[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 117 (Friday, June 17, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39601-39603]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14228]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3753; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-26-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede airworthiness directive (AD) 2016-04-
12 that applies to certain Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2B, 2B1, 2C, 2C1, 2C2,
2D, 2E, 2S1, and 2S2 turboshaft engines. AD 2016-04-12 requires
spectrometric oil analysis (SOA) inspection of the engine accessory
gearbox (AGB), and, depending on the results, removal of the engine
AGB. Since we issued AD 2016-04-12, we determined that wear inspections
of the engine AGB cover are also required. This proposed AD would
require initial and repetitive inspections of the AGB, and wear
inspections of the engine AGB cover. We are proposing this AD to
prevent failure of the engine AGB, uncommanded in-flight shutdown
(IFSD), damage to the engine, and damage to the helicopter.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 16, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 0 5 59 74 40 00; fax:
33 0 5 59 74 45 15. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
781-238-7125.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3753; 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 proposed AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information, regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Haberlen, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 781-
238-7199; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this NPRM. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-3753;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-26-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    On February 18, 2016, we issued AD 2016-04-12, Amendment 39-18406
(81 FR 12583, March 10, 2016), (``AD 2016-04-12'') for certain
Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2B, 2B1, 2C, 2C1, 2C2, 2D, 2E, 2S1, and 2S2
turboshaft engines. AD 2016-04-12 requires an SOA inspection, and,
depending on the results, removal of the engine AGB. AD 2016-04-12
resulted from a report of an uncommanded IFSD of an Arriel 2S2 engine
caused by rupture of the 41-tooth gear, which forms part of the bevel
gear in the engine AGB. We issued AD 2016-04-12 to prevent failure of
the engine AGB, uncommanded IFSD, damage to the engine, and damage to
the helicopter.

Actions Since AD 2016-04-12 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2016-04-12, Turbomeca recommended that an engine
AGB cover wear inspection be performed. Also, the European Aviation
Safety Agency issued AD 2016-0055, dated March 17, 2016, which requires
initial and repetitive SOA inspections of the AGB and initial and
repetitive wear inspections of the engine AGB cover.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Turbomeca S.A. has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 292 72
2861, Version C, dated March 9, 2016. The service information describes
procedures for performing periodic SOA and wear inspections of the
engine AGB. This service information is reasonably available because
the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this NPRM because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This NPRM would require initial and repetitive SOA, wear
inspections of the engine AGB cover, and AGB replacement based on the
results of the inspections.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 250 engines installed on
helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take 0.5
hours per engine to perform the SOA and 1 hour to perform the engine
AGB cover wear inspection. The average labor rate is $85 per hour.
Required parts for inspection and analysis cost about $3,179 per
engine. We estimate that 5 engines will require AGB replacement at a
cost of $44,397 per engine. We also estimate that it would take about 2
hours to replace the engine AGB. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $1,049,460.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2016-04-12, Amendment 39-18406 (81 FR 12583, March 10, 2016) (``AD
2016-04-12''), and adding the following new AD:

Turbomeca S.A.: Docket No. FAA-2015-3753; Directorate Identifier
2015-NE-26-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 16, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2016-04-12.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 2B, 2B1, 2C, 2C1, 2C2,
2D, 2E, 2S1, and 2S2 turboshaft engines with an engine accessory
gearbox (AGB), part number<PHONE_NUMBER>, with a machined front casing.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of an uncommanded in-flight
shutdown (IFSD) of an Arriel 2S2 engine caused by rupture of the 41-
tooth gear, which forms part of the bevel gear in the engine AGB. We
are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the engine AGB,
uncommanded IFSD, damage to the engine, and damage to the
helicopter.

(e) Compliance

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

(1) Initial Spectrometric Oil Analysis (SOA) and Engine AGB Cover
Wear Inspection

    (i) Perform an SOA and an engine AGB cover wear inspection
before the engine AGB, module M01, exceeds 850 engine hours (EH)
since new or since last overhaul (SLO), or within 50 EH after April
14, 2016, or before the next flight after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later.
    (ii) Reserved.

(2) Repetitive Inspection Intervals

    (i) Repeat the SOA within every 100 EH since the last SOA.
    (A) For all affected engines, if the last SOA was performed
before the effective date of this AD, and the aluminum concentration
level is 0.8 parts per million (p/m) or greater, perform a wear
inspection of the engine AGB cover within 50 EHs since last SOA or
before the next flight after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later.
    (B) For all affected engines, if the last SOA was performed
after the effective date of this AD, and the aluminum concentration
level is 0.8 p/m or greater, perform a wear inspection of the engine
AGB cover within 20 EH since the last SOA.
    (ii) For Arriel 2E engines, repeat the engine AGB cover wear
inspection within every 800 EH since last inspection (SLI) if the
SOA indicated the aluminum concentration level is less than 0.8 p/m.
    (iii) For all affected engines, except for Arriel 2E engines,
repeat the engine AGB cover wear inspection within every 600 EH SLI
if the SOA indicated the aluminum concentration level is less than
0.8 p/m.

(3) Inspection Criteria

    (i) Use paragraph <IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS> of Turbomeca Mandatory
Service Bulletin (MSB) No. 292 72 2861, Version C, dated March 9,
2016, to do the inspections required by paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of
this AD.
    (ii) Reserved.

(4) Corrective Actions Based on the Results of the Most Recent Wear
Inspection

    (i) If the wear measured from the most recent wear inspection is
0.15 mm or less, no further action is required. However, you must
still comply with the repetitive inspection requirements of
paragraph (e)(2) of this AD.
    (ii) If the most recent wear inspection was performed while the
engine was in service, and the wear is greater than 0.15 mm, do the
following:
    (A) If the wear measured from the most recent wear inspection is
greater than 0.15 mm, but 0.30 mm or less, remove the engine AGB
from service within 200 EH SLI and replace with a part eligible for
installation.
    (B) If the wear measured from the most recent wear inspection is
greater than 0.30 mm, but 0.40 mm or less, remove the engine AGB
from service within 25 EH SLI and replace with a part eligible for
installation.
    (C) If the wear measured from the most recent wear inspection is
greater than 0.40 mm, remove the engine AGB from service before
further flight and replace with a part eligible for installation.
    (iii) If the most recent wear inspection was performed on the
engine during an engine shop visit, and the wear is greater than
0.15 mm, remove the engine AGB before further flight and replace
with a part eligible for installation.

