disk that
does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM clearly
that it does not contain CBI. Information marked as CBI will not be
disclosed except in

accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming
CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, electronic copies of
this notice will be available on the World Wide Web through the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of this
proposed rule will be posted on the TTN's Air Toxics Web site at the
following address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/pollutants/atwsmod.html.

II. Background Information for Petitions Received by the EPA

A. What is the list of hazardous air pollutants?

    The HAPs, which can be found in CAA section 112(b)(1), is a list of
a wide variety of organic and inorganic substances released from large
and small industrial operations, fossil fuel combustion, gasoline and
diesel-powered vehicles, and many other sources. These HAPs have been
associated with a wide variety of adverse health effects, including
cancer, neurological effects, reproductive effects and developmental
effects. The health effects associated with various HAPs may differ
depending upon the toxicity of the individual HAP and the particular
circumstances of exposure, such as the amount of chemical present, the
length of time a person is exposed, and the stage in life of the person
when the exposure occurs.

B. What is a listing petition?

    CAA section 112(b)(3)(A) specifies that any person may petition the
Administrator to modify, by addition or deletion, the list of HAPs
contained in CAA section 112(b)(1). The EPA Administrator is required
under CAA section 112(b)(3)(A) to either grant or deny a petition to
list a specific HAP within 18 months of the receipt of a petition to
add a substance to the HAP list. CAA section 112(b)(3)(B) says the,
``Administrator shall add a substance to the list upon a showing by the
petitioner or on the Administrator's own determination that the
substance is an air pollutant and that emissions, ambient
concentrations, bioaccumulation or deposition of the substance are
known to cause or may reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse
effects to human health or adverse environmental effects.'' The
addition of a HAP to the list in CAA section 112(b)(1) brings sources
emitting HAP into consideration in the EPA's program to promulgate
national technology-based emissions control standards. This technology-
based standards program is commonly referred to as the maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) program.

C. How does the EPA review a petition to list a HAP?

    The petition review process consists of two phases: A completeness
determination and a technical review. During the completeness
determination, the EPA conducts a broad review of the petition to
determine whether all of the necessary subject areas are addressed. In
addition, the EPA determines if adequate data, analyses, and evaluation
are included for each subject area. Once the petition is determined to
be complete, the EPA places a notice of receipt of a complete petition
in the Federal Register. That notice announces a public comment period
on the petition and starts the technical review phase of our decision-
making process. The technical review determines whether the petition
has satisfied the necessary requirements and can support a decision to
list the HAP. All comments and data submitted during the public comment
period are considered during the technical review.

D. How is the decision to list a HAP made?

    The decision to either grant or deny a petition is made after a
comprehensive technical review of both the petition and the information
received from the public to determine whether the petition satisfies
the requirements of CAA section 112(b)(3)(B). If the Administrator
decides to grant a petition, a proposal will be published in the
Federal Register announcing that decision and the opportunity for
public comment. That notice would propose a modification of the HAP
list and present the reasoning for doing so. However, if the
Administrator decides to deny a petition, a notice setting forth an
explanation of the reasons for denial will be published in the Federal
Register instead. A notice of denial constitutes final agency action of
nationwide scope and applicability and is subject to judicial review as
provided in CAA section 307(b).

III. Completeness Determination and Request for Public Comment

    The EPA Administrator is required under CAA section 112(b)(3)(A) to
either grant or deny a petition to list a specific HAP within 18 months
of the receipt of a petition. On October 28, 2010, we received a
petition from the HSIA to add nPB to the HAP list. Because of
incomplete emissions estimates, modeling procedures and a lack of
sufficient citations supporting adverse human health effects, the EPA
determined that the petition was incomplete and requested that the
petitioner provide additional information. On November 30, 2012, the
petitioner submitted supplemental information and data addressing the
EPA's concerns regarding the completeness of the petition.
Additionally, on November 24, 2011, the NYSDEC submitted a petition to
add nPB to the HAP list.
    After reviewing these petitions and supplemental information, we
have determined that all of the necessary subject areas for a human
health and environmental risk assessment have been addressed and,
therefore, the petitions are ready for technical review. Today's notice
initiates our comprehensive technical review of the petition and
invites public comment on the substance of the petitions as described
above.

