[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 178 (Tuesday, September 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55410-55411]
[FR Doc No: 2015-23237]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Order of Suspension of Trading

September 11, 2015.
    In the Matter of American Smooth Wave Ventures Inc., ASA
International Ltd., Baker Manufacturing Co., Center For Wound
Healing, Inc. (The), China Interactive Education, Inc., China Now,
Inc., China Prosperous Clean Energy Corp., Cleopatra International
Group, Inc., Craft College, Inc., Denia Enterprises, Inc., English
Language Learning & Instruction System, Inc., Garman Cabinet &
Millwork, Inc., KBK Capital Corp., LeapLab Corp., Lee Fine Arts,
Inc. (a/k/a Commerce Holdings, Inc.), Maplex Alliance, Ltd.,
Obsidian Enterprises, Inc., Octavian Global Technologies, Inc.,
Ostashkov Industrial, Inc., Single Source Investment Group, Inc.,
Tupper, Inc., UBK Resources Co., Vomart International Auto Parts,
Inc., Wilson Creek Mining Corp., Yuanwang Rich Selenium Agricultural
Products Group Holding Co., Zhongbao International, Inc.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate public information concerning the
securities of each of the issuers detailed below because questions have
arisen as to their operating status, if any. Each of the issuers below
is quoted on OTC Link operated by OTC Markets Group, Inc. The staff of
the Securities and Exchange Commission has independently endeavored to
determine whether any of the issuers below are operating. Each of the
issuers below either confirmed they were now private companies or
failed to respond to the staff's inquiry about their operating status,
did not have an operational address, or failed to provide their
registered agent with an operational address. The staff of the
Securities and Exchange Commission also determined that none of the
issuers below has filed any information with OTC Markets Group, Inc. or
the

Securities and Exchange Commission for the past two years.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Information
                                                             regarding
               Issuer                       Ticker           operating
                                                             status *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. American Smooth Wave Ventures     ASWV                              1
 Inc..
2. ASA International Ltd...........  ASAL                              2
3. Baker Manufacturing Co..........  BKRM                              2
4. Center for Wound Healing, Inc.    CFWH                              1
 (The).
5. China Interactive Education,      CIVN                              1
 Inc..
6. China Now, Inc..................  CINW                              1
7. China Prosperous Clean Energy     CHPC                              1
 Corp..
8. Cleopatra International Group,    CLIN                              1
 Inc..
9. Craft College, Inc..............  CRAF                              1
10. Denia Enterprises, Inc.........  DNIA                              1
11. English Language Learning &      ELLG                              1
 Instruction System, Inc..
12. Garman Cabinet & Millwork, Inc.  GNTM                              1
13. KBK Capital Corp...............  KBKC                              1
14. LeapLab Corp...................  LLAB                              1
15. Lee Fine Arts, Inc. (a/k/a       LEFA                              1
 Commerce Holdings, Inc.).
16. Maplex Alliance, Ltd...........  MAPX                              1
17. Obsidian Enterprises, Inc......  OBDE                              1
18. Octavian Global Technologies,    OCTV                              1
 Inc..
19. Ostashkov Industrial, Inc......  OSKV                              1
20. Single Source Investment Group,  SGSP                              1
 Inc..
21. Tupper, Inc....................  TPPR                              1
22. UBK Resources Co...............  UBKR                              1
23. Vomart International Auto        VOMT                              1
 Parts, Inc..
24. Wilson Creek Mining Corp.......  WCRE                              1
25. Yuanwang Rich Selenium           YUNW                              1
 Agricultural Products Group
 Holding Co..
26. Zhongbao International, Inc....  ZBIT                              1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Below are explanations for each of the codes used in the above table:
1 = The staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission attempted to
  contact the issuer and either the staff did not receive a response to
  its letter, the letters were returned as undeliverable, or the
  registered agent responded that they had no forwarding address for the
  issuer.
2 = The staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission was able to
  contact the issuer, which informed the staff that it was now a private
  company.

    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the
above-listed companies is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT
on September 11, 2015, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on September 24, 2015.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-23237 Filed 9-11-15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Data Requirement:				PMRA Data Code      		{............}
                        EPA DP Barcode			423300
                        OECD Data Point		{............}
                        EPA MRID 				49477601
                        EPA Guideline			850.2100

Test material:	Chlorthal Dimethyl									Purity: 99.3%
Common name	DCPA
Chemical name:	IUPAC:		Not reported
				CAS name:	Not reported
            CAS No.:	1861-32-1
            Synonyms:	Dacthal Technical

Primary Reviewer:  Kindra L. Bozicevich 						Signature:
Staff Scientist, CDM Smith/CSS-Dynamac JV					Date: 12/10/2016

Secondary Reviewer:  Teri S. Myers 							Signature:
Staff Scientist, CDM Smith/CSS-Dynamac JV					Date: 12/16/2016

Primary Reviewer:	Christina M. Wendel						Signature:
EPA/OPP/EFED/ERB2/Biologist 								Date: 12/02/2021

Secondary Reviewer(s): Michael Wagman						Signature:
EPA/OPP/EFED/ERB2/Senior Scientist						Date: 12/02/2021

Reference/Submission No.: {.....................}

Company Code 		{............}			[For PMRA]
Active Code			{............}			[For PMRA]
Use Site Category	{.............}			[For PMRA]
EPA PC Code 		078701

Date Evaluation Completed:  02-12-2021

CITATION: Bull, A.D. 2014. DCPA (Chlorthal Dimethyl): Acute Oral Toxicity (LD50) to the Zebra Finch. Unpublished study performed by Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd, Cambridgeshire, England. Project ID BDG0198. Study sponsored by AMVAC Chemical Corporation, Newport Beach, California. Study initiated April 10, 2014 and completed September 16, 2014.

This Data Evaluation Record may have been altered by the Environmental Fate and Effects Division subsequent to signing by CDM/CSS-Dynamac JV personnel

.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The acute oral toxicity of DCPA (Chlorthal Dimethyl) technical to zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata) (minimum of 16 weeks old) was assessed over 14 days. DCPA was administered to the birds by oral intubation at nominal levels of 0 (vehicle control) and 2000 mg a.i./kg bw. The observed 14-day acute oral LD50 was >2000 mg a.i./kg bw.

No mortalities were observed in the control or any of the treatment groups. Wiping of the beak was observed in both the control and treatment group on the day of dosing but had resolved by 3-hours post-dosing. There were no apparent treatment-related effects on food consumption or on body weight at any dosage level tested. Based upon the lack of treatment-related mortalities and sublethal effects, the observational NOAEL was 2000 mg a.i./kg bw. The acute-oral LD50 was >2000 mg a.i./kg bw.

According to the U.S. EPA classification system, DCPA would be classified as practically non-toxic to zebra finch on an acute oral basis.

This study is scientifically sound and is classified as supplemental and may be used to calculate risk quotients.  If application rates result in higher estimated exposure concentrations on dietary items than the concentration tested in this study, additional data may be required.