(f) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, an engine shop visit is defined as
the induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving
the separation of any major mating engine flanges, except that the
separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of
transportation without subsequent engine maintenance does not
constitute an engine shop visit.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request. You may email your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(h) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Philip Haberlen,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2015-0055,
dated March 17, 2016, for more information. You may examine the MCAI
in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2015-3753.
    (3) Turbomeca S.A. MSB No. 292 72 2861, Version C, dated March
9, 2016, can be

obtained from Turbomeca S.A., using the contact information in
paragraph (h)(4) of this AD.
    (4) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 0 5 59 74 40 00;
fax: 33 0 5 59 74 45 15.
    (5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
781-238-7125.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on June 8, 2016.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-14228 Filed 6-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 24, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 78)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18628-18630]
[DOCID:fr24ap09-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0132]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Keweenaw Waterway, Houghton, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District, has approved a
temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the
U.S. 41 (Sheldon Avenue) Lift Bridge, at Mile 16.0, across the Keweenaw
Waterway, in Houghton, MI. Under this temporary deviation, the U.S. 41
(Sheldon Avenue) Lift Bridge will be allowed to remain in the closed-
to-navigation position during specific dates and times. The deviation
is necessary to perform reconstruction to the city streets that access
the U.S. 41 (Sheldon Avenue) Lift Bridge.

DATES: This temporary final rule is effective from 6 a.m. on April 15,
2009, to 6 p.m. on November 15, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket, are part of docket USCG-2009-0132 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced Docket
Search option on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2009-0132
in the Docket ID box, pressing Enter, and then clicking on the item in
the Docket ID column. This material is also available for inspection or
copying at two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail Blair Stanifer, Bridge Management
Specialist, Ninth Coast Guard District, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment

pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an
agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment
when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are
``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.''
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists
for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect
to this rule as regular users of the waterway have already been
identified and the schedule will not significantly impact navigation.
Navigation on the waterway consists mainly of tugs with tows, charter
fishing vessels and recreational craft. Commercial and public vessels
will have unencumbered use of the waterway with the U.S. 41 (Sheldon
Avenue) Lift Bridge opening on demand. Throughout the effective dates
of this temporary deviation, the U.S. 41 (Sheldon Avenue) Lift Bridge
will be in the intermediate position during the construction period,
providing 31 feet of vertical clearance at all times, giving the
majority of vessels unencumbered use of the waterway.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 533(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Similar schedules have been used
in previous maintenance periods on the U.S. 41 (Sheldon Avenue) Lift
Bridge with no adverse affects on vehicular or maritime traffic.

Background and Purpose

    The Michigan Department of Transportation, on behalf of the City of
Houghton, MI (who operates this lift-type bridge) requested a temporary
deviation from the current operating schedule to perform reconstruction
work on various City of Houghton streets that affect access to and from
the U.S. 41 (Sheldon Avenue) Lift Bridge.
    The U.S. 41 (Sheldon Avenue) Lift Bridge, at Mile 16.0, over the
Keweenaw Waterway in Houghton, MI, has a vertical clearance of seven
feet in the closed-to-navigation position. However, the lift span can
be stopped at intermediate elevations and will be elevated to give 31-
feet of vertical clearance for the duration of this temporary
deviation. The bridge normally operates in accordance with 33 CFR
117.635; opening on signal. However, from January 1 through March 15,
the draw opens on signal provided at least twenty-four hours notice is
given.
    This deviation will allow the bridge to stay in the closed-to-
navigation position during peak daily vehicular traffic periods of:
6:30 a.m. to 8 a.m.; 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.; and 3:30 p.m. to 5:30
p.m. Except for these periods of time, openings for recreational
traffic will be made once, on the hour, if needed. Commercial and
Public vessels will continue to receive an opening on signal. For the
duration of this temporary deviation, the U.S. 41 (Sheldon Avenue) Lift
Bridge will be raised to the intermediate position giving 31-feet of
vertical clearance. As a result of prior coordination with the waterway
users and past experience, it has been determined that this temporary
deviation will not have a significant impact on these vessels as the
majority will be able to transit safely under the bridge.
    The United States Coast Guard will inform the users of the waterway
through our Local and Broadcast Notice to Mariners of the opening
restrictions of the lift span to minimize transiting delays caused by
the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

Discussion of Rule

    The reconstruction of Sheldon Avenue (U.S. 41) in Houghton, MI,
will necessitate the closing of said route and the redirecting of
vehicular traffic to other City of Houghton streets. Access to and from
the bridge will be adversely affected due to the increase in vehicular
traffic. Restricting the raising of the lift for recreational vessels
during peak vehicular traffic periods will facilitate traffic flow and
provide for minimal disruptions to the reconstruction of Sheldon
Avenue. Navigation users of the waterway consist mainly of tugs with
tows, commercial fishing vessels and recreational craft. As a result of
prior coordination with the waterway users and past experience, it has
been determined that this temporary deviation will not have a
significant impact on these vessels. A majority will be able to transit
safely under the bridge since it will be kept raised to an intermediate
position, providing 31-feet of vertical clearance under the bridge, for
the duration of the temporary deviation.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does
not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. However, this rule will affect the following entities, some
of which may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit the bridge from 6:30 a.m. to 8 a.m., 11:30 a.m. to
1 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. from April 15, 2009, through November
15, 2009. This action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. Most
vessels that use this waterway will still be able to safely pass the
draw while it is being kept in the intermediate position with 31-feet
of vertical clearance provided at all times. Openings for all other
vessels will still be provided on the hour. Commercial and Public
vessels will continue to receive an opening on signal. Before the
effective period, we will issue maritime advisories widely available to
users of the river.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business

Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If
you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-
888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate
against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 0023.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. From 6 a.m. on April 15, 2009, to 6 p.m. on November 15, 2009, in
Sec.  117.635, temporarily add paragraphs (a), (b), and (c).

Sec.  117.635  Keweenaw Waterway.

* * * * *
    (a) From April 15 through November 15, from 6 a.m. to 8 a.m., 11:30
a.m. to 1 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., seven days a week, the
bridge shall not be required to open for recreational craft.
    (b) At all other times, the draw of the U.S. 41 Bridge need not be
opened for the passing of recreational craft except for once an hour,
on the hour.
    (c) Public vessels of the United States, state or local vessels
used for public safety, commercial vessels, and vessels in distress
shall be passed through the draw of the bridge at all times.

    Dated: March 19, 2009.
D.R. Callahan,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Ninth Coast Guard District,
Acting.
[FR Doc. E9-9448 Filed 4-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: [Richard Gebkin, PM 10,<PHONE_NUMBER>]

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please insert "NA-Remove" and maintain the outline. Please do not change the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace the instructions that appear in green, i.e., "[insert company name]," with the information specific to your action.

TEMPLATE:

Tea Association of the USA, Inc.

[Insert petition number]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from Tea Association of the USA, Inc. 362 5th Ave - Suite 1002 New York, NY 10001 requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180

(Options (pick one)

	1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of Hexythiazox, (trans-5-(4-chlorophenyl)-N-cyclohexyl-4-methyl-2-oxothiazolidine-3-carboxamide)

in or on the raw agricultural commodity tea at 15 parts per million (ppm). EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. The nature of the residues in plants is adequately understood for purposes of this tolerance petition. Metabolism studies in fruit crops, radish, tea and corn have been completed. The Agency has determined that the residues of concern are hexythiazox and its metabolites containing the (4-chlorophenyl)-4-methyl-2-oxo-3-thiazolidine moiety calculated as the stoichiometric equivalent of hexythiazox.