IV. Description of the Petitions

    These petitions contain the following information:
     Background data on nPB including chemical properties,
physical properties, production data, and use data;
     Toxicological data describing the human health and
environmental effects of nPB;
     Atmospheric dispersion modeling that provides estimates of
nPB concentrations adjacent to facilities that emit it; and
     Characterization of risks to human health due to emissions
of nPB.
    Based on the chemical and physical properties of nPB, petitioners
claim that nPB is carcinogenic, has toxic reproductive effects, and is
a neurotoxin. HSIA's petition estimated cancer incidence by estimating
emissions from five facilities that use nPB. HSIA also used the site-
specific data as input for air dispersion modeling to develop
anticipated lifetime cancer risk that would occur beyond facility
boundaries. Neither HSIA nor NYSDEC provided estimates of anticipated
chronic or acute adverse health impacts in people living near nPB-
emitting facilities, although such effects were identified in the
scientific literature referenced by both petitioners.
    We invite the public to comment on the technical merits of these
petitions and to submit any information that may

impact the EPA's ultimate decision to grant or deny these requests to
list nPB as a HAP.

    Dated: January 21, 2015.
Janet G. McCabe,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2015-01705 Filed 2-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 247 (Friday, December 23, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 94277-94281]
[FR Doc No: 2016-30910]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 91

[Docket No. FAA-2015-2147; Notice No. 15-05]
RIN 2120-AK51

Transponder Requirement for Gliders; Withdrawal

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM); withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is withdrawing a previously published advance notice
of proposed rulemaking that sought public comment from interested
persons involving glider operations in the National Airspace System.
The action responded to recommendations from members of Congress and
the National Transportation Safety Board and was intended to gather
information to determine whether the current glider exception from
transponder equipage and use provides the appropriate level of safety
in the National Airspace System. The FAA is withdrawing that action
because the limited safety benefit gained does not justify the high
cost of equipage.

DATES: This action becomes effective December 23, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Patrick J. Moorman, Airspace Regulations Team,
AJV-113, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On August 28, 2006, a Hawker 800XP aircraft \1\ and a Schleicher
ASW27-18 glider were involved in a non-fatal midair collision near
Reno, Nevada. The collision occurred in flight about 42 nautical miles
(NM) south-southeast of the Reno-Tahoe International Airport (RNO), at
an altitude of about 16,000 feet (ft.) above mean sea level (MSL), and
in an area where gliders are excepted from the transponder equipment
requirements in Title 14, section 91.215(b), of the Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR).\2\ The glider was equipped with a transponder,
but the transponder was not turned on at the time of the accident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Hawker 800XP aircraft was equipped with a Traffic Alert
and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS). TCAS is a family of airborne
devices that function independently of the ground-based air traffic
control (ATC) system, and provide collision avoidance protection for
a broad spectrum of aircraft types. All TCAS systems provide some
degree of collision threat alerting, and a traffic display.
    \2\ The exceptions to the rule allow aircraft that were
originally certificated without an engine-driven electrical system,
such as balloons and gliders, to be operated in the following areas
without a transponder: within a 30 nautical mile radius (NMR) of the
36 listed airports listed in Appendix D to part 91 (Mode C veil),
provided aircraft remain outside the Class A, B, or C airspace and
are below the ceiling of the airspace designated for the Class B or
C airport, or 10,000 feet MSL, whichever is lower; above 10,000 feet
MSL; and in the airspace from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL within
a 10 NMR of any airport listed in appendix D, excluding the airspace
below 1,200 feet outside of the lateral boundaries of the surface
area of the airspace designated for that airport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 31, 2008, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
provided safety recommendations to the FAA resulting from an
investigation of the accident.\3\ The findings of the accident
investigation address the limitations of the see-and-avoid concept in
preventing midair collisions and, more specifically, the benefits of
using transponders in gliders for collision avoidance. The NTSB
recommended that the FAA remove the glider exceptions pertaining to the
transponder equipment and use requirements, finding that ``transponders
are critical to alerting pilots and controllers to the presence of
nearby traffic so that collisions can be avoided.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A-08-10 through 13, Safety Recommendations. National
Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC 20594, March 31, 2008. A
copy of this letter has been placed in the docket.
www.regulations.gov docket FAA-2005-2147. Note: while NTSB used the
term ``exemption'' the correct term as it relates to this airspace
is ``excepted.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 16, 2015, the FAA published an Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPRM) to respond to recommendations from two members of
Congress \4\ and the NTSB. 80 FR 34346. The ANPRM requested comments on
a proposed rulemaking that would require gliders operating in the
National Airspace System (NAS) to be equipped with transponders. The
FAA did not propose specific regulatory changes but rather sought
public comment on the use of transponders in gliders operating within
the excepted areas of Sec.  91.215. The ANPRM also sought input on more
recent alternatives to glider equipage including the use of Traffic
Awareness Beacon System (TABS) \5\ and Automatic Dependent Surveillance
Broadcast (ADS-B) Out equipment.\6\ The FAA asked for comments from the
public and industry to aid in the development of a proposed rule and
the analysis of its economic impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The FAA received letters from Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and
Representative Mark E. Amodei (R-NV); Letters are posted to the
docket at www.regulations.gov, docket no. FAA-2015-2147.
    \5\ TABS is a surveillance system derived from existing
transponder and ADS-B requirements. It was developed to increase
safety by providing a standard for a low cost surveillance solution
for aircraft excepted from Sec. Sec.  91.215 and 91.225. An aircraft
equipped with TABS is visible to other aircraft equipped with
collision avoidance systems such as Traffic Advisory System (TAS),
Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) I, TCAS-II, and
ADS-B In. However, a TABS-equipped aircraft is not displayed to
controllers. The FAA published Technical Standard Order (TSO)-C199,
the standard for TABS, on October 10, 2014.
    \6\ ADS-B is a satellite-based surveillance system that uses
Global Positioning System (GPS) technology to determine an
aircraft's location, airspeed, and other data, and broadcasts that
information to a network of ground stations, which relays the data
to air traffic control displays, and to nearby aircraft equipped to
receive the data via ADS-B In.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overview of Withdrawal

