[Federal Register: April 4, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 66)]
[Notices]
[Page 18605]
[DOCID:fr04ap08-133]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Seventh Meeting, Special Committee 215 Aeronautical Mobile
Satellite (Route) Services Next Generation Satellite Services and
Equipment

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 215, Aeronautical Mobile
Satellite (Route) Services, Next Generation Satellite Services and
Equipment.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a third
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 215, Aeronautical Mobile Satellite
(Route) Services, Next Generation Satellite Services and Equipment.

DATES: The meeting will be held April 30-May 1, 2008, 9 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805 Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC, 20036; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (202)
833-9434; web site http://www.rtca.org for directions.

    Note: Dress is Business Casual.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a Special Committee 215 meeting. The agenda will
include:

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

     Opening Plenary Session (Welcome, Introductions, and
Administrative Remarks)
     Review and Approval of Agenda for Seventh Plenary
     Review and Approval of Sixth Meeting Summary (215-026;
RTCA Paper No. XXX-08/SC215-XXX)
     DO-262 Normative Appendix
    [cir] Drafting Status Report
    [cir] Review of Action List and Outstanding Actions
    [cir] Review of Comments and Approval Draft
    [cir] Review of FRAC and PMC Approval Processes
     DO-270 Normative Appendix
    [cir] Report from Drafting Group
    [cir] Review of Action List and Outstanding Action
    [cir] Subnetwork Operational Approval Process
    [cir] Review and Discussion of FAA Satellite Voice Advisory
Circular (D. Robinson)
     Closing Plenary Session (Any Other Business, Review of
Next Plenary Dates, Adjourn)
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 26, 2008.
Francisco Estrada C.,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
 [FR Doc. E8-6927 Filed 4-3-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register: February 20, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 33)]
[Notices]
[Page 7940]
[DOCID:fr20fe09-109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 15g-4; OMB Control No. 3235-0393; SEC File No. 270-347.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in the following rule: Rule 15g-
4--Disclosure of compensation to brokers or dealers (17 CRF 240.15g-4)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.). The
Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to
the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and
approval.
    Rule 15g-4 requires brokers and dealers effecting transactions in
penny stocks for or with customers to disclose the amount of
compensation received by the broker-dealer in connection with the
transaction. The purpose of the rule is to increase the level of
disclosure to investors concerning penny stocks generally and specific
penny stock transactions.
    The Commission estimates that approximately 240 broker-dealers will
spend an average of 100 hours annually to comply with the rule. Thus,
the total compliance burden is approximately 24,000 burden-hours per
year.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Comments should be directed to: Charles Boucher, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley
Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or send
an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted within
60 days of this notice.

    Dated: February 13, 2009.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-3578 Filed 2-19-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 177 (Thursday, September 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 43269]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19510]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-213, OMB Control No. 3235-0220]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 30b2-1

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit the existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 30b2-1 (17 CFR 270.30b2-1) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) (the ``Investment Company Act'')
requires a registered investment company (``fund'') to (1) file a
report with the Commission on Form N-CSR (17 CFR 249.331 and 274.128)
not later than 10 days after the transmission of any report required to
be transmitted to shareholders under rule 30e-1 under the Investment
Company Act, and (2) file with the Commission a copy of every periodic
or interim report or similar communication containing financial
statements that is transmitted by or on behalf of such fund to any
class of such fund's security holders and that is not required to be
filed with the Commission under (1) above, not later than 10 days after
the transmission to security holders. The purpose of the collection of
information required by rule 30b2-1 is to meet the disclosure
requirements of the Investment Company Act and certification
requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-204, 116
Stat. 745 (2002)), and to provide investors with information necessary
to evaluate an interest in the fund.
    The Commission estimates that there are 2,401 funds, with a total
of 11,555 portfolios, that are governed by the rule. For purposes of
this analysis, the burden associated with the requirements of rule
30b2-1 has been included in the collection of information requirements
of rule 30e-1 and Form N-CSR, rather than the rule. The Commission has,
however, requested a one hour burden for administrative purposes.
    The collection of information under rule 30b2-1 is mandatory. The
information provided under rule 30b2-1 is not kept confidential. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549; or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 11, 2017.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19510 Filed 9-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


From:       "Higgins, Cortney"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
To:         RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Thomas Gillis/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, George Faison/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Marc Thomas/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
  Date:       11/29/2011 11:24 AM
  Subject:    FW: E.O. 12866 Meeting on Boilers MACT and CISWI Rules

Hi all,
Attached are the handouts from the meeting this morning.