   Results Synopsis

   Test Organism Size/Age (Mean Weight): Minimum 16 weeks old; group means 14.7 to 25.5 g (combined sexes)

   LD50: >2000 mg a.i./kg bw 			95% C.I.: N/A
   Probit slope: N/A 					95% C.I.: N/A

   Endpoint(s) Affected: None
   I. MATERIALS AND METHODS

   GUIDELINE FOLLOWED:		U.S. EPA Ecological Effects Test Guideline, OCSPP 850.2100 (2012)

   Deviations from OCSPP 850.2100 guidance included:

 The stability of the compound under the test conditions was not verified. However, prior to the main test a homogeneity and stability trail was undertaken, to assess the suitability of the formulation methods and storage. Results showed that the formulation procedures and storage at ambient temperature (nominally +21°C) and refrigerated (nominally +4°C) for 48 hours were satisfactory at the nominal concentration of 400 mg/mL. Full details are available in the study report in Annex 2. This is considered a minor deviation.

	These deviations do not affect the scientific soundness of this study.

   COMPLIANCE:			Signed and dated GLP, Quality Assurance, and Data Confidentiality statements were provided. This study was conducted in compliance with UK GLP regulations, OECD Principles of GLP, and EC Commission Directive 2004/10/EC.

   A. MATERIALS:

   	1. Test material  				DCPA (Chlorthal Dimethyl) technical

      Description: 				Yellowish white crystalline solid

      Lot No./Batch No. :			120904-1

      Purity: 						99.3%

      Stability of compound
      under test conditions:		Not assessed.

      Storage conditions of
      test chemicals: 				Ambient temperature under dry conditions.

		Physicochemical properties of DCPA.
Parameter
Values
Comments
Water solubility at 20°C
Not reported

Vapor pressure
Not reported

UV absorption
Not reported

pKa
Not reported

Kow
Not reported

       (OECD recommends water solubility, stability in water and light, pKa, Pow, and vapor pressure of test compound)

      2. Test Organism:

      Species (common and scientific names): 		Zebra finch (Taeniopygia guttata)
      Age at study initiation:						minimum of 16 weeks old
      Weight at study initiation (mean and range):	range 14.7 to 25.5 g (14.0-23.3 g males, 15.8-23.9 g females)
      Source: 										Originally from a commercial supplier (not specified); allocated from the Huntington Life Sciences stock, phenotypically indistinguishable from wild type.
                           (EPA recommends using either bobwhite quail or mallard duck.  Birds should be at least 16 weeks old at test initiation and should be uniform in size and weight as well as phenotypically indistinguishable from wild birds).

	B. STUDY DESIGN:

      1. Experimental Conditions

         a. Range-finding study: An initial range-finding test was carried out using two birds (1 male, 1 female).  The birds were held under similar environmental conditions that were used in the definitive test.  Food, dose preparation and dosing procedures were also similar to those used in the definitive test, the same vehicle material, 1% methylcellulose was used.  Birds were observed for fourteen days following dosing of 2000 mg/kg at 400 mg/mL dose concentration (10 mL/kg dose volume). There were no signs of toxicity observed during the range finding phase of this study. However, wiping of the beak (on perches or other cage surfaces) was noted in both male and female birds approximately 3 hours after dosing. This observation had resolved approximately 4 hours after dosing. On the basis of these results, it was considered appropriate to select the dose level 2000 mg/kg for the main study.

      b. Definitive study

Table 1:  Experimental Parameters
                                   Parameter
                                    Details
                                    Remarks

                                   Criteria
Acclimation
Period:

Conditions: (same as test or not)

Feeding:

Health: (any mortality observed)

14 days

Same as test

Proprietary pelleted diet formulated for finches, mixture and potable water (Anglian Water) were available ad libitum with the exception of the time food was withheld prior to dosing.  Water was available at all times.

All birds appeared in good health, and no mortality was reported.
The diet mixture nominally contained no added antibiotic or other non-nutritional feed additive and was not anticipated to contain contaminants capable of interfering with the integrity of the study. However, no general contaminant analyses were performed. The test diet contained not less than 15% crude protein, not less than 5% crude fat, and not less than 3% crude fiber.

The recommended acclimation period is a minimum of 15 days.  OECD recommends a minimum of 7 days.
Pen size and construction materials
Powder-coated wire mesh cages measuring 75 x 45.5 x 46 cm.
The floor space was ca. 341 cm[2] per bird.

Pen size and construction should conform to good husbandry practices and should not create crowding stress.

OECD recommends that pens be suitable for the captive rearing of that species.
Test duration
14 days

Recommended test duration is one day for dosing and at least 14 days observation.
Dose preparation [Indicate method of confirmation of dose]
Although the dosages were not adjusted for purity and the concentration of DCPA in the test formulation was analyzed during the study.
The mean concentrations of DCPA in test formulations analyzed for the study was within +-2% of nominal concentrations.  The analytical work was completed between May 7 and June 22, 2014. Full details are available in the study report in Annex 2.
Mode of dose administration
Gavage
A single dose was orally intubated directly into the crop of each bird using a plastic syringe and a flexible catheter.

Gavage or gelatin capsule is recommended
Dose levels
nominal:

measured:

0 (vehicle control) and 2000 mg a.i./kg bw

Not reported.
Dose volume was 5 mL/kg bw

Dose levels should be  a minimum of 5 treatment levels unless LD50 is demonstrated to be greater than 2000 mg ai/kg
Solvent/vehicle, if used
type:
amount/bw:

1% Methylcellulose

The test material should be administered without a vehicle if possible. Maximum vehicle should not exceed 0.1 to 1.0% of body weight.
Number of birds per groups/treatment
for negative control:
for solvent/vehicle control:
for treated:

N/A
N/A
5 males:5 females
5 males:5 females
Twenty healthy birds were randomly allocated.

Recommended number of birds in a treatment group is 10 and 10 birds for each control and vehicle group.
No. of feed withholding days before dosing

3-4 hours

Food should be withheld for at least 15 hours prior to dosing.
Test conditions
Temperature:

Relative humidity:

Photoperiod:

18-25°C

45-70%

10 hours light:14 hours dark (fluorescent tube lighting with an emission spectrum approximating to natural daylight)
Ventilation fans were adjusted as necessary.

The recommended photoperiod is 10 hours of light and 14 hours of dark.
Reference chemical, if used
name:
concentrations tested:

None tested

   2. Observations:

Table 2:  Observations
                                   Criteria
                                    Details
                                    Remarks

                                   Criteria
Parameters measured
(mortality/individual body weight at test initiation and termination/ mean feed consumption/ others)

-Mortality
-Clinical signs of toxicity
-Body weight
-Feed consumption
-Necropsy

Body weight should be measured at test initiation, on day 14 and at the end of the test if the test is extended beyond 14 days. Mortality should not be more than 10% in controls.
Feed consumption should be measured as average daily food consumption.
Indicate if the test material was regurgitated
None.

Regurgitation is an indication that the dose was rejected. If this problem persists, the test should be repeated.
Groups on which necropsies were performed
All birds that survived until study termination.
Tissues examined included digestive tract, liver, kidneys, heart, spleen, muscle, and subcutaneous fat.