    Based on the information gathered from the ANPRM and a review of
the current operating environment, the FAA finds that it does not have
sufficient basis to move forward with rulemaking at this time. While
the FAA has determined it is not warranted to move forward with a
proposal to remove the glider exception in Sec.  91.215, the FAA will
continue to work with local glider communities to increase safety
awareness. The FAA will also continue to consider surveillance system
alternatives and to work with interested persons to mitigate the risk
of aircraft collision with gliders. Further, the FAA recommends that
all glider aircraft owners equip their gliders with a transponder
meeting regulatory requirements, a rule-compliant ADS-B Out system, or
a TABS device.

Comment Summary

    The FAA received 231comments in response to its ANPRM. Of the 231
comments received, approximately 18 organizations and 213 individual or
anonymous commenters responded. Approximately 161 comments were
unfavorable (adverse), 52 comments were favorable, and 18 comments were

neutral. Of the 18 organizations that commented, 14 responded
unfavorably (adverse), 2 favorably, and 2 were neutral. Three comments
received after the comment period closed were also considered.
    The following organizations responded: Soaring Society of America
(SSA), Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Vintage Sailplane
Association (VSA), Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), Civil Air
Patrol (CAP), National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), American
Association for Justice (AAJ), and approximately 11 local soaring clubs
or groups. Individual and anonymous commenters were representative of
all pilot types: glider, general aviation (GA), airline and military,
many commenters holding multiple ratings, with glider and general
aviation pilots representing the majority.
    Individual and anonymous commenters in favor of removing the
transponder exception were primarily concerned about safety, some
relaying personal experiences not accompanied by supporting
documentation, such as a near mid-air collision (NMAC) report.\7\
Several commenters recommended the FAA consider alternatives to
transponder equipage, including ADS-B,TABS, or FLARM.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ An NMAC is an incident associated with the operation of an
aircraft in which a possibility of a collision occurs as a result of
proximity of less than 500 feet to another aircraft, or a report is
received from flightcrew members stating that a collision hazard
existed between two or more aircraft. A report does not necessarily
involve the violation of regulations or error by the air traffic
control system, nor does it necessarily represent an unsafe
condition. The fact that flightcrew members initiate NMAC reports
raises two important issues. First, to some degree the data likely
will be subjective. This necessitates that considerable caution be
exercised when evaluating individual NMAC reports. Second, it is
most likely the number of NMAC reports filed will not represent the
totality of such events.
    \8\ FLARM is an electronic system designed to alert pilots of
potential collisions between aircraft. FLARM is approved by the
European Aviation Safety Agency for fixed installation in certified
aircraft. Aircraft equipped with FLARM (including a variant known as
PowerFLARM that can receive transponder and ADS-B signals from other
aircraft) are visible only to other FLARM-equipped aircraft. There
is no FAA TSO for FLARM because FLARM uses proprietary technology
rather than industry consensus standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All comments are available for viewing in the rulemaking docket
(FAA-2015-2147). To view comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and
insert the docket number.