Regards,
Cortney

-----Original Appointment-----
From: Echols, Mabel E.
Subject: E.O. 12866 Meeting on Boilers MACT and CISWI Rules
When: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 9:30 AM-10:00 AM (UTC-05:00) Eastern
Time (US & Canada).
Where: Room 10103 NEOB

This meeting was requested by Khary Cauthen, API.

 (See attached file: 2060-AR13_2011_11_29_API_Handout2.pdf)(See attached file: 2060-AR13_2011_11_29_API_Handout1.pdf)


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 229 (Monday, November 30, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74726-74729]
[FR Doc No: 2015-30223]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-6541; Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-135-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900, and -900ER
series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports of a
manufacturing oversight, in which a supplier omitted the required
protective finish on certain bushings installed in the rear spar upper
chord on horizontal stabilizers, which could lead to galvanic corrosion
and consequent cracking of the rear spar upper chord. This proposed AD
would require an inspection or records check to determine if affected
horizontal stabilizers are installed, related investigative actions,
and for affected horizontal stabilizers, repetitive inspections for any
crack of the horizontal stabilizer rear spar upper chord, and
corrective action if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and
correct cracking of the rear spar upper chord, which can result in the
failure of the upper chord and consequent departure of the horizontal
stabilizer from the airplane, which can lead to loss of continued safe
flight and landing.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 14,
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
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone: 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
6541.

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-
6541; 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 regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street 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: Jason Deutschman, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6595; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2015-6541;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NM-135-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD 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 proposed AD.

Discussion

    We received reports of a manufacturing oversight, in which the
required protective finish (zinc-nickel alloy plate or cadmium plate)
was omitted on the 182A1508-4/-5/-6 bushings (in line with the terminal
fitting holes) installed in the rear spar upper chord on horizontal
stabilizers with certain serial numbers. This issue was discovered
after production of the affected stabilizers.
    The 182A1508-4/-5/-6 bushings are made from aluminum-nickel-bronze.
Installing these bushings, without the required protective finish, into
the 2024-T3511 aluminum horizontal stabilizer rear spar upper chord can
lead to galvanic corrosion between the dissimilar metals. Bushings with
galvanic corrosion, if not corrected, can lead to cracking of the rear
spar upper chord, which can result in the failure of the upper chord
and consequent departure of the horizontal stabilizer from the
airplane, which can lead to loss of continued safe flight and landing.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July
1, 2015. The service information describes procedures for an inspection
or records review to determine if affected horizontal stabilizers are
installed,

related investigative actions, high frequency eddy current inspections
for any crack of the horizontal stabilizer rear spar upper chord, and
corrective action if necessary. 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 of this NPRM.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD 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 proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service
Information.''
    The phrase ``related investigative actions'' is used in this
proposed AD. ``Related investigative actions'' are follow-on actions
that (1) are related to the primary action, and (2) further investigate
the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an
AD could include, for example, inspections.
    The phrase ``corrective actions'' is used in this proposed AD.
``Corrective actions'' are actions that correct or address any
condition found. Corrective actions in an AD could include, for
example, repairs.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015,
specifies to contact the manufacturer for instructions on how to repair
certain conditions, but this proposed AD would require repairing those
conditions in one of the following ways:
     In accordance with a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have
authorized to make those findings.

Explanation of ``RC'' Steps in Service Information

    The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the
Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee
(ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement was a new process for
annotating which steps in the service information are required for
compliance with an AD. Differentiating these steps from other tasks in
the service information is expected to improve an owner's/operator's
understanding of crucial AD requirements and help provide consistent
judgment in AD compliance. The steps identified as Required for
Compliance (RC) in any service information identified previously have a
direct effect on detecting, preventing, resolving, or eliminating an
identified unsafe condition.
    For service information that contains steps that are labeled as RC,
the following provisions apply: (1) The steps labeled as RC, including
substeps under an RC step and any figures identified in an RC step,
must be done to comply with the AD, and an AMOC is required for any
deviations to RC steps, including substeps and identified figures; and
(2) steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted methods
in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection program
without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC steps, including
substeps and identified figures, can still be done as specified, and
the airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 1,397 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection or check...................  1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85        $118,745
                                         hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary inspections
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
these inspections:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspections...................................  4 work-hours x $85 per hour =                 $0            $340
                                                 $340.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this proposed
AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on
affected individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.
    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this proposed
AD.