Gross necropsies should be performed with inspections of the GI tract, liver, kidneys, heart, and spleen.
Observation intervals
Birds were observed at least twice daily during the study and continuously for a minimum of one hour immediately after dosing. Mean feed consumption was determined on Days -14 to -8, -7 to -1, 1 to 7, and 8 to 14. Body weights were measured individually on Days -14, -7, 0 (prior to dosing), 7, and 14.

Were raw data included?
Yes.

II. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

   A. MORTALITY:

   There were no mortalities in the control group or in the 2000 mg a.i./kg bw treatment group. The 14-day LD50 was >2000 mg a.i./kg bw.

Table 3:  Effect of DCPA on Mortality of Zebra Finch.
                                   Treatment
                               (mg a.i./kg bw )
                                 No. of Birds
                             Cumulative Mortality

                                     day 0
                                     day 2
                                     day 6
                                    day 10
                                    day 14
Vehicle control
10 (5♂, 5♀)
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
2000
10 (5♂, 5♀)
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
                                       0
NOAEL
2000 mg a.i./kg bw
LD50
>2000 mg a.i./kg bw
Reference chemical
mortality
N/A

LD50
N/A

NOAEL
N/A

   B. SUBLETHAL TOXICITY ENDPOINTS:

   No clinical signs of toxicity were seen in the control group, however wiping of the beak (on perches or other cage surfaces) was noted by the study author in 2 females. This observation was made between 26-40 minutes after dose administration. The study author considered to be a response to residual traces of vehicle present in the mouth following removal of the dosing catheter. This observation had resolved between 1-2 hours after dosing. In the 2000 mg a.i./kg bw treatment group, wiping of the beak was noted by the study author in 3 males and 1 female between 22-39 minutes after dosing. In addition, ruffled feathers were noted in three (3) females between 14-40 minutes after dosing and underactivity in three (3) female birds between 15-56 minutes after dosing. These signs had resolved 2-3 hours after dosing.

   No emesis or regurgitation was observed in any birds after dosing.

   There were no treatment-related trends in mean body weight or food consumption throughout the study.

   No macroscopic abnormalities were found at necropsy in any birds examined.

Table 4:  Sub-lethal Effects of DCPA on Zebra Finch.
                      Mean Body Weights (and Changes), g
Treatment
(mg a.i./kg bw)
Males
Females

                                    Day -14
                                    Day -7
                                     Day 0
                                     Day 7
                                    Day 14
                                    Day -14
                                    Day -7
                                     Day 0
                                     Day 7
                                    Day 14
Vehicle control
                                     20.1
                                  20.6 (0.5)
                                     19.6
                                    (-1.0)
                                  21.5 (1.9)
                                     20.7
                                    (-0.8)
                                  17.0 (0.4)
                                     17.4
                                    (-1.1)
                                  16.3 (1.4)
                                  17.7 (1.4)
                                  17.8 (0.1)
2000
                                     16.9
                                  16.9 (0.0)
                                     15.5
                                    (-1.4)
                                  16.6 (1.1)
                                  16.7 (0.1)
                                     19.5
                                     19.3
                                    (-0.2)
                                     17.8
                                    (-1.5)
                                  19.7 (1.9)
                                     19.6
                                    (-0.1)
NOAEL
Not reported
Not reported
EC50
Not reported
Not reported
                       Mean Feed Consumption, g/bird/day
Treatment
(mg a.i./kg bw)
Males
Females

                                Days -14 to -8
                                 Days -7 to 1
                                  Days 1 to 7
                                 Days 8 to 14
                                Days -14 to -8
                                 Days -7 to 1
                                  Days 1 to 7
                                 Days 8 to 14
Vehicle control
                                      3.7
                                      4.4
                                      4.9
                                      4.5
                                      6.7
                                      4.4
                                      4.7
                                      4.0
2000
                                      6.6
                                      4.5
                                      5.2
                                      5.6
                                      5.7
                                      4.3
                                      4.8
                                      4.6
NOAEL
Not reported
EC50
Not reported
Reference chemical
effect
NOAEL
LD50
N/A

	C. REPORTED STATISTICS:

   LD50 values were determined using SAFEStat.

   D. VERIFICATION OF STATISTICAL RESULTS:

Statistical Method:  Data were entered into CETIS statistical software version <IP_ADDRESS> with database backend settings implemented by EFED on 10/20/15. The LD50 value was visually estimated to be greater than the single treatment level based on a complete lack of mortality.

   LD50: >2000 mg a.i./kg bw				95% C.I.:  N/A
   Probit slope:  N/A						95% C.I.:  N/A

   Endpoint(s) affected:  None

   E.  STUDY DEFICIENCIES:

 The stability of the compound under the test conditions was not verified. However, prior to the main test a homogeneity and stability trail was undertaken, to assess the suitability of the formulation methods and storage. Results showed that the formulation procedures and storage at ambient temperature (nominally +21°C) and refrigerated (nominally +4°C) for 48 hours were satisfactory at the nominal concentration of 400 mg/mL. Full details are available in the study report in Annex 2. This is considered a minor deviation.

   F.  REVIEWER'S COMMENTS:

	The reviewer's conclusions agreed with the study author's.

   The observation of beak wiping may potentially be related to the vehicle carrier that was used, 1% methylcellulose. Although this specific vehicle carrier may be different than recommended in OCSPP guideline, it does not appear to have had a toxic effect on the test birds nor does it appear to have affected the dose amount entering the birds. The dose volume of per bird was 5 mL/kg bw per bird as recommended in OCSPP guideline, and dosing precision was to the nearest 0.01 mL. The dose volumes administered to individual birds are listed in Appendix 3. This is considered a minor deviation.

   In-life study dates were 20 May to 03 June 2014.

   G. CONCLUSIONS:

   This study is scientifically sound and classified as supplemental and may be used to calculate risk quotients. No mortalities were observed in the control or any of the treatment groups. Wiping of the beak was observed in all treatment groups on the day of dosing but had resolved by 3-hours post-dosing. There were no treatment-related effects on food consumption or on body weight at any dosage level tested. Based upon the lack of treatment-related mortalities and sublethal effects, the observational NOAEL was 2000 mg a.i./kg bw. The acute-oral LD50 was >2000 mg a.i./kg bw.

   LD50: >2000 mg a.i./kg bw			95% C.I.: N/A
   Probit slope: N/A 					95% C.I.: N/A

   Endpoint(s) Affected: None

III.  REFERENCES:

		None reported.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 43 (Thursday, March 5, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11859-11863]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05047]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0383; Special Conditions No. 25-578-SC]

Special Conditions: Bombardier Aerospace, Models BD-500-1A10 and
BD-500-1A11 Series Airplanes; Alternate Fuel Tank Structural Lightning
Protection Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Bombardier
Aerospace Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes. These
airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to
the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for
transport category airplanes. This design feature is a nitrogen
generation system (NGS) for all fuel tanks that actively reduces
flammability exposure within the fuel tanks significantly below that
required by the fuel tank flammability regulations. Among other
benefits, the NGS significantly reduces the potential for fuel vapor
ignition caused by lightning strikes. The applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for
this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional
safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to
establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Bombardier Aerospace on April 6,
2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Langsted, FAA, Propulsion and
Mechanical Systems Branch, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington, 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On December 10, 2009, Bombardier Aerospace applied for a type
certificate for their new Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series
airplanes (hereafter collectively referred to as ``CSeries''). The
CSeries airplanes are swept-wing monoplanes with a composite wing fuel
tank structure and an aluminum alloy fuselage that is sized for 5-
abreast seating. Passenger capacity is designated as 110 for the Model
BD-500-1A10 and 125 for the Model BD-500-1A11. Maximum takeoff weight
is 131,000 pounds for the Model BD-500-1A10 and 144,000 pounds for the
Model BD-500-1A11.