Discussion of Comments

1. Safety Benefit of Transponders

    Of the approximately 161 unfavorable (adverse) comments received,
many addressed the high cost of transponder equipage and the limited
safety benefit by requiring such equipage.
    During the ANPRM process, the FAA also reviewed glider midair and
NMAC reports at the local and national level. After further analysis of
safety related statistics, the FAA found that nationally, from August
2005 through August 2015, the Aviation Safety Reporting System (ASRS)
database reflects 1,841 reported NMAC for all airspace areas. Of these
NMACs, 50 involve a glider and another aircraft type, or 2.72% of
reported NMACs over a 10-year period for an average of 5NMACs per year.
In 2008, the last year data was available for all aircraft categories,
statistics show there were 236,519 active aircraft, including 1,914
gliders, or about 0.81% of the active fleet.
    Nationally, the removal of the glider exception from Sec.  91.215
would help to prevent those instances where a glider NMAC occurs with
an aircraft equipped with a Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance
System (TCAS).9 10 However, instances where removal of the
glider exception from Sec.  91.215 help prevent a glider NMAC due to
increased air traffic controller awareness are assumed negligible
overall, because the operating areas for gliders are often in places
with little or no radar coverage. Furthermore, because gliders can
maneuver rapidly, glider flight paths are difficult for the Air Traffic
Control (ATC) automation system to accurately project. Over the 10-year
period reviewed, of the 50 reported NMACs involving a glider and
another aircraft type, 7 involved a glider and part 121 or 135 air
carriers required to have TCAS. Using this analysis, removal of the
glider exception from Sec.  91.215 has the potential to reduce the NMAC
occurrences by about 0.70 occurrences per year, or about 2 NMACs every
3 years (0.38% of all reported NMACs per year over that period).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ This assumes all gliders are equipped with a transponder.
    \10\ TCAS provides two types of advisories, a Traffic Advisory
(TA) and a Resolution Advisory (RA). TCAS can provide both types of
advisories using another aircraft's transponder signal. A TA
provides an aural alert ``TRAFFIC, TRAFFIC'' to the flight crew and
places the other aircraft on a cockpit display showing the other
aircraft's position, altitude and movement relative to the TCAS-
equipped aircraft. TCAS also computes the time to closest point of
approach between the two aircraft. If this drops below a certain
computed threshold, TCAS then provides a RA, which consists of aural
commands and instrument cues to maneuver the aircraft vertically to
avoid the threat.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assuming all of these NMACs would occur between gliders and air
carrier aircraft,\11\ this would represent an incremental NMAC hazard
of approximately 3.8 x 10-8/flight hour to the air carrier
aircraft, based on air carrier flight hour data for years 2010-2014
published on the NTSB's Web site. This rate of occurrence is within the
acceptable hazard level guidelines for a Hazardous failure condition
(not greater than the order of 1 x 10-7/flight hour)
according to the FAA System Safety Handbook, Appendix B.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Air carrier aircraft are the fleet segment of greatest
safety concern to the FAA for this contemplated rulemaking. These
aircraft are required by regulation to be TCAS-equipped.
    \12\ Appendix B of the FAA System Safety Handbook defines a
hazardous failure condition as one that reduces the capability of
the system or the operator ability to cope with adverse conditions
to the extent that there would be: Large reduction in safety margin
or functional capability; Crew physical distress/excessive workload
such that operators cannot be relied upon to perform required tasks
accurately or completely; Serious or fatal injury to small number of
occupants of aircraft (except operators); or Fatal injury to ground
personnel and/or general public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, based on the nationwide rate of occurrence, safety risk
data does not support a rule requiring glider operators to install a
transponder device at this time. Furthermore, the number of gliders
voluntarily equipping with collision avoidance systems has increased
steadily. Per the General Aviation and Part 135 Activity Surveys, the
number of gliders equipped with a transponder device has gone from 14%
in 2006, to 24.3% in 2014, the last year this data was available.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Number of active gliders with transponders: 2014 GA Survey,
Avionics Tables, Table AV.6. https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/general_aviation/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Locally in the airspace surrounding Reno, Nevada, the NTSB noted
four TCAS Resolution Advisory (RA) events in the 30 days prior to the
accident, each between a glider and a TCAS-equipped transport category
aircraft operated under 14 CFR part 121.\14\ For these RAs to occur,
the glider involved in each RA would have to be flying with an operable
transponder (turned on).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ A-08-10 through 13, Safety Recommendations. National
Transportation Safety Board, Washington, DC 20594, March 31, 2008. A
copy of this letter is in the docket at www.regulations.gov, docket
no. FAA-2015-2147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although this data supports the value of transponders in avoiding
collisions, since the accident, the FAA and local glider community have
also taken several measures to mitigate the risk of midair collisions
within and around Reno, NV. First, advisory information on the heavy
glider activity unique to the local area was published in official FAA
flight information publications including the Chart Supplement, Special
Notices, and Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs) for Reno/Tahoe
International Airport after the event. Second, on October 29, 2010, a
Letter of Agreement (LOA) was signed between representatives for the
local glider