	2. Analytical method. . The basic analytical method was previously reviewed by the Agency in association with the establishment of the current tolerances with registrations of multiple commodities.  The 2011 JMPR evaluations for tea are based on the residue trial data from India.  The JMPR Evaluation and Report and provided in place of the actual residue reports, are included under the EPA pilot to use JMPR reviews or national reviews to set US import tolerances.  The methods used for tea is summarized in the JMPR evaluations.
	3. Magnitude of residues. Field trial data have been generated for hexythiazox on tea.  Eight trials were conducted in India on tea during the 2008 and 2009 growing season.
Residue Levels in RAC Samples
The results from these trials show that after two applications of Maiden EC at 25 g ai/ha, 14 days between applications and a zero day PHI, maximum residue of hexythiazox was 5.2 ppm (median  -  4.55 ppm) on eight green and black tea samples collected 0 DAA.
Residue Levels in Product as consumed
The 2011 JMPR evaluations for hexythiazox/tea are based on the residue trial data, including processing data from India.  The JMPR Evaluation and report are provided with this submission in place of the actual residue reports, and are included under the EPA pilot to use JMPR reviews or national reviews to set US import tolerances.  The data indicate that the transfer factor from tea to brewed tea was 0.04 for green tea and 0.03 for fermented (black) tea.
B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  In the most recent risk assessment for hexythiazox completed in 2017, the Agency noted that the toxicology database for hexythiazox is complete. Hexythiazox has low acute toxicity via the oral, dermal, or inhalation route of exposure (Category IV). It is a mild eye irritant (Toxicity Category III), but not a skin irritant or a skin sensitizer.

	2. Genotoxicty.  Hexythiazox is not considered to be a mutagen. Mutagenicity studies that have been conducted include a mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test [MRID 45480101], a mammalian cell forward gene mutation assay [MRID 00155154], a rat primary hepatocyte unscheduled DNA synthesis assay [MRID 00156893], a clastogenic evaluation in an in vitro cytogenetic assay measuring chromosomal aberration in Chinese hamster ovary cells [MRID 00156894], and an Ames study with Salmonella [MRID 44955710]. All mutagenicity tests were negative.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity.  .  Hexythiazox is not considered to be a reproductive or developmental neurotoxic or immunotoxic chemical. In a developmental toxicity study with rats [MRID 00147578], the fetotoxicity NOEL was 240 mg/kg/day, and the compound was not embryotoxic at the highest dose tested, 2160 mg/kg/day.  In a developmental toxicity study with rabbits [MRID 00146555], no developmental toxicity was observed at the highest dose tested, 1080 mg/kg/day.  In a two-generation reproduction study with rats [MRID 00147578 and 00151360], no reproductive effects were observed at 2400 ppm in the diet (>110 and >139 mg/kg/day, males and females, respectively). It is concluded that the NOEL for developmental and reproductive effects is greater than 10 times the chronic NOEL.

	4. Subchronic toxicity.  In a 1-month feeding study in dogs, the NOAEL was 1.75 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL was 12.5 mg/kg/day, based on increased liver and adrenal weights. In a subchronic toxicity study in rats, increased liver and adrenal weights, as well as adrenal histopathology (fatty degeneration of the adrenal zona fasciculata) were seen. In the chronic feeding/carcinogenicity studies in rats and mice, effects included decreased body weight gain and increased liver weights.

	5. Chronic toxicity. In a 1-year feeding study in dogs, the NOAEL was 2.5 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL was 12.5 mg/kg/day, based on increased alkaline phosphatase, increased adrenal and liver weights, and liver and adrenal lesions. In a carcinogenicity study in mice, the NOAEL was 36 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL was 215 mg/kg/day. Effects were decreased bodyweight in males and increased hepatocellular carcinomas and combined adenoma/carcinomas.

In a chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study in rats, the NOAEL (systemic) was 26 mg/kg/day and the LOAEL (systemic) was 180 mg/kg/day based on decreased body weight gain and increased liver weights in both sexes.

A 2009 report from the Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC) (September 02, 2009, PC Code 128849, TXR 0055255) noted that the NOAEL of 2.5 mg/kg/day, from the one year toxicity study in dogs, used in establishing the chronic reference dose (RfD) is approximately 65-fold lower than the lowest dose (163 mg/kg/day) that induced tumors. Thus, the chronic RfD of 0.025 mg/kg/day would be protective of all chronic effects including potential carcinogenicity of hexythiazox. The CARC concluded that the evidence as a whole was not strong enough to warrant the use of a linear low dose extrapolation model applied to the animal data (Q1*) for a quantitative estimation of human risk, as had been previously assessed in October 16, 1998, [63.FR55540].

	6. Animal metabolism. The metabolism of hexythiazox has been studied in goats, hens and rats. Metabolic pathways in the animal are similar to those in plants.

	7. Metabolite toxicology. There are no metabolites of toxicological concern based on a differential metabolism between plants and animals.

	8. Endocrine disruption. Information concerning possible endocrine effects of hexythiazox similar to effects produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or other endocrine effects is available from the two-generation rat reproduction study, the rat and rabbit developmental studies and the rat and dog chronic studies. There is no evidence from these studies that hexythiazox induces estrogenic or other endocrine effects.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. Dietary Exposure from food. A dietary risk assessment for all registered crops has been completed by the Agency (Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 208, Monday, October 30, 2017, Pages 50084-50089).

	i. Food. Acute Exposure. No acute endpoint has been identified in the toxicological studies for hexythiazox; therefore, a quantitative acute dietary exposure assessment is unnecessary.
Chronic Exposure. The Agency comprehensively evaluated potential dietary exposure resulting from the currently registered uses of hexythiazox in the October 30, 2017 Federal Register. The Agency concluded that chronic exposure to hexythiazox from food and water will utilize 93% of the cPAD (for children 1-2 years old). The Agency's assessment employed tolerance residue values, the assumption of 100% crop treated, and default processing factors.

	ii. Drinking water.  The Agency used screening-level water exposure models in the dietary exposure analysis and risk assessment for hexythiazox in drinking water. Based on the Pesticide Root Zone Model /Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS), the estimated drinking water concentration (EDWC) of hexythiazox for chronic assessment was estimated to be 4.31 parts per billion (ppb). (Federal Register, Vol. 82, No. 208, Monday, October 30, 2017, Pages 50084-50089)

	2. Non-dietary exposure. EPA has previously determined that potential residential exposures to hexythiazox are not expected.

D. Cumulative Effects

	EPA has not found that hexythiazox shares a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. Acute risk. No toxic effects attributable to a single dose of hexythiazox has been identified, thus hexythiazox is not expected to pose an acute risk.
Short-and intermediate term risk. EPA has previously concluded that there are no short term or intermediate term risks of concern from exposure to hexythiazox.
Chronic risk.  A tier 1 chronic assessment of the risk for all applicable crops, including the tolerance on tea, and water sources, shows no more than 93% of the cPAD for any population subgroup.