Type Certification Basis

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

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The CSeries airplanes will incorporate the following novel or
unusual design feature: A fuel tank nitrogen generation system (NGS)
that is intended to control fuel tank flammability for all fuel tanks.
This NGS is designed to provide a level of performance to all fuel
tanks of the CSeries airplanes that applies the more stringent standard
for warm day flammability performance applicable to normally emptied
tanks within the fuselage contour from Sec.  25.981(b) and appendix M
to part 25. An NGS actively reduces flammability exposure within the
fuel tanks significantly below that required by the fuel tank
flammability regulations. Among other benefits, the NGS significantly
reduces the potential for fuel vapor ignition caused by lightning
strikes. This high level of NGS performance for all fuel tanks is a
novel or unusual design feature compared to the state of technology
envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category
airplanes.

Discussion

    The certification basis of the CSeries airplanes includes Sec.
25.981, as amended by Amendment 25-125, as required by 14 CFR 26.37.
This amendment includes the ignition prevention requirements in Sec.
25.981(a), as amended by Amendment 25-102, and it includes revised
flammability limits for all fuel tanks and new specific limitations on
flammability for all fuel tanks as defined in Sec.  25.981(b), as
amended by Amendment 25-125.

Ignition Source Prevention

    Section 25.981(a)(3) requires applicants to show that an ignition
source in the fuel tank system could not result from any single
failure, from any single failure in combination with any latent failure
condition not shown to be extremely remote, or from any combination of
failures not shown to be extremely improbable. This requirement was
originally adopted in Amendment 25-102, and it requires the assumption
that the fuel tanks are always flammable when showing that the
probability of an ignition source being present is extremely remote.
(Amendment 25-102 included Sec.  25.981(c) that required minimizing
fuel tank flammability, and this was defined in the preamble as being
equivalent to unheated aluminum fuel tanks located in the wing.) This
requirement defines three types of scenarios that must be addressed in
order to show compliance with Sec.  25.981(a)(3). The first scenario is
that any single failure, regardless of the probability of occurrence of
the failure, must not cause an ignition source. The second scenario is
that any single failure, regardless of the probability of occurrence,
in combination with any latent failure condition not shown to be at
least extremely remote, must not cause an ignition source. The third
scenario is that any combination of failures not shown to be extremely
improbable must not cause an ignition source. Demonstration of
compliance with this requirement would typically require a structured,
quantitative safety analysis. Design areas that have latent failure
conditions typically would be driven by these requirements to have
multiple fault tolerance, or ``triple redundancy.'' This means that
ignition

sources are still prevented even after two independent failures.

Flammability Limits

    Section 25.981(b) states that no fuel tank fleet average
flammability exposure may exceed 3 percent of the flammability exposure
evaluation time calculated using the method in part 25, appendix N, or
the fleet average flammability of a fuel tank within the wing of the
airplane being evaluated, whichever is greater. If the wing is not a
conventional unheated aluminum wing, the analysis must be based on an
assumed equivalent conventional construction unheated aluminum wing. In
addition, for fuel tanks that are normally emptied during operation and
that have any part of the tank located within the fuselage contour, the
fleet average flammability for warm days (above 80 [deg]F) must be
limited to 3 percent as calculated using the method in part 25,
appendix M.

Application of Existing Regulations Inappropriate Due to Impracticality

    Since the issuance of Sec.  25.981(a)(3), as amended by Amendment
25-102, the FAA has conducted certification projects in which
applicants found it impractical to meet the requirements of that
regulation for some areas of lightning protection for fuel tank
structure. Partial exemptions were issued for these projects. These
same difficulties exist for the CSeries project.
    The difficulty of designing multiple-fault-tolerant structure, and
the difficulty of detecting failures of hidden structural design
features in general, makes compliance with Sec.  25.981(a)(3) uniquely
challenging and impractical for certain aspects of the electrical
bonding of structural elements. Such bonding is needed to prevent
occurrence of fuel tank ignition sources from lightning strikes. The
effectiveness and fault tolerance of electrical bonding features for
structural joints and fasteners is partially dependent on design
features that cannot be effectively inspected or tested after assembly
without damaging the structure, joint, or fastener. Examples of such
features include a required interference fit between the shank of a
fastener and the hole in which the fastener is installed, metal foil or
mesh imbedded in composite material, a required clamping force provided
by a fastener to pull two structural parts together, and a required
faying surface bond between the flush surfaces of adjacent pieces of
structural material such as in a wing skin joint or a mounting bracket
installation. In addition, other features that can be physically
inspected or tested may be located within the fuel tanks; therefore, it
is not practical to inspect for failures of those features at short
intervals. Examples of such failures include separation or loosening of
cap seals over fastener ends and actual structural failures of internal
fasteners. This inability to practically detect manufacturing errors
and failures of structural design features critical to lightning
protection results in degraded conditions that occur and remain in
place for a very long time, possibly for the remaining life of the
airplane.
    Accounting for such long failure latency periods in the system
safety analysis required by Sec.  25.981(a)(3) would require multiple
fault tolerance in the structural lightning protection design. As part
of the design development activity for the CSeries, Bombardier has
examined possible design provisions to provide multiple fault tolerance
in the structural design to prevent ignition sources from occurring in
the event of lightning attachment to the airplane in critical
locations. Bombardier has concluded from this examination that
providing multiple fault tolerance for some structural elements is not
practical. Bombardier has also identified some areas of the CSeries
design where it is impractical to provide even single fault tolerance
in the structural design to prevent ignition sources from occurring in
the event of lightning attachment after a single failure. The FAA has
reviewed this examination with Bombardier in detail and has agreed that
providing fault tolerance beyond that in the proposed CSeries design
for these areas would be impractical.
    As a result of the CSeries and other certifications projects, the
FAA has now determined that compliance with Sec.  25.981(a)(3) is
impractical for some areas of lightning protection for fuel tank
structure, and that application of Sec.  25.981(a)(3) to those design
areas is therefore inappropriate. The FAA plans further rulemaking to
revise Sec.  25.981(a)(3). As appropriate, the FAA plans to issue
special conditions or exemptions, for certification projects
progressing before the revision is complete. This is discussed in FAA
Memorandum ANM-112-08-002, Policy on Issuance of Special Conditions and
Exemptions Related to Lightning Protection of Fuel Tank Structure,
dated May 26, 2009.