community and ATC facilities having control over the airspace. The LOA
establishes an area and procedures for glider operations within
positive controlled airspace in the Reno area. By establishing this
area and these procedures, the LOA enhances airspace awareness and
communication among the Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center,
Northern California Terminal Radar Approach Control, and the Pacific
Soaring Council. Additionally, the LOA outlines entry and exit
procedures into the operating areas and identifies pilot
responsibilities to increase communication and situational awareness in
the Reno area.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The LOA is posted in the docket at www.regulations.gov,
docket no. FAA-2015-2147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the local glider community has undertaken a successful
education campaign to prevent further accidents. According to the SSA,
``Since the 2006 accident, the local glider community that flies near
RNO has undertaken successfully to educate pilots on collision
avoidance and to encourage the voluntary use of either FLARM or
transponders. As a result of these voluntary efforts, the official ASRS
database includes no new incidents with gliders not equipped with
transponders in the RNO or MEV [Minden-Tahoe Airport] areas in
[excepted] airspace since the release some 7 years ago of the NTSB
report on the 2006 incident.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ SSA comment letter posted in the docket at
www.regulations.gov, docket no. FAA-2015-2147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SSA, EAA, and several individual commenters opposing
transponder equipage, noted that the glider involved in the 2006 Reno
accident was equipped with a transponder, but at the time of the
accident, the pilot operated the glider with the transponder turned
off.\17\ The FAA acknowledges that in the 2006 accident, if the glider
transponder were turned on, the Hawker aircraft would have received
TCAS advisories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 14 CFR 91.215(c) states: While in the airspace as specified
in paragraph (b) of this section or in all controlled airspace, each
person operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC
transponder maintained in accordance with Sec.  91.413 of this part
shall operate the transponder, including Mode C equipment if
installed, and shall reply on the appropriate code or as assigned by
ATC. This collision occurred at approximately 16,000 feet MSL in
Class E airspace (which extends upward from 14,500 feet MSL to
flight level 180 throughout the National Airspace System).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Estimating Glider Transponder Cost From Removal of Glider Exception