	2. Infants and children. EPA previously has determined that reliable data show the safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the FQPA SF were reduced to 1X. Based on these risk assessments, it can be concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to hexythiazox residues.

F. International Tolerances
	There exists a CODEX maximum residue limit (MRL) of 15 ppm and a European Union (EU) MRL of 15 ppm hexythiazox on tea.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 23, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 15401-15403]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05599]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1096; Airspace Docket No. 20-ANM-41]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Buena Vista, CO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies the Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface at Central Colorado Regional Airport,
Buena Vista, CO. This action modifies the airspace to properly contain
instrument flight rules (IFR) aircraft departing and arriving at the
airport. Additionally, this action removes the Class E airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface. This airspace is
wholly contained within the Denver en route airspace area and
duplication is not necessary. Lastly, this action implements an
administrative update to the airport's name.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 17, 2021. The Director of the Federal

Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov//air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you
can contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration,
800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation
Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200
S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it modifies Class E airspace at Central Colorado Regional Airport,
Buena Vista, CO, to ensure the safety and management of IFR operations
at the airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (85 FR 85566; December 29, 2020) for Docket No. FAA-2020-1096
to modify the Class E airspace at Central Colorado Regional Airport,
Buena Vista, CO. Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the
FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E5 airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective September 15,
2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 modifies the Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Central Colorado
Regional Airport, Buena Vista, CO. This airspace is designed to contain
IFR departures to 1,200 feet above the surface and IFR arrivals
descending below 1,500 feet above the surface. The circular radius of
the airport is larger than required, and the airspace does not properly
contain IFR departures and aircraft performing an Area Navigation
Runway 33 approach. This action reduces the circular radius from 4.7
miles to 3.5 miles, and adds an area south of the airport.
    Additionally, this action removes the Class E airspace extending
upward from 1,200 feet above the surface. This airspace area is wholly
contained in the Denver en route airspace area and duplication is not
necessary.
    Lastly, the action implements an administrative update to the
airport's name. To match the FAA database, the airport name is updated
to Central Colorado Regional Airport.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial, and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant the preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ANM CO E5 Buena Vista, CO [Amended]

Central Colorado Regional Airport, CO
    (Lat. 38[deg]48'51'' N, long. 106[deg]07'14'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 3.5-mile radius of the airport, and within 1.8 miles each
side of the 160[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from the
3.5-mile radius to 8.7 miles south of Central Colorado Regional
Airport.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on March 12, 2021.
B.G. Chew,
Acting Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2021-05599 Filed 3-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 5, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42933-42935]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14166]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0303; FR-11052-01-OAR]

Alternative Methods for Calculating Off-Cycle Credits Under the
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Program: Applications From
Ford Motor Company

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requesting
comment on applications from Ford Motor Company (``Ford'') for off-
cycle carbon dioxide (CO2) credits under EPA's light-duty
vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards. ``Off-cycle'' emission

reductions can be achieved by employing technologies that result in
real-world benefits, but where that benefit is not adequately captured
on the test procedures used by manufacturers to demonstrate compliance
with emission standards. EPA's light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas
program acknowledges these benefits by giving automobile manufacturers
several options for generating ``off-cycle'' CO2 credits.
Under the regulations, a manufacturer may apply for CO2
credits for off-cycle technologies that result in off-cycle benefits.
In these cases, a manufacturer must provide EPA with a proposed
methodology for determining the real-world off-cycle benefit. Ford has
submitted applications that describe methodologies for determining off-
cycle credits from technologies described in their applications.
Pursuant to applicable regulations, EPA is making these off-cycle
credit calculation methodologies available for public comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 5, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2023-0303 online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to [email protected] or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linc Wehrly, Director, Light Duty
Vehicle Center, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive,
Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    EPA's light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) program provides
three pathways by which a manufacturer may accrue off-cycle carbon
dioxide (CO2) credits for those technologies that achieve
CO2 reductions in the real world but where those reductions
are not adequately captured on the test used to determine compliance
with the CO2 standards, and which are not otherwise
reflected in the standards' stringency. The first pathway is a
predetermined list of credit values for specific off-cycle technologies
that may be used beginning in model year 2014.\1\ This pathway allows
manufacturers to use conservative credit values established by EPA for
a wide range of technologies, with minimal data submittal or testing
requirements, if the technologies meet EPA regulatory definitions. In
cases where the off-cycle technology is not on the menu but additional
laboratory testing can demonstrate emission benefits, a second pathway
allows manufacturers to use a broader array of emission tests (known as
``5-cycle'' testing because the methodology uses five different testing
procedures) to demonstrate and justify off-cycle CO2
credits.\2\ The additional emission tests allow emission benefits to be
demonstrated over some elements of real-world driving not adequately
captured by the GHG compliance tests, including high speeds, hard
accelerations, and cold temperatures. These first two methodologies
were completely defined through notice and comment rulemaking and
therefore no additional process is necessary for manufacturers to use
these methods. The third and last pathway allows manufacturers to seek
EPA approval to use an alternative methodology for determining the off-
cycle CO2 credits.\3\ This option is only available if the
benefit of the technology cannot be adequately demonstrated using the
5-cycle methodology. Manufacturers may also use this option to
demonstrate reductions that exceed those available via use of the
predetermined list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(b).
    \2\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(c).
    \3\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the regulations, a manufacturer seeking to demonstrate off-
cycle credits with an alternative methodology (i.e., under the third
pathway described above) must describe a methodology that meets the
following criteria:
     Use modeling, on-road testing, on-road data collection, or
other approved analytical or engineering methods;
     Be robust, verifiable, and capable of demonstrating the
real-world emissions benefit with strong statistical significance;
     Result in a demonstration of baseline and controlled
emissions over a wide range of driving conditions and number of
vehicles such that issues of data uncertainty are minimized;
     Result in data on a model type basis unless the
manufacturer demonstrates that another basis is appropriate and
adequate.
    Further, the regulations specify the following requirements
regarding an application for off-cycle CO2 credits:
     A manufacturer requesting off-cycle credits must develop a
methodology for demonstrating and determining the benefit of the off-
cycle technology and carry out any necessary testing and analysis
required to support that methodology.
     A manufacturer requesting off-cycle credits must conduct
testing and/or prepare engineering analyses that demonstrate the in-use
durability of the technology for the full useful life of the vehicle.
     The application must contain a detailed description of the
off-cycle technology and how it functions to reduce CO2
emissions under conditions not represented on the compliance tests.
     The application must contain a list of the vehicle
model(s) which will be equipped with the technology.
     The application must contain a detailed description of the
test vehicles selected and an engineering analysis that supports the
selection of those vehicles for testing.
     The application must contain all testing and/or simulation
data required under the regulations, plus any other data the
manufacturer has considered in the analysis.
    Finally, the alternative methodology must be approved by EPA prior
to the manufacturer using it to generate credits. As part of the review
process defined by regulation, the alternative methodology submitted to
EPA for consideration must be made available for public comment.\4\ EPA
will consider public comments as part of its final decision to approve
or deny the request for off-cycle credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Off-Cycle Credit Applications