Application of Existing Regulations Inappropriate Due to Compensating
Feature That Provides Equivalent Level of Safety

    Section 25.981(b) sets specific standards for fuel tank
flammability as discussed above under ``Flammability Limits.'' Under
that regulation, the fleet average flammability exposure of all fuel
tanks on the CSeries airplanes may not exceed 3 percent of the
flammability exposure evaluation time calculated using the method in
part 25, appendix N, or the fleet average flammability of a wing main
tank within an equivalent construction conventional unheated aluminum
wing fuel tank, whichever is greater. The typical fleet average fuel
tank flammability of fuel tanks located in the wing ranges between 1
and 5 percent. If it is assumed that a CSeries equivalent conventional
unheated aluminum wing fuel tank would not exceed a fleet average
flammability time of 3 percent, the actual composite airplane wing fuel
tank design would be required to comply with the 3 percent fleet
average flammability standard, and therefore a means to reduce the
flammability to 3 percent would be required. However, the proposed
CSeries design includes NGS for all fuel tanks that will also be shown
to meet the additional, more stringent warm day average flammability
standard in part 25, appendix M, which is only required for normally
emptied fuel tanks with some part of the tank within the fuselage
contour. Fuel tanks that meet this requirement typically have average
fuel tank flammability levels well below the required 3 percent.
    Since the proposed NGS for all fuel tanks on the CSeries provides
performance that meets part 25, appendix M, the FAA has determined that
the risk reduction provided by this additional performance will provide
compensation for some relief from the ignition prevention requirements
of Sec.  25.981(a)(3) while still establishing a level of safety
equivalent to that established in the regulations.
    In determining the appropriate amount of relief from the ignition
prevention requirements of Sec.  25.981(a), the FAA considered the
original overall intent of Amendment 25-102, which was to ensure the
prevention of catastrophic events due to fuel tank vapor explosion.
These special conditions are intended to achieve that objective through
a prescriptive requirement that fault tolerance (with respect to the
creation of an ignition source) be provided for all structural
lightning protection design features where providing such fault
tolerance is

practical, and through a performance-based standard for the risk due to
any single failure vulnerability that exists in the design. In
addition, for any structural lightning protection design features for
which Bombardier shows that providing fault tolerance is impractical,
these special conditions would require Bombardier to show that a fuel
tank vapor ignition event due to the summed risk of all non-fault-
tolerant design features is extremely improbable. Bombardier would be
required to show that this safety objective is met by the proposed
design using a structured system safety assessment similar to that
currently used for demonstrating compliance with Sec. Sec.  25.901 and
25.1309.
    Given these novel or unusual design features, and the compliance
challenges noted earlier in this document, the FAA has determined that
application of Sec.  25.981(a)(3) is inappropriate in that it is
neither practical nor necessary to apply the ignition source prevention
provisions of Sec.  25.981(a)(3) to the specific fuel tank structural
lightning protection features of the Bombardier CSeries airplanes.
However, without the Sec.  25.981(a)(3) provisions, the remaining
applicable regulations in the CSeries certification basis would be
inadequate to set an appropriate standard for fuel tank ignition
prevention. Therefore, in accordance with provisions of Sec.  21.16,
the FAA has determined that, instead of Sec.  25.981(a)(3), alternative
fuel tank structural lightning protection requirements be applied to
fuel tank lightning protection features that are integral to the
airframe structure of the CSeries airplanes. These alternative
requirements are intended to provide the level of safety intended by
Sec.  25.981(a)(3), based on our recognition, as discussed above, that
a highly effective NGS for the fuel tanks makes it unnecessary to
assume that the fuel tank is always flammable. As discussed previously,
the assumption that the fuel tanks are always flammable was required
when demonstrating compliance to the ignition prevention requirements
of Sec.  25.981(a)(3).
    One resulting difference between these special conditions and the
Sec.  25.981(a)(3) provisions they are meant to replace is the outcome
being prevented--fuel vapor ignition versus an ignition source. These
special conditions acknowledge that the application of fuel tank
flammability performance standards will reduce fuel tank flammability
to an extent that it is appropriate to consider the beneficial effects
of flammability reduction when considering design areas where it is
impractical to comply with Sec.  25.981(a)(3).
    One of the core requirements of these special conditions is a
prescriptive requirement that structural lightning protection design
features must be fault tolerant. (An exception wherein Bombardier can
show that providing fault tolerance is impractical, and associated
requirements, is discussed below.) The other core requirement is that
Bombardier must show that the design, manufacturing processes, and
Airworthiness Limitations section of the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness include all practical measures to prevent, and detect and
correct, failures of structural lightning protection features due to
manufacturing variability, aging, wear, corrosion, and likely damage.
The FAA has determined that, if these core requirements are met, a fuel
tank vapor ignition event due to lightning is not anticipated to occur
in the life of the airplane fleet. This conclusion is based on the fact
that a critical lightning strike to any given airplane is itself a
remote event, and on the fact that fuel tanks must be shown to be
flammable for only a relatively small portion of the fleet operational
life.
    For any non-fault-tolerant features proposed in the design,
Bombardier must show that eliminating these features or making them
fault tolerant is impractical. The requirements and considerations for
showing it is impractical to provide fault tolerance are described in
FAA Memorandum ANM-112-08-002. This requirement is intended to minimize
the number of non-fault tolerant features in the design.
    For areas of the design where Bombardier shows that providing fault
tolerant structural lightning protection features is impractical, non-
fault-tolerant features will be allowed provided Bombardier can show
that a fuel tank vapor ignition event due to the non-fault-tolerant
features is extremely improbable when the sum of probabilities of those
events due to all non-fault-tolerant features is considered. Bombardier
will be required to submit a structured, quantitative assessment of
fleet average risk for a fuel tank vapor ignition event due to all non-
fault-tolerant design features included in the design. This will
require determination of the number of non-fault tolerant design
features, estimates of the probability of the failure of each non-
fault-tolerant design feature, and estimates of the exposure time for
those failures. This analysis must include failures due to
manufacturing variability, aging, wear, corrosion, and likely damage.
    It is acceptable to consider the probability of fuel tank
flammability, the probability of a lightning strike to the airplane,
the probability of a lightning strike to specific zones of the airplane
(for example, Zone 2 behind the nacelle, but not a specific location or
feature), and a distribution of lightning strike amplitude in
performing the assessment provided the associated assumptions are
acceptable to the FAA. The analysis must account for any dependencies
among these factors, if they are used. The assessment must also account
for operation with inoperative features and systems, including any
proposed or anticipated dispatch relief. This risk assessment
requirement is intended to ensure that an acceptable level of safety is
provided given the non-fault-tolerant features in the proposed design.
    Part 25, appendix N, as adopted in Amendment 25-125, in conjunction
with these special conditions, constitutes the standard for how to
determine flammability probability. In performing the safety analysis
required by these special conditions, relevant Sec.  25.981(a)(3)
compliance guidance is still applicable. Appropriate credit for the
conditional probability of environmental or operational conditions
occurring is normally limited to those provisions involving multiple
failures, and this type of credit is not normally allowed in evaluation
of single failures. However, these special conditions would allow
consideration of the probability of occurrence of lightning attachment
and flammable conditions when assessing the probability of structural
failures resulting in a fuel tank vapor ignition event.
    The FAA understands that lightning protection safety for airplane
structure is inherently different from lightning protection for
systems. We intend to apply these special conditions only to structural
lightning protection features of fuel systems. We do not intend to
apply the alternative standards used under these special conditions to
other areas of the airplane design evaluation.