    Approximately 138 commenters discussed the cost of requiring
gliders to equip with transponders.\18\ Of those 138 commenters
discussing cost, there were just 20 comments that could be
characterized as in favor of requiring gliders to equip with
transponders to some degree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Most comments addressed the cost of transponder equipage. A
few comments addressed the cost to install other equipment such as
ADS-B, TABS, and FLARM. The FAA sought comment on these technologies
in the ANPRM. These alternatives and others are discussed later in
this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three commenters stated that transponders were inexpensive, but as
shown below these commenters underestimated the cost of glider
transponders as ``in the few hundred dollar range'' or ``less than
$2000'' and/or ignored the cost of installation or assumed installation
was easy. They did not address the concern that about half the glider
population does not have an electrical system, which significantly
increases the cost of transponder installation. These commenters were
contradicted by more than 30 commenters who provided specific cost
estimates for glider transponders and installation costs. Another
commenter, in favor of removing the glider exception because he
believed that the safety benefits justified the costs, conceded that
transponders ``are indeed costly.''
    The FAA estimates the cost of requiring gliders to equip with
transponders to be about $5,000 per glider and more than $7 million for
the glider fleet. Owing to a lack of reliable data, the glider (and
fleet) cost estimates do not take into account the possible significant
cost of instrument panel modification. There may also be significant
additional cost for older gliders that no longer have manufacturer
support because they may require a FAA Form 337 (Major Repair and
Alteration) approval if there is no prior approval (Supplemental Type
Certificate (STC) or other previously approved installation).
    The fleet estimate assumes that (1) all active glider operators
will want to operate in the currently excepted airspace and (2) the 990
inactive gliders (total glider population of 2781--1791 active gliders)
in the fleet will deregister upon rule implementation.\19\ The $7
million fleet figure would be an underestimation to the extent these
two assumptions are incorrect. Details of the estimates of cost per
glider and glider fleet cost are shown in Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Total number of gliders and number of active gliders: 2014
GA Survey, Table 2.1.

                 Table 1--Glider Transponder Unit Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Item                    Cost            Sources/notes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transponder....................          $2,339  Cost based on the Trig
                                                  TT21 as it appears to
                                                  be the most popular
                                                  glider transponder.
Cabling........................             146  Aircraftspruce.com:
                                                  Trig TT21 including
                                                  custom harness--$2485.
Antenna........................             169  Cumulus-Soaring.com:
                                                  RAMI AV-74-1 Blade
                                                  Style Transponder or
                                                  DME Antenna: ``. . .
                                                  like the AV-74--but
                                                  with longer mounting
                                                  studs--which is nice
                                                  when trying to mount
                                                  it through a glider
                                                  fuselage.''
Battery charger................              25  .......................
                                ----------------
    Total Nonrecurring hardware           2,679  .......................
Installation...................           1,300  Average of 32 ANPRM
                                                  commenter estimates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Nonrecurring Cost           3,979  .......................
                                ----------------
Batteries (every 2.5 years)....             600  Battery choice based on
                                                  comment by
                                                  Philadelphia Glider
                                                  Council: ``. . . one
                                                  [LiFePO4]18AH or two-
                                                  three 9 Ahs generally
                                                  sufficient for 10 hrs
                                                  of operation.''
                                                  CumulusSoaring.com:
                                                  Bioenno Power BLF-1209
                                                  LiFePo4 Battery 12V,
                                                  9AHr $100, charger
                                                  $25. Or BLF-1220 20AHr
                                                  $205, charger $30.
                                                  Duration based on
                                                  ANPRM comments.
Biannual inspection............             800  $200 per inspection.
                                                  Based on ANPRM
                                                  comments.
                                ----------------

    Total Recurring Costs......           1,400  .......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The nonrecurring and recurring unit costs required to estimate the
cost of a rule change eliminating the glider transponder exception are
shown in Table 1.
    The FAA estimates the costs of such a rule change over a ten-year
period for the existing U.S. glider fleet. This estimation is shown in
Table 2.\20\ The cost of a rule change for new production of existing
glider models and new certifications is not estimated owing to a lack
of the necessary forecasts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The estimation takes into account an additional
nonrecurring cost not shown in Table 1 of $400 for gliders without
an electrical system.