A. Enhanced Window Anti-Fogging Strategy

    Ford is applying for off-cycle GHG credits for the use of an
Enhanced Window Anti-Fogging Strategy (EWAFS). The EWAFS system uses an
on-glass humidity sensor to calculate the fogging probability in mild
ambient conditions. This technology improves the efficiency by allowing
more accurate fogging prediction and less widespread A/C usage. The
requested credit amount was confirmed by Ford through a series of AC17
tests with ambient temperatures from 5 to 25 degrees Celsius. Testing
was done with and without the EWAFS system and an

average difference in CO2 was calculated. Ford also
collected real-world customer usage data for 2020 MY vehicles equipped
with EWAFS and 2019 MY vehicles without EWAFS to determine the
percentage of time that the A/C compressor operated at each
temperature. Ford is applying for a credit of 1.2 grams/mile for 2020
and later model years for light duty vehicles sold in the U.S. and
equipped with the EWAFS system. EPA considers this anti-fogging
technology to be a technology that, if approved, will be subject to the
maximum limits for an A/C system of 5.0 g/mi for passenger automobiles
and 7.2 g/mi for light trucks specified in the regulations.\5\ Details
of the testing and analysis can be found in the manufacturer's
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 40 CFR 86.1868-12(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Brushless Engine Cooling Fan Technology

    Ford is applying for off-cycle GHG credits for the use of a
Brushless Engine Cooling Fan Technology (BMECF). The brushless motor's
increased efficiency reduces electrical load. Brushless motors improve
efficiency by removing a source of friction at the brushes. While
brushed motor cooling fans are typically 1 or 2 speed, brushless motors
are inherently variable speed. This allows for a more efficient fan
speed for a given set of vehicle conditions. Ford evaluated on-road fan
usage collected through on-vehicle data loggers. Electrical power
consumption was measured for 2-speed brushed, pulse-width modulated
brushed, and brushless cooling fan types. Data was collected using
several 2019 and 2020 vehicles and across various ambient temperatures.
The electrical load reduction was converted to a CO2 value
using a load factor of 3.2 g/mi per 100 W. Ford is applying for a GHG
credit of 0.5 g/mi for cars, and 1.3 g/mi for light duty trucks
equipped with the brushless engine cooling fan technology. Details of
the testing and analysis can be found in the manufacturer's
application.

III. EPA Decision Process

    EPA has reviewed the applications for completeness and is now
making the applications available for public review and comment as
required by the regulations. The off-cycle credit applications
submitted by the manufacturers (with confidential business information
redacted) have been placed in the public docket (see ADDRESSES section
above) and on EPA's website at https://www.epa.gov/ve-certification/compliance-information-light-duty-greenhouse-gas-ghg-standards.
    EPA is providing a 30-day comment period on the applications for
off-cycle credits described in this document, as specified by the
regulations. The manufacturers may submit a written rebuttal of
comments for EPA's consideration, or may revise an application in
response to comments. After reviewing any public comments and any
rebuttal of comments submitted by manufacturers, EPA will make a final
decision regarding the credit requests. EPA will make its decision
available to the public by placing a decision document (or multiple
decision documents) in the docket and on EPA's website at the same
manufacturer-specific pages shown above. While the broad methodologies
used by these manufacturers could potentially be used for other
vehicles and by other manufacturers, the vehicle specific data needed
to demonstrate the off-cycle emissions reductions would likely be
different. In such cases, a new application would be required,
including an opportunity for public comment.

Byron Bunker,
Director, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality.
[FR Doc. 2023-14166 Filed 7-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:PHMSA-2018-0105  Gulfstream Natural Gas System Federal Register Notice


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12818-12820]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04428]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0056]

Hours of Service of Drivers: R.J. Corman Railroad Services,
Cranemasters, Inc., and National Railroad Construction and Maintenance
Association, Inc.

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

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

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to grant the application of R.J.
Corman Railroad Services, Cranemasters, Inc., (collectively, ``the
Companies'') and the National Railroad Construction and Maintenance
Association, Inc. (NRC) for an exemption from the prohibition against
driving a property-carrying commercial motor vehicle (CMV) after the
14th hour after coming on duty and driving after accumulating 60 hours
of on-duty time in 7 consecutive days (60-hour rule), or 70 hours of
on-duty time in 8 consecutive days (70-hour rule). The exemption will
enable railroad employees subject to the hours-of-service (HOS) rules
to respond to unplanned events that occur outside of or extend beyond
the employee's normal work hours. FMCSA concluded that granting the
Companies/NRC's application is likely to achieve a level of safety
equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that would be
obtained in the absence of the exemption.

DATES: The exemption is effective March 4, 2020 and expires March 4,
2025.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit 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., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The on-line FDMS is available 24 hours each
day, 365 days each year.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. 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
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Pearlie Robinson, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to www.regulations.gov and insert
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2019-0056 in the ``Keyword'' box and click
``Search.'' Next, click the ``Open Docket Folder'' button and choose
the document to review. If you do not have access to the internet, you
may view the docket online by visiting the Docket Management Facility
in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

II. Legal Basis

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

III. Request for Exemption

    The Companies and NRC requested an exemption from the HOS
regulations in 49 CFR part 395 for their employees who respond to
unplanned events that affect interstate commerce, service or the safety
of railway operations, including passenger rail operations. These
employees transport equipment used to clear derailed or disabled trains
or debris blocking tacks or railroad rights-of-way.
    The Companies and NRC explained that unplanned events often occur
outside of normal business hours. Although in many cases the event is
local in nature, allowing local government officials to declare an
emergency that would exempt the company and its drivers from the HOS
regulations, these officials have not done so. The Companies and NRC
believe it would not be practical for them to do so in the future
because (1) many unplanned events occur in remote locations where it
may not be clear who is authorized to declare an emergency; (2) more
than half of unplanned event call times occur between 4:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m., including a large number between midnight and 7:00 a.m.,
making it virtually impossible for the railroads to obtain an emergency
declaration before requesting a contractor to respond to the unplanned
event; and (3) companies likely would not know if such an emergency

declaration had been issued before they respond to a call from a
railroad.
    The Companies/NRC compare the work of railroad employees or
contractors responding to an emergency to that of utility service
employees responding to an emergency. They argue that the rationale for
the statutory utility service HOS exemption applies with equal force to
railroad emergency response contractors responding to unplanned events.
    The applicants are seeking an exemption from the HOS regulations
for the time spent by their drivers driving to the site of the
unplanned event. The term ``unplanned event'' includes the following: A
derailment; a rail failure or other report of dangerous track
condition; a disruption to the electric propulsion system; a bridge-
strike; a disabled vehicle on the track; a train collision; weather-
and storm-related events; a matter of national security; a matter
concerning public safety; a blocked grade crossing, etc. According to
the Companies the exemption would be narrower than the utility service
exemption, which allows drivers to drive after they complete work
restoring utility service. The Companies' application, on the other
hand, would require drivers not to drive a CMV after completing work
until they had obtained the required 10 hours or 34 hours of rest,
depending on their cumulative hours on duty for the day and week. The
applicants request the exemption be granted for five years. A copy of
the application for exemption is available for review in the docket for
this notice.