Requirements Provide Equivalent Level of Safety

    In recognition of the unusual design feature discussed above, and
the impracticality of requiring multiple fault tolerance for lightning
protection of certain aspects of fuel tank structure, the FAA has
determined that a level of safety that is equivalent to direct
compliance with Sec.  25.981(a)(3) will be achieved for the CSeries by
applying these requirements. The FAA considers that, instead of only
concentrating on fault tolerance for ignition source prevention,
significantly reducing fuel tank flammability exposure in addition

to preventing ignition sources is a better approach to lightning
protection for the fuel tanks. In addition, the level of average fuel
tank flammability achieved by compliance with these special conditions
is low enough that it is not appropriate or accurate to assume in a
safety analysis that the fuel tanks may always be flammable.
    Section 25.981(b), as amended by Amendment 25-125, sets limits on
the allowable fuel tank flammability for the CSeries airplanes.
Paragraph 2(a) of these special conditions applies the more stringent
standard for warm day flammability performance applicable to normally
emptied tanks within the fuselage contour from Sec.  25.981(b) and part
25, appendix M, to all of the fuel tanks of the CSeries airplanes.
    Because of the more stringent fuel tank flammability requirements
in these special conditions, and because the flammability state of a
fuel tank is independent of the various failures of structural elements
that could lead to an ignition source in the event of lightning
attachment, the FAA has agreed that it is appropriate in this case to
allow treatment of flammability as an independent factor in the safety
analysis. The positive control of flammability and the lower
flammability that is required by these special conditions exceeds the
minimum requirements of Sec.  25.981(b). This offsets a reduction of
the stringent standard for ignition source prevention in Sec.
25.981(a)(3), which assumes that the fuel tank is flammable at all
times.
    Given the stringent requirements for fuel tank flammability, the
fuel vapor ignition prevention and the ignition source prevention
requirements in these special conditions will prevent ``. . .
catastrophic failure . . . due to ignition of fuel or vapors'' as
stated in Sec.  25.981(a). Thus, the overall level of safety achieved
by these special conditions is considered equivalent to that which
would be required by compliance with Sec.  25.981(a)(3) and (b).

Discussion of Comments

    Notice of proposed special conditions No. 25-14-05 for the
Bombardier CSeries airplanes was published in the Federal Register on
July 25, 2014 (79 FR 43318). No comments were received, and the special
conditions are adopted as proposed.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Models BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes. Should Bombardier
Aerospace apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to
include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design
feature, the special conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

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

The Special Conditions

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Bombardier Aerospace Models BD-500-
1A10 and BD-500-1A11 series airplanes.

Alternate Fuel Tank Structural Lightning Protection Requirements

1. Definitions

    Most of the terms used in these special conditions either have the
common dictionary meaning or are defined in Advisory Circular 25.1309-
1A, System Design and Analysis, dated June 21, 1988. The following
definitions are the only terms intended to have a specialized meaning
when used in these special conditions:
    (a) Basic Airframe Structure. Includes design elements such as
structural members, structural joint features, and fastener systems
including airplane skins, ribs, spars, stringers, etc., and associated
fasteners, joints, coatings, and sealant. Basic airframe structure may
also include those structural elements that are expected to be removed
for maintenance, such as exterior fuel tank access panels and fairing
attachment features, provided maintenance errors that could compromise
associated lightning protection features would be evident upon an
exterior preflight inspection of the airplane and would be corrected
prior to flight.
    (b) Permanent Systems Supporting Structure. Includes static,
permanently attached structural parts (such as brackets) that are used
to support system elements. It does not include any part intended to be
removed, or any joint intended to be separated, to maintain or replace
system elements or other parts, unless that part removal or joint
separation is accepted by the FAA as being extremely remote.
    (c) Manufacturing Variability. Includes tolerances and variability
allowed by the design and production specifications as well as
anticipated errors or escapes from the manufacturing and inspection
processes.
    (d) Extremely Remote. Conditions that are not anticipated to occur
to each airplane during its total life, but which may occur a few times
when considering the total operational life of all airplanes of one
type. Extremely remote conditions are those having an average
probability per flight hour on the order of 1 x 10-7 or
less, but greater than on the order of 1 x 10-9.
    (e) Extremely Improbable. Conditions that are so unlikely that they
are not anticipated to occur during the entire operational life of all
airplanes of one type. Extremely improbable conditions are those having
an average probability per flight hour of the order of 1 x
10-9 or less.

2. Alternative Fuel Tank Structural Lightning Protection Requirements

    For lightning protection features that are integral to fuel tank
basic airframe structure or permanent systems supporting structure, as
defined in Special Condition No. 1, ``Definitions,'' for which
Bombardier shows and the FAA finds compliance with Sec.  25.981(a)(3)
to be impractical, the following requirements may be applied in lieu of
the requirements of Sec.  25.981(a)(3):
    (a) Bombardier must show that the airplane design meets the
requirements of part 25, appendix M, as amended by Amendment 25-125,
for all fuel tanks installed on the airplane.
    (b) Bombardier must show that the design includes at least two
independent, effective, and reliable lightning protection features (or
sets of features) such that fault tolerance to prevent lightning-
related ignition sources is provided for each area of the structural
design proposed to be shown compliant with these special conditions in
lieu of compliance with the requirements of Sec.  25.981(a)(3). Fault
tolerance is not required for any specific design feature if:
    (1) For that feature, providing fault tolerance is shown to be
impractical, and
    (2) Fuel tank vapor ignition due to that feature and all other non-
fault-tolerant features, when their fuel tank vapor ignition event
probabilities are summed, is shown to be extremely improbable.

    (c) Bombardier must perform an analysis to show that the design,
manufacturing processes, and the airworthiness limitations section of
the instructions for continued airworthiness include all practical
measures to prevent, and detect and correct, failures of structural
lightning protection features due to manufacturing variability, aging,
wear, corrosion, and likely damage.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 25, 2015.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-05047 Filed 3-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 73 (Tuesday, April 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22598-22599]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08880]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0026]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 7 individuals for
exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in
one eye for various reasons. The exemptions will enable these
individuals to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate
commerce without meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye.
If granted, the exemptions would enable these individuals to qualify as
drivers of commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 16, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0026 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on December
29, 2010 (75 FR 82132), or you may visit http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-29/pdf/2010-32876.pdf.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.'' FMCSA can renew exemptions at the end of each
2-year period. The 7 individuals listed in this notice have each
requested such an exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce.
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.