                         Table 2--Ten-Year Cost of Removing Glider Transponder Exception
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Non-recurring   PV recurring
                Year                   Item costs            Description               costs      costs @7% \21\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0..................................          $3,979  Hardware & Installation....          $3,979  ..............
1..................................  ..............  ...........................  ..............  ..............
2..................................             200  Bi-annual Inspection.......  ..............            $175
2.5................................             200  Battery Replacement........  ..............             169
3..................................  ..............  ...........................  ..............  ..............
4..................................             200  Bi-annual Inspection.......  ..............             153
5..................................             200  Battery Replacement........  ..............             143
6..................................             200  Bi-annual Inspection.......  ..............             133
7..................................  ..............  ...........................  ..............  ..............
7.5................................             200  Battery Replacement........  ..............             120
8..................................             200  Bi-annual Inspection.......  ..............             116
9..................................  ..............  ...........................  ..............  ..............
10.................................  ..............  ...........................  ..............  ..............
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Totals.........................  ..............  ...........................           3,979           1,009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    \21\ A discount rate of 7 percent is recommended by Office of
Management & Budget, Circular A-94, ``Guidelines and Discount Rates
for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs,'' October 29, 1992,
p. 8.
    \22\ Number of active gliders with electrical systems gliders:
2014 GA Survey, Avionics Tables, Table AV.1. https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/general_aviation/.
    \23\ Number of active gliders with transponders: 2014 GA Survey,
Avionics Tables, Table AV.6. https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/general_aviation/.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Total number of active gliders                        1791         Cost/glider     Total cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gliders with electrical systems \22\............................             699  ..............  ..............
Gliders with transponders \23\..................................             461  ..............  ..............
Gliders without electrical systems..............................            1092             400         436,800
Gliders without transponders....................................            1330           4,988       6,633,798
    Cost of rule removing glider exception......................  ..............  ..............       7,070,598
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Due to rounding, details may not add up to totals or multiply to products.

    Based on the risk reduction data discussed in the previous section
and the estimated costs of equipage listed in this section, the FAA
finds that the degree of risk reduction that could be expected by
requiring transponder equipage for gliders does not justify the cost of
requiring such equipage.

3. Alternatives to Transponders

    Several commenters called for ``low cost'' and ``affordable''
transponders (such as a portable transponder) and ADS-B, TABS, or FLARM
equipment. The NTSB noted the FAA published a final rule on May 28,
2010, that added requirements for ADS-B Out equipage that, if combined
with transponder usage, would result in increased traffic awareness and
collision avoidance. The NTSB also commented in response to this ANPRM
that TABS may be an acceptable alternative as it is detectable by both
TCAS and ADS-B-In equipped aircraft.
    Since the 2006 accident, technologies have developed and
alternatives are available that have the potential to mitigate risk,
such as TABS, FLARM, ADS-B, local LOA with ATC facilities, and ongoing
outreach and education. Of the technological solutions identified here,
the ones that offer the best potential to avoid collision with TCAS-
equipped aircraft (besides transponder equipage) are TABS or a rule-
compliant ADS-B Out system, because those systems make the glider
visible to TCAS-equipped aircraft, ATC or both.
    The TABS standard provides for a reduction in the transmission rate
and allows for a ``non-aviation grade'' GPS engine, in order to drive
unit cost down while still maintaining an acceptable level of service
to be considered a client in the NAS, where collision avoidance and
ADS-B systems coexist. There are currently no TSO authorization holders
for TABS equipment. However, we are aware that certain manufacturers
currently have TABS systems in development.
    Some commenters recommended that the FAA allow use of portable

transponders, stating they were lower cost than fixed transponder
installations and relatively affordable. While portable transponders
may meet the TSO performance requirements, they are not approved for
use unless they are actually installed in the aircraft. A key reason
for this is placement of the transponder antenna in the aircraft. If
the transponder antenna is not placed correctly, the aircraft may not
be electronically detectable to other aircraft or ATC.
    Other commenters recommended that the FAA encourage equipage of
FLARM systems. In this regard, the FAA notes that a variant of FLARM,
known as PowerFLARM, will make a transponder or ADS-B Out equipped
aircraft detectable to the PowerFLARM-equipped aircraft (such as a
glider). However, a glider that is equipped with any version of FLARM
will not be electronically detectable to the other aircraft unless both
aircraft are FLARM equipped. In view of these factors, the FAA
concludes that FLARM systems may provide a safety benefit (particularly
for avoidance of collisions between gliders, and for PowerFLARM
equipped gliders, some benefit for avoidance of collisions with powered
aircraft). However, the FAA does not view FLARM (including PowerFLARM)
as the most effective system to support collision avoidance with
powered aircraft since a FLARM system may not make the glider
detectable to the aircraft that must give way. Transponders, TABS, and
ADS-B Out offer better protection against collisions with powered
aircraft because those systems aid visual acquisition of the glider by
the powered aircraft flightcrew, consistent with right of way
rules.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Section 91.113(d)(2) states that ``A glider has the right
of way over powered parachute, weight-shift-aircraft, airplane, or
rotorcraft.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA will continue to consider surveillance system alternatives
for gliders for their feasibility and potential to improve safety.