IV. Public Comments

    On March 8, 2019, FMCSA published a notice seeking public comment
on the exemption application (84 FR 8565). The Agency received 13
comments: Association of American Railroads and the American Short Line
and Regional Railroad Association (joint submission of comments);
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen (joint submission of comments); Kentuckians for
Better Transportation; Keystone State Railroad Association; Mississippi
Railroad Association; Ohio Railroad Association; Mr. Kevin Phillips;
Railway Association of North Carolina; Mr. Bob Stanton; Mr. C. R.
Stoeckmann; Tennessee Shortline Association; Utilco Railroad Services,
Inc.; and, Virginia Fire Chiefs Association;
    Eight organizations and one individual supported the request for an
exemption. One organization and two individuals opposed the request.
One company providing services like those of the applicants expressed
interest in receiving similar relief but did not comment on the
applicant's request.
    The commenters writing in support of the exemption request
emphasized the importance of responding to railroad emergencies in a
timely manner. The Association of American Railroads and the American
Short Line and Regional Railroad Association stated in their joint
submission to the docket:

    ``There is a public interest in ensuring that railroads clear
blocked tracks and rights-of-way and restore service as quickly as
possible. It is essential that response contractors are able to
assign the drivers closet to the incident . . . so that they can get
to [the] job quickly and clear the blockage--thus enabling the
railroads to remove the hazard and restore service as quickly as
possible.''

    The Virginia Fire Chiefs Association, Inc. explained:

    ``Derailments often involve leaks of crude oil, fuel and other
hazardous materials, which can pollute water and air if not quickly
remediated. There also may be risk of fire or explosions requiring
evacuation of people from the area. Railroads rely on their response
contractors who drive specialized equipment and clear blocked tracks
and rights-of-way.''

    The Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen and Brotherhood of
Maintenance of Way Employees Division and two individuals opposed the
application. The groups stated:

    ``There is no logical or statistical argument from the
Companies/NRC asserting that driving to an unplanned event as
outlined in the application with a fatigued driver is any safer than
driving from one. Furthermore, by removing the hours of service
guidelines and simply stating, ``no driver is required to drive a
vehicle if feeling fatigued'' puts the responsibility of not driving
sole only the employed driver. Said driver is working in a
historically retaliatory nonunion working environment. . . .''

    The groups also argue the ``[p]etitioners have offered no data
showing the frequency with which drivers run out of allowable working
hours during any one of these incidents.'' The groups discussed several
research studies and reports, concluding that a substantial body of
evidence indicates that a chronic reduction in sleep time is associated
with many long-term health problems. They also argue that ``scientific
studies have established that driver fatigue and performance are
dynamically influenced by the regulation of sleep need and endogenous
circadian rhythms, including the need to obtain enough sleep to ensure
recovery from work schedules that might induce either acute or chronic
sleep deprivation.''

V. FMCSA Response to Comments and Decision

FMCSA Response

    FMCSA agrees that the Companies need to respond to unplanned events
in a timely manner. The Agency believes there is a public interest in
ensuring that railroads clear blocked tracks and rights-of-way and
restore service as quickly as possible. The exemption would provide
flexibility for the Companies to address urgent situations that disrupt
rail services.
    The Agency acknowledges the safety concerns raised by the
Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees and the Brotherhood of
Railroad Signalmen. However, the Agency does not believe the requested
relief would compromise safety when used occasionally to respond to
unplanned events. The exemption would enable the Companies to reach the
site of such events within a limited distance from their drivers'
normal work-reporting location. Once the crews arrive at the scene, all
CMV operations would be conducted in full compliance with the
applicable hours-of-service (HOS) regulations. Likewise, when normal
rail operations have been restored, drivers would be required to comply
with the HOS requirements during the return trip.
    Because the relief is limited to the trip to the scene of the
unplanned event and such events would happen only occasionally and not
during a predictable number of times per week or per month, drivers
would not operate CMVs after the 14th hour of coming on duty as a
regular part of their schedules. Similarly, drivers would not regularly
operate CMVs after accumulating 60 hours or 70 hours of on-duty time
during seven or eight consecutive days. Drivers' standard schedules
would include adherence to the 14-hour rule and adherence to the 60-
and 70-hour rules.
    Based on the information provided by the applicants, the Companies
responded to more than 2,000 derailments and other unplanned events
between January 2017 and October 2018 which would be an average of
approximately 95 unplanned events at various locations in the country
each month. R.J. Corman Railroad Services has 20 divisions.
Cranemasters has 11 divisions. Therefore, this demand would be handled
by more than 30 divisions between the Companies, which suggests that
the need would truly be unpredictable in any given division.
    The exemption request would neither increase nor decrease drivers'
responsibility under 49 CFR 392.3 to

cease operations if their ability to safely operate a CMV is impaired
by illness or fatigue.
    FMCSA and the U.S. Department of Labor are responsible for
implementing Federal statutes and regulations providing protection for
drivers; any driver operating under the exemption would have the right
to seek assistance, if needed.

FMCSA Decision

    FMCSA grants the exemption because it would provide needed
flexibility without compromising highway safety; the terms and
conditions of the exemption would achieve the requisite level of
safety.

VI. Terms and Conditions of the Exemption

    A. This exemption is restricted to individuals employed by the
Companies while driving CMVs to the site of an ``unplanned event''
which includes the following:
     A derailment;
     a rail failure or other report of a dangerous track
condition;
     a track occupancy light;
     a disruption to the electric propulsion system; a bridge-
strike;
     a disabled vehicle on the train tracks;
     a train collision;
     weather- and storm-related events including, fallen trees
and other debris on the tracks, snow, extreme cold or heat, rock and
mud slides, track washouts, and earthquakes;
     a matter concerning national security or public safety,
including a blocked grade crossing.
    B. When operating under this exemption, drivers and carriers:
    a. May extend the 14-hour duty period in Sec.  395.3(a)(2) to no
more than 17 hours;
    b. May not exceed 11 hours of driving time, following 10
consecutive hours off duty;
    c. May extend the 60- and 70-hour rule in Sec.  395.3(b) by no more
than 6 hours;
    d. May not travel more than 300 air miles from the normal work-
reporting location or terminal.
    C. Drivers must comply with the applicable HOS limits after
arriving at the site--drivers must record all time working to restore
rail service as on duty, not driving.
    D. Drivers may take advantage of the Agency's personal conveyance
regulatory guidance travelling between the unplanned event work site
and nearby lodging or dining facilities (June 7, 2018; 83 FR 26377). If
that guidance is not applicable to the trip, CMV drivers who have
reached the HOS limits must be transported from the work site by an
individual who is not subject to HOS restrictions or use a vehicle that
does not meet FMCSA's definition of a CMV (49 CFR 390.5) when they
leave the site.
    E. Drivers must complete the Driver Education Module 3 and the
Driver Sleep Disorders and Management Module 8 of the North American
Fatigue Management Program (NAFMP) (www.nafmp.org) prior to operating
under the exemption; and
    F. Motor carriers and drivers must comply with all other provisions
of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations.

Preemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31313(d), as implemented by 49 CFR
381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that
conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a
firm or person operating under the exemption. States may, but are not
required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in
intrastate commerce.

Notification to FMCSA

    Under the exemption, the Companies must notify FMCSA within 5
business days of any accident (as defined in 49 CFR 390.5), involving
any of the motor carrier's CMVs operating under the terms of this
exemption. The notification must include the following information:
    a. Identifier of the Exemption: ``The Companies and NRC,''
    b. Name of operating carrier and USDOT number,
    c. Date of the accident,
    d. City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or
closest to the accident scene,
    e. Driver's name and license number,
    f. Co-driver's name (if any) and license number
    g. Vehicle number and state license number,
    h. Number of individuals suffering physical injury,
    i. Number of fatalities,
    j. The police-reported cause of the accident, if provided by the
enforcement agency,
    k. Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws,
motor carrier safety regulations, and
    l. The total on-duty time accumulated during the 7 consecutive days
prior to the date of the accident, and the total on-duty time and
driving time in the work shift prior to the accident.

VII. Termination

    The FMCSA does not believe the motor carriers and drivers covered
by this exemption will experience any deterioration of their safety
record. However, should this occur, FMCSA will take all steps necessary
to protect the public interest, including revocation of the exemption.
The FMCSA will immediately revoke the exemption for failure to comply
with its terms and conditions.

    Issued on: February 27, 2020.
Jim Mullen,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-04428 Filed 3-3-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 116 (Monday, June 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27915-27917]
[FR Doc No: 2017-12590]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 32679; 812-14435]

Triloma EIG Energy Income Fund, et al.; Notice of Application

June 13, 2017.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act'') for an exemption from sections
18(a)(2), 18(c), and 18(i) of the Act and for an order pursuant to
section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.

Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to permit certain
registered closed-end management investment companies to issue multiple
classes of shares of beneficial interest (``Shares'') with varying
sales loads and to impose asset-based service and/or distribution fees,
and contingent deferred sales loads (``CDSCs'').

Applicants: Triloma EIG Energy Income Fund (the ``Fund''), Triloma
Energy Advisors, LLC (the ``Adviser''), and Triloma Securities, LLC
(the ``Dealer Manager'') (together, the ``Applicants'').

Filing Dates: The application was filed on March 20, 2015, and amended
on November 29, 2016, April 6, 2017, and June 7, 2017.

Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on July 8, 2017, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts
bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants, 201 North New York
Avenue, Suite 200, Winter Park, FL 32789.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Shin, Attorney-Adviser, at
(202) 551-5921 or Robert H. Shapiro, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

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

Applicants' Representations

    1. The Fund is a Delaware statutory trust that is registered under
the Act as a non-diversified, closed-end management investment company.
The Fund's objective is primarily to provide shareholders with current
income; as secondary investment objectives, the Fund will seek to
provide capital preservation and, to a lesser extent, long-term capital
appreciation. The Fund seeks to achieve its investment objectives by
investing primarily in a global portfolio of privately originated
energy company and project debt.
    2. The Adviser, a Florida limited liability company, is registered
as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The
Adviser serves as investment adviser to the Fund.
    3. The Dealer Manager is registered with the Commission as a
broker-dealer under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``1934
Act'') and will act as the managing dealer of the Fund. The Dealer
Manager is under common control with the Advisor and is an affiliated
person, as defined in section 2(a)(3) of the Act, of the Advisor.
    4. The applicants seek an order to permit the Fund to issue
multiple classes of Shares, each having its own fee and expense
structure, and to impose asset-based distribution and/or service fees,
and CDSCs.
    5. Applicants request that the order also apply to any other
continuously offered registered closed-end management investment
company existing now or in the future for which the Adviser or the
Dealer Manager or any entity controlling, controlled by, or under
common control with the Adviser or the Dealer Manager or its
successors,\1\ acts as investment adviser or distributor, respectively,
and which provides periodic liquidity with respect to its Shares
through tender offers conducted in compliance with either rule 23c-3
under the Act or rule 13e-4 under the 1934 Act.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A successor in interest is limited to an entity that results
from a reorganization into another jurisdiction or a change in the
type of business organization.
    \2\ The Fund and any other investment company relying on the
requested relief will do so in a manner consistent with the terms
and conditions of the application. Applicants represent that any
person presently intending to rely on the requested relief is listed
as an applicant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. The Fund currently issues a single class of Shares (the
``Initial Class Shares''). Shares are currently being offered on a
continuous basis pursuant to a registration statement under the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Act at daily closings at their public
offering price per share. The Fund, as a closed-end investment company,
does not continuously redeem Shares as does an open-end management
investment company. Shares of the Fund are not listed on any securities
exchange and do not trade on an over-the-counter system such as NASDAQ.
Applicants do not expect that any secondary market will ever develop
for the Shares.
    7. If the requested relief is granted, the Fund intends to offer
multiple classes of Shares, such as the Initial Class Shares and
additional classes. Because of the different distribution fees, service
fees,