Qualifications of Applicants

Fred Boggs

    Mr. Boggs, age 57, has had amblyopia in his left eye since
childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left
eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2012, his optometrist noted,
``It is my professional opinion that Mr. Boggs has sufficient vision to
operate a commercial vehicle without any concern of restrictions.'' Mr.
Boggs reported that he has driven straight trucks for 10 years,
accumulating 600,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 10
years, accumulating 600,000 miles. He holds a Class A Commercial
Driver's License (CDL) from West Virginia. His driving record for the
last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations
in a CMV.

James M. Del Sasso

    Mr. Del Sasso, 48, has had a macular pucker in his left eye since
2000. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his left eye,
20/150. Following an examination in 2012, his ophthalmologist noted,
``He may have possible depth perception issues with driving, or other
visually-related tasks, but I feel he should have sufficient vision to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Del Sasso reported that he has driven straight trucks for 2 years,
accumulating 100,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 19
years, accumulating 1.9 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
one conviction for a moving violation in a CMV; he exceeded the speed
limit by 13 mph.

Stephen R. Dykstra

    Mr. Dykstra, 58, has had a scarred corneal retinal detachment in
his right eye due to a traumatic incident 21 years ago. The best
corrected visual acuity in his right eye is hand motion, and in his
left eye, 20/30. Following an examination in 2012, his optometrist
noted, ``Unless driving record would suggest otherwise, I do not feel
that this vision impairment would prevent him from being able to
perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial vehicle.''
Mr. Dykstra reported that he has driven straight trucks for 5 years,
accumulating 40,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 15
years, accumulating 1.05 million miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Wisconsin. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Troy A. Gray

    Mr. Gray, 26, has had amblyopia in his left eye since early
childhood. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20,
and in his left eye, counting fingers. Following an examination in
2012, his optometrist noted, ``I certify that, in my medical opinion,
Troy Gray has sufficient vision to perform the driving tasks required
to operate a commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Gray reported that he has driven
straight

trucks for 5 years, accumulating 25,000 miles. He holds a chauffeur's
license from Michigan. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Darryl W. Hardy

    Mr. Hardy, 46, has had toxoplasmosis in his right eye since birth.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/400, and in his
left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2012, his ophthalmologist
noted, ``In my medical opinion, I certify the Mr. Hardy has sufficient
vision to perform the driving tasks required to operate a commercial
vehicle.'' Mr. Hardy reported that he has driven straight trucks for
7.5 years, accumulating 41,250 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations
for 21 years, accumulating 115,500 miles. He holds a Class B CDL from
Alabama. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

George E. Mulherrin, III

    Mr. Mulherrin, 51, has had a prosthetic left eye since childhood.
The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and in his
left eye, no light perception. Following an examination in 2013, his
ophthalmologist noted, ``George E. Mulherrin, III has mononocular
visual function using the right eye which is adequate to operate a
commercial vehicle.'' Mr. Mulherrin reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 22 years, accumulating 594 miles. He holds a Class
B CDL from Pennsylvania. His driving record for the last 3 years shows
no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Nathan G. Pettis

    Mr. Pettis, 33, has had choroidal melanoma in his left eye since
2005. The best corrected visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and
in his left eye, light perception. Following an examination in 2012,
his optometrist noted, ``Based on his driving history and the way he
has compensated for the vision loss, I am convinced Mr. Pettis, in my
medical opinion, can operate a commercial vehicle safely.'' Mr. Pettis
reported that he has driven straight trucks for 14 years, accumulating
350,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for 14 years,
accumulating 770,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from Florida. His
driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and no convictions
for moving violations in a CMV.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. The Agency will consider all comments
received before the close of business May 16, 2013. Comments will be
available for examination in the docket at the location listed under
the ADDRESSES section of this notice. The Agency will file comments
received after the comment closing date in the public docket, and will
consider them to the extent practicable.
    In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in
the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after
the comment closing date. Interested persons should monitor the public
docket for new material.

    Issued on: April 9, 2013.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-08880 Filed 4-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2124-2125]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00436]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER20-744-000]

Actual Energy, 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
Actual Energy, 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 January
28, 2020.
    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 website 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: January 8, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-00436 Filed 1-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 37)]
[Notices]
[Page 10033-10035]
[DOCID:fr25fe08-77]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2008-N-0094]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Channels of Trade Policy for Commodities With Residues
of Pesticide Chemicals, for Which Tolerances Have Been Revoked,
Suspended, or Modified by the Environmental Protection Agency Pursuant
to Dietary Risk Considerations

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on the information collection
provisions of FDA's guidance for industry entitled ``Channels of Trade
Policy for Commodities With Residues of Pesticide Chemicals, for Which
Tolerances Have Been Revoked, Suspended, or Modified by the
Environmental Protection Agency Pursuant to Dietary Risk
Considerations.''

DATES: Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of
information by April 25, 2008.

ADDRESSES:  Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonna Capezzuto, Office of the Chief
Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Channels of Trade Policy for Commodities With Residues of Pesticide
Chemicals, for Which Tolerances Have Been Revoked, Suspended, or
Modified by the Environmental Protection Agency Pursuant to Dietary
Risk Considerations (OMB Control Number 0910-0562)--Extension

    The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), which amended the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act), established a new
safety standard for pesticide residues in food, with an emphasis on
protecting the health of infants and children. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for regulating the use of
pesticides (under FIFRA) and for establishing tolerances or exemptions
from the requirement for tolerances for residues of pesticide chemicals
in food commodities (under the act). EPA, in accordance with the FQPA,
is in the process of reassessing the pesticide