4. Other Comments

    Several commenters were in favor of removing the current glider
exception for certain high-density airspace areas. One commenter,
otherwise strongly in favor of removing the glider exception, suggested
an exception for gliders involved in training below 5,000 feet above
ground level (AGL). The FAA has determined not to propose any changes
to the rules for specific airspace areas because the accident and
incident history cited in the NTSB recommendation has occurred
predominantly around one specific airspace area, Reno, NV. The FAA has
determined that the post accident mitigations for the Reno area
discussed previously in this notice mitigate the risk for that specific
airspace.
    Another commenter stated, ``the FAA should make clear that
installing a transponder, encoder, antenna, an extra battery or
batteries and possible solar panels are all considered `minor
modifications' which can be signed off by the installing technician
based on his judgment.'' This commenter and several others, in
opposition of the removal of the glider exception, also called for
exceptions for older gliders. The FAA finds that rulemaking is not
necessary at this time for any gliders, but points to current guidance
available to assist in installation and approval of transponder systems
in gliders and sailplanes for operators wishing to voluntarily
equip.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Information for Operators (InFO) 09009, Installation and
Approval of Transponder Systems in Gliders/Sailplanes, dated June
10, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AAJ listed glider color, construction materials, and slender
profiles as contributing factors to lack of pilot visibility or radar
detection and further identified Instrument Flight Rule congested areas
as concerns of undeniable risk, especially the parameters of Class B
airspace. These sentiments were largely shared amongst both adverse and
favorable commenters, offering similar solutions or variations thereof.
The FAA has discussed its determination regarding specific airspace
areas above. With regard to the other comments identified here, the
FAA's decision in this notice includes consideration of those comments.

Reason for Withdrawal

    After consideration of all comments received, the FAA is
withdrawing Notice No. 15-05. The FAA finds that the high cost of
transponder equipage and the limited safety benefit that is likely to
result from requiring such equipage do not support rulemaking at this
time. Additionally, as discussed above, the FAA has determined that a
proposal to require gliders to equip with ``low-cost'' alternatives to
transponders is not supportable at this time.
    NTSB safety recommendations, resulting from the 2006 midair
collision with a glider, indicated that although the glider was
equipped with a transponder, the transponder was turned off. After
further analysis of safety-related statistics over a 10-year period
(August 2005-August 2015) the ASRS database reflects 1841 reported NMAC
for all airspace areas. The FAA found data that indicates that removal
of the glider exception from Sec.  91.215 would have the potential to
reduce the NMAC occurrences by about 0.70 occurrences per year, or
about 2 NMACs every 3 years (0.38% of all reported NMACs per year over
that period).

Conclusion

    When further testing, research, and conclusive data is available
that reflect alternative mitigations, a broader, more harmonized
proposal may better serve the public interest. Withdrawal of Notice No.
15-05 does not preclude the FAA from issuing another notice on the
subject matter in the future or committing the agency to any future
course of action. The agency will make any necessary changes to the
regulations through a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with the
opportunity for public comment.
    Although the FAA has determined that a regulatory course of action
is not warranted at this time, the FAA will continue to work with local
glider communities, encourage the voluntary equipage of transponders in
gliders and encourage the use of TABS. The FAA continues to recommend
that all glider aircraft owners equip their gliders with a transponder
meeting the requirements of Sec.  91.215(a), a rule-compliant ADS-B Out
system, or a TABS device. In consideration of the above factors, the
FAA withdraws Notice No. 15-05, published in 80 FR 34346, on June 16,
2015.

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 44701(a),
and 40103 in Washington, DC, on December 16, 2016.
Gary A. Norek,
Deputy Director, Airspace Services.
[FR Doc. 2016-30910 Filed 12-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		10/8/14

TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	Ray Saracino, EPA Region 9

SUBJECT:	October 8, 2014 Meeting with California Energy Commission Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY

      A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on October 8, 2014 to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014 and published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2014.        ATTENDEES

External Stakeholders Karen Griffin, California Energy Commission Mellissa Jones, California Energy Commission

EPA Joe Bryson Chris Sherry Ray Saracino

Attachment

Filename: Questions from California Energy Commission 100714