and any other class expenses that may be attributable to the different
classes, the net income attributable to, and any dividends payable on,
each class of Shares may differ from each other from time to time.
    8. Applicants state that, from time to time, the Board of the Fund
may create additional classes of Shares, or may vary the
characteristics described of the Initial Class, including without
limitation, in the following respects: (1) The amount of fees permitted
by different distribution plans or different service fee arrangements;
(2) voting rights with respect to a distribution and service plan of a
class; (3) different class designations; (4) the impact of any class
expenses directly attributable to a particular class of Shares
allocated on a class basis as described in the Application; (5)
differences in any dividends and net asset values per Share resulting
from differences in fees under a distribution and service plan or in
class expenses; (6) any sales load structure; and (7) any conversion
features, as permitted under the Act.
    9. The Fund will not impose an ``early withdrawal charge'' or
``repurchase fee'' on investors who purchase and tender their Shares.
    10. Applicants state that, in order to provide a limited degree of
liquidity to shareholders, the Fund is structured as an ``interval
fund'' and intends to make quarterly offers to repurchase up to 5% of
the weighted average number of Shares outstanding in the prior four
calendar quarters (or a portion thereof during the Fund's first fiscal
year) at a price based on the Fund's net asset value per share,
pursuant to rule 23c-3 under the Act. At the discretion of the Fund's
board of trustees, the Fund intends to limit the number of Shares to be
repurchased during any calendar year to the number of Shares the Fund
can repurchase with cash on hand, cash available from borrowings and
cash from the sale of its investments as of the end of the applicable
period to repurchase Shares. Repurchases of the Fund's Shares will be
made at such times, in such amounts, and on such terms as may be
determined by the Fund's Board in its sole discretion.
    11. Applicants represent that any asset-based service and/or
distribution fees will comply with the provisions of Rule 2341 of the
Rules of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (``FINRA Rule
2341'') as if that rule applied to the Fund.\3\ Applicants also
represent that the Fund will disclose in its prospectus the fees,
expenses and other characteristics of each class of Shares offered for
sale by the prospectus, as is required for open-end, multiple class
funds under Form N-1A.\4\ As is required for open-end funds, the Fund
will disclose its expenses in shareholder reports, and describe any
arrangements that result in breakpoints in or eliminations of sales
loads in its prospectus.\5\ In addition, applicants will comply with
applicable enhanced fee disclosure requirements for fund of funds,
including registered funds of hedge funds.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Any references to FINRA Rule 2341include any successor or
replacement rule that may be adopted by the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority (``FINRA'').
    \4\ In all respects other than class-by-class disclosure, the
Fund will comply with the requirements of Form N-2.
    \5\ See Shareholder Reports and Quarterly Portfolio Disclosure
of Registered Management Investment Companies, Investment Company
Act Release No. 26372 (Feb. 27, 2004) (adopting release) (requiring
open-end investment companies to disclose fund expenses in
shareholder reports); and Disclosure of Breakpoint Discounts by
Mutual Funds, Investment Company Act Release No. 26464 (June 7,
2004) (adopting release) (requiring open-end investment companies to
provide prospectus disclosure of certain sales load information).
    \6\ Fund of Funds Investments, Investment Company Act Rel. Nos.
26198 (Oct. 1, 2003) (proposing release) and 27399 (Jun. 20, 2006)
(adopting release). See also Rules 12d1-1, et seq. of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    12. The Fund and the Dealer Manager will comply with any
requirements that may be adopted by the Commission or FINRA regarding
disclosure at the point of sale and in transaction confirmations about
the costs and conflicts of interest arising out of the distribution of
open-end investment company shares, and regarding prospectus disclosure
of sales loads and revenue sharing arrangements as if those
requirements applied to the Fund and the Dealer Manager. The Fund or
the Dealer Manager will also contractually require that any other
distributor of the Fund's Shares comply with such requirements in
connection with the distribution of Shares of the Fund.
    13. The Fund will allocate all expenses incurred by it among the
various classes of Shares based on the net assets of the Fund
attributable to each class, except that the net asset value and
expenses of each class will reflect distribution fees, service fees,
and any other incremental expenses of that class. Expenses of the Fund
allocated to a particular class of Shares will be borne on a pro rata
basis by each outstanding Share of that class. Applicants state that
the Fund will comply with the provisions of rule 18f-3 under the Act as
if it were an open-end investment company.
    14. The Fund does not intend to offer any exchange privilege or
conversion feature, but any such privilege or feature introduced in the
future will comply with rule 11a-1, rule 11a-3, and rule 18f-3 as if
the Fund were an open-end investment company.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

Multiple Classes of Shares

    1. Section 18(a)(2)(A) and (B) makes it unlawful for a registered
closed-end investment company to issue a senior security that is a
stock unless (a) immediately after such issuance it will have an asset
coverage of at least 200% and (b) provision is made to prohibit the
declaration of any distribution, upon its common stock, or the purchase
of any such common stock, unless in every such case such senior
security has at the time of the declaration of any such distribution,
or at the time of any such purchase, an asset coverage of at least 200%
after deducting the amount of such distribution or purchase price, as
the case may be. Applicants state that the creation of multiple classes
of shares of the Funds may violate section 18(a)(2) because the Funds
may not meet such requirements with respect to a class of shares that
may be a senior security.
    2. Section 18(c) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that a
registered closed-end investment company may not issue or sell any
senior security if, immediately thereafter, the company has outstanding
more than one class of senior security. Applicants state that the
creation of multiple classes of Shares of the Fund may be prohibited by
section 18(c), as a class may have priority over another class as to
payment of dividends because shareholders of different classes would
pay different fees and expenses.
    3. Section 18(i) of the Act provides that each share of stock
issued by a registered management investment company will be a voting
stock and have equal voting rights with every other outstanding voting
stock. Applicants state that permitting multiple classes of Shares of
the Fund may violate section 18(i) of the Act because each class would
be entitled to exclusive voting rights with respect to matters solely
related to that class.
    4. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security or transaction or any class or classes of persons,
securities or transactions from any provision of the Act, or from any
rule or regulation under the Act, if and to the extent such exemption
is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with
the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the
policy

and provisions of the Act. Applicants request an exemption under
section 6(c) from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c) and 18(i) to permit the Fund
to issue multiple classes of Shares.
    5. Applicants submit that the proposed allocation of expenses
relating to distribution and voting rights among multiple classes is
equitable and will not discriminate against any group or class of
shareholders. Applicants submit that the proposed arrangements would
permit the Fund to facilitate the distribution of its Shares and
provide investors with a broader choice of shareholder options.
Applicants assert that the proposed closed-end investment company
multiple class structure does not raise the concerns underlying section
18 of the Act to any greater degree than open-end investment companies'
multiple class structures that are permitted by rule 18f-3 under the
Act. Applicants state that the Fund will comply with the provisions of
rule 18f-3 as if it were an open-end investment company.

Asset-Based Service and/or Distribution Fees

    1. Section 17(d) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act prohibit
an affiliated person of a registered investment company or an
affiliated person of such person, acting as principal, from
participating in or effecting any transaction in connection with any
joint enterprise or joint arrangement in which the investment company
participates unless the Commission issues an order permitting the
transaction. In reviewing applications submitted under section 17(d)
and rule 17d-1, the Commission considers whether the participation of
the investment company in a joint enterprise or joint arrangement is
consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of the Act, and
the extent to which the participation is on a basis different from or
less advantageous than that of other participants.
    2. Rule 17d-3 under the Act provides an exemption from section
17(d) and rule 17d-1 to permit open-end investment companies to enter
into distribution arrangements pursuant to rule 12b-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 under
the Act to permit the Fund to impose asset-based service and/or
distribution fees. Applicants have agreed to comply with rules 12b-1
and 17d-3 as if those rules applied to closed-end investment companies,
which they believe will resolve any concerns that might arise in
connection with a Fund financing the distribution of its shares through
asset-based service and/or distribution fees.
    3. For the reasons stated above, applicants submit that the
exemptions requested under section 6(c) are necessary and appropriate
in the public interest and are consistent with the protection of
investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions
of the Act. Applicants further submit that the Funds' imposition of
asset-based service and/or distribution fees is consistent with the
provisions, policies and purposes of the Act and does not involve
participation on a basis different from or less advantageous than that
of other participants.

Applicants' Condition

    The Fund agrees that any order granting the requested relief will
be subject to the following condition:
    Applicants will comply with the provisions of rules 6c-10, 12b-1,
17d-3, 18f-3, 22d-1, and where applicable, 11a-3 under the Act, as
amended from time to time or replaced, as if those rules applied to
closed-end management investment companies, and will comply with FINRA
Rule 2341, as amended from time to time, as if that rule applied to all
closed-end management investment companies.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-12590 Filed 6-16-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P