tolerances and exemptions which were in effect when the FQPA was signed
into law. When EPA determines that a pesticide's tolerance level does
not meet the safety standard under section 408 of the act (21 U.S.C.
346a), the registration for the pesticide may be canceled under FIFRA
for all or certain uses. In addition, the tolerances for that pesticide
may be lowered or revoked for the corresponding food commodities. Under
section 408(l)(2) of the act, when the registration for a pesticide is
canceled or modified due to, in whole or in part, dietary risks to
humans posed by residues of that pesticide chemical on food, the
effective date for the revocation of such tolerance (or exemption in
some cases) must be no later than 180 days after the date such
cancellation becomes effective or 180 days after the date on which the
use of the canceled pesticide becomes unlawful under the terms of the
cancellation, whichever is later.
    When EPA takes such actions, food derived from a commodity that was
lawfully treated with the pesticide may not have cleared the channels
of trade by the time the revocation or new tolerance level takes
effect. The food could be found by FDA, the agency that is responsible
for monitoring pesticide residue levels and enforcing the pesticide
tolerances in most foods (the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has
responsibility for monitoring residue levels and enforcing pesticide
tolerances in egg products and most meat and poultry products), to
contain a residue of that pesticide that does not comply with the
revoked or lowered tolerance. FDA would normally deem such food to be
in violation of the law by virtue of it bearing an illegal pesticide
residue. The food would be subject to FDA enforcement action as an
``adulterated'' food. However, the channels of trade provision of the
act (section 408(l)(5) of the act) addresses the circumstances under
which a food is not unsafe solely due to the presence of a residue from
a pesticide chemical for which the tolerance has been revoked,
suspended, or modified by EPA. The channels of trade provision states
that food containing a residue of such a pesticide shall not be deemed
``adulterated'' by virtue of the residue, if the residue is within the
former tolerance, and the responsible party can demonstrate to FDA's
satisfaction that the residue is present as the result of an
application of the pesticide at a time and in a manner which were
lawful under FIFRA.
    In the Federal Register of May 18, 2005 (70 FR 28544), FDA
announced the availability of a guidance document entitled, ``Channels
of Trade Policy for Commodities With Residues of Pesticide Chemicals,
for Which Tolerances Have Been Revoked, Suspended, or Modified by the
Environmental Protection Agency Pursuant to Dietary Risk
Considerations.'' The guidance represents the agency's current thinking
on its planned enforcement approach to the channels of trade provision
of the act and how that provision relates to FDA-regulated products
with residues of pesticide chemicals for which tolerances have been
revoked, suspended, or modified by EPA under dietary risk
considerations. The guidance can be found at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/
guidance.html. FDA anticipates that food bearing lawfully applied
residues of pesticide chemicals that are the subject of future EPA
action to revoke, suspend, or modify their tolerances, will remain in
the channels of trade after the applicable tolerance is revoked,
suspended, or modified. If FDA encounters food bearing a residue of a
pesticide chemical for which the tolerance has been revoked, suspended,
or modified, it intends to address the situation in accordance with
provisions of the guidance. In general, FDA anticipates that the party
responsible for food found to contain pesticide chemical residues
(within the former tolerance) after the tolerance for the pesticide
chemical has been revoked, suspended, or modified will be able to
demonstrate that such food was handled, e.g., packed or processed,
during the acceptable timeframes cited in the guidance by providing
appropriate documentation to the agency as discussed in the guidance
document. FDA is not suggesting that firms maintain an inflexible set
of documents where anything less or different would likely be
considered unacceptable. Rather, the agency is leaving it to each
firm's discretion to maintain appropriate documentation to demonstrate
that the food was so handled during the acceptable timeframes.
    Examples of documentation which FDA anticipates will serve this
purpose consist of documentation associated with packing codes, batch
records, and inventory records. These are types of documents that many
food processors routinely generate as part of their basic food-
production operations.
    FDA is requesting the extension of OMB approval for the information
collection provisions in the guidance.
    Description of Respondents: The likely respondents to this
collection of information are firms in the produce and food-processing
industries that handle food products that may contain residues of
pesticide chemicals after the tolerances for the pesticide chemicals
have been revoked, suspended, or modified.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              No. of         Annual Frequency       Total Annual        Hours per
                       Activity                            Respondents         per Response          Responses           Response         Total Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of documentation                                             1                     1                  1                  3                  3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    FDA expects the total number of pesticide tolerances that are
revoked, suspended, or modified by EPA in the next 3 years to
significantly decrease, as EPA concludes its review activity. Thus, the
above estimates for respondents and numbers of responses in table 1 of
this document are based on the submissions that the agency has received
in the past 3 years and the expectation that the number of submissions
will significantly decrease in the next 3 years. However, to avoid
counting this burden as zero, FDA has estimated the burden at one
respondent making one submission a year for a total of one annual
submission.
    The hours per response values were estimated as follows: First, we
assumed that the information requested in this guidance is readily
available to the submitter. We expect that the submitter will need to
gather information from appropriate persons in the submitter's company
and to prepare this information for submission to FDA. The submitter
will almost always merely need to copy existing documentation. We
believe that this effort should take no longer than 3 hours per
submission.

                                                   Table 2.--Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              No. of         Annual Frequency       Total Annual
                       Activity                           Recordkeepers      per Recordkeeping        Records       Hours per  Record     Total Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Develop documentation process                                           1                     1                  1                 16                 16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    In determining the estimated annual recordkeeping burden, FDA
estimated that at least 90 percent of firms maintain documentation,
such as packing codes, batch records, and inventory records, as part of
their basic food production or import operations. Therefore, the
recordkeeping burden was calculated as the time required for the 10
percent of firms that may not be currently maintaining this
documentation to develop and maintain documentation, such as batch
records and inventory records. In previous information collection
requests, this recordkeeping burden was estimated to be 16 hours.
Although FDA estimates that only 1 out of 10 firms will not be
currently maintaining the necessary documentation, to avoid counting
the recordkeeping burden for the one submission per year as zero, FDA
has retained its prior estimate of 16 hours for the recordkeeping
burden.
    Please note that on January 15, 2008, the FDA Web site transitioned
to the Federal Dockets Management System (FDMS). FDMS is a Government-
wide, electronic docket management system. Electronic submissions will
be accepted by FDA through FDMS only.

    Dated: February 15, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-3415 Filed 2-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 177 (Thursday, September 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56224-56225]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22153]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3401-049]

Hydro Nelson, Ltd.; Hydro-WM, LLC; Notice of Transfer of
Exemption

    1. By documentation filed July 8, 2013 and supplemented on
September 4, 2013, Hydro-WM, LLC informed the Commission that the
exemption from licensing for the Walker Mill Dam Project, FERC No.
3401, originally issued March 26, 1982,\1\ has been transferred to
Hydro-WM, LLC. The project is located on the Rockfish River in Nelson
County, Virginia. The transfer of an exemption does not require
Commission approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 FERC ] 62,525, Order Granting Exemption From Licensing of
a Small Hydroelectric Project of 5 Megawatts or Less.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Hydro-WM, LLC is now the exemptee of the Walker Mill Dam
Project, FERC No. 3401. All correspondence should be forwarded to Mr.
Frederic Reveiz, President/Owner, Hydro-WM, LLC, 5272 River Road, Suite
100, Bethesda, MD 20816.

    Dated: September 5, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-22153 Filed 9-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 227 (Monday, November 25, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64954-64955]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25423]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2019-0090]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on November 12, 2019, Norfolk
Southern Corporation (NS) petitioned the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions
of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part
232, Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and Other Non-Passenger
Trains and Equipment. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2019-
0090.
    Specifically, NS seeks relief from Sec.  232.305(b)(2), which
requires a single car air brake test (SCABT) when a ``car is on a shop
or repair track . . . for any reason and has not received a [SCABT]
within the previous 12-month period.'' NS requests to replace FRA-
condemnable and other non-condemnable wheelsets on railcars as part of
an in-train wheelset replacement program, without performing the
required SCABT. NS explains that railcars due for 5- and 8-year SCABTs
would still be addressed. The NS system alert notifications are
viewable to NS repair personnel for railcars that are due SCABTs. NS
asks that this relief apply to all NS unit trains receiving in-train
wheel replacement as part of NS's in-train wheelset replacement
program, on two designated tracks at the NS railyard in Bluefield, West
Virginia.
    NS desires to implement this program to proactively identify and
replace wheelsets. In-train wheelset replacements can be done by NS
mechanical forces in as little as 15 minutes with no need to remove the
cars from trains. This reduces the number of switching events that
would otherwise be required to repair cars, reducing the risk of injury
and derailment. Additionally, in-train wheelset replacement will permit
NS to replace a greater percentage of wheelsets than those currently
replaced using traditional techniques.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is
open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by January 9, 2020 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter

provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records
notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2019-25423 Filed 11-22-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P