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 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 this 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, 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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2015-6541; Directorate Identifier
2015-NM-135-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 14, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, -900, and 900ER series airplanes, certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 55, Stabilizers.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of a manufacturing oversight, in
which a supplier omitted the required protective finish on certain
bushings installed in the rear spar upper chord on horizontal
stabilizers, which could lead to galvanic corrosion and consequent
cracking of the rear spar upper chord. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct cracking of the rear spar upper chord, which can
result in the failure of the upper chord and consequent departure of
the horizontal stabilizer from the airplane, which can lead to loss
of continued safe flight and landing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Serial Number Check or Inspection To Determine If Certain
Horizontal Stabilizers Are Installed, Related Investigative Actions,
Repetitive Inspections for Cracks, and Corrective Action

    (1) Except as specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, within
the compliance time identified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015, do
the actions specified in paragraph (g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this
AD.
    (i) Do a records check to determine if an affected horizontal
stabilizer is installed and if any horizontal stabilizer has been
exchanged, and do all applicable related investigative actions, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015. Affected
horizontal stabilizers are identified in the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated
July 1, 2015.
    (ii) Do an inspection of the horizontal stabilizer
identification plate to determine if any affected horizontal
stabilizer is installed, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated
July 1, 2015. Affected horizontal stabilizers are identified in the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
55A1097, dated July 1, 2015.
    (2) If, during any action required by paragraph (g)(1)(i) or
(g)(1)(ii) of this AD, any affected horizontal stabilizer is found:
Except as specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, within the
compliance time identified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015, do a
high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspection for any crack of the
horizontal stabilizer rear spar upper chord and do all applicable
corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated
July 1, 2015, except as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.
Repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals identified in
paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-55A1097, dated July 1, 2015.

(h) Exceptions to the Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July
1, 2015, specifies a compliance time ``after the original issue date
of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within the
specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) If any cracking is found during any inspection required by
this AD, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated July
1, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for appropriate action: Before
further flight, repair using a method approved in accordance with
the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

(i) Parts Installation Prohibition

    As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
horizontal stabilizer on any airplane, except as specified in
paragraphs (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD.
    (1) A horizontal stabilizer may be installed if the part is
inspected in accordance with ``Part 2: Horizontal Stabilizer
Identification Plate Inspection'' of the Accomplishments
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated
July 1, 2015, and no affected serial number is found.
    (2) A horizontal stabilizer may be installed if the part is
inspected in accordance with ``Part 2: Horizontal Stabilizer
Identification Plate Inspection'' of the Accomplishments
Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-55A1097, dated
July 1, 2015, and an affected serial number is found, provided the
actions specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (i)(2)(ii) of this AD
are done, as applicable.
    (i) An initial HFEC inspection specified in paragraph (g)(2) of
this AD is done before further flight and thereafter repetitive HFEC
inspections specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD are done within
the compliance times specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD.
    (ii) All applicable corrective actions are done before further
flight as required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD if it is approved by the
Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization
(ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make
those findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must
meet

the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs
(j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps,
including substeps and identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Jason
Deutschman, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA,
Seattle ACO, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:
425-917-6595; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone: 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 20, 2015.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-30223 Filed 11-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 239 (Thursday, December 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 86640]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27388]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR23-64-000.
    Applicants: Rocky Mountain Natural Gas LLC.
    Description: Report Filing: RMNG Supplemental SOC Filing to be
effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 12/7/23.
    Accession Number: 20231207-5061.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/28/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP24-229-000.
    Applicants: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC.
    Description: 4(d) Rate Filing: Dec 2023 Terminated Agreements
Cleanup to be effective 1/7/2024.
    Filed Date: 12/7/23.
    Accession Number: 20231207-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/19/23.

    Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a
complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with
Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the
specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is
necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP24-213-001.
    Applicants: MountainWest Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Revised FGRP Report for 2024 to be
effective 1/1/2024.
    Filed Date: 12/7/23.
    Accession Number: 20231207-5143.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/19/23.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: December 7, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-27388 Filed 12-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 186 (Tuesday, September 25, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59036-59039]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23606]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0134]

Public Hearing To Determine Whether Wildfire Has Met Remedy
Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: NHTSA will hold a public hearing on whether Snyder Computer
Systems, Inc. and Snyder Systems, Inc., also known as Wildfire Motors
(Wildfire),\1\ of Steubenville, Ohio, have reasonably met their
obligation to remedy noncompliances with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 122, Motorcycle brake systems, in a recall
involving Model Year (MY) 2009 WF650-C three-wheeled vehicles, which
Wildfire imported from China.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Wildfire Motors is a registered trade name of Snyder
Computer Systems, Inc. In correspondence with NHTSA, Wildfire has
also used the corporate name Snyder Systems, Inc.

DATES: The public hearing will be held beginning at 10 a.m. ET on
October 15, 2012 in the Oklahoma City room of the U.S. Department of
Transportation Conference Center, located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590. NHTSA recommends that all persons attending
the proceedings arrive at least 45 minutes early in order to facilitate
entry into the Conference Center. NHTSA cannot ensure that late
arrivals will be permitted access to the hearing. Attendees are
strongly discouraged from bringing laptop computers to the hearing, as
they will be subject to additional security measures. If you wish to
attend or speak at the hearing, you must register in advance no later
than October 9, 2012 (and October 4, 2012 for non-U.S. citizens), by
following the instructions in the Procedural Matters section of this
notice. NHTSA will consider late registrants to the extent time and
space allows, but cannot ensure that late registrants will be able to
attend or speak at the hearing. To ensure that NHTSA has an opportunity
to consider comments, NHTSA must receive written comments by October 9,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments to the docket number identified in
the heading of this document by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document.
    You may call the Docket at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For registration to attend or speak at
the public hearing: Sabrina Fleming, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
(Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>). For hearing procedures:
Kerry Kolodziej, Office of the Chief Counsel, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
(Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>). Information regarding
the recall is available on NHTSA's Web site: http://www.safercar.gov.
To find this recall: (1) In the drop-down menu under ``Safety
Recalls,'' search for a recall by vehicle; (2) select model year 2009;
(3) select Wildfire as the make; (4) select WF650-C as the model; and
(5) click ``Retrieve Recalls.'' Once information on Recall No. 12V-031
is displayed, clicking on the ``Document Search'' button will display
recall-related documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30120(e) and 49 CFR
557.6(d) and 557.7, NHTSA has decided to hold a public hearing on
whether Wildfire has reasonably met its obligation under the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, as amended (Safety Act), to
remedy the MY 2009 Wildfire WF650-C's noncompliances with FMVSS No.
122, Motorcycle brake systems. The noncompliances are the subject of a
recall campaign, Recall No. 12V-031.

I. Initiation of a Recall

    A manufacturer of a motor vehicle that decides in good faith that
the vehicle does not comply with an applicable FMVSS must notify NHTSA
by submitting a Defect and Noncompliance Information Report, commonly
referred to as a Part 573 Report. 49 U.S.C. 30118(c); 49 CFR 573.6.\2\
A Part 573 Report shall be submitted not more than 5 working days after
a noncompliance with a FMVSS has been determined to exist. 49 CFR
573.6(b). The manufacturer must subsequently file quarterly reports
with NHTSA containing information including the number of vehicles that
have been remedied. 49 CFR 573.7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In addition to its notification to NHTSA, if the
manufacturer of a motor vehicle decides in good faith that the
vehicle does not comply with an applicable FMVSS, the manufacturer
must notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of the vehicle of the
noncompliance. 49 U.S.C. 30118(c); see 49 CFR part 573; 49 CFR part
577.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the Safety Act, a ``manufacturer'' of a motor vehicle
is a person manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles, or a person
importing motor vehicles for resale. 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(5). Both the
importer of a motor vehicle and the fabricating manufacturer of the
vehicle are responsible for remedying any noncompliance determined to
exist in the vehicle. 49 CFR 573.5(a). As to imported motor vehicles,
compliance with recall regulations by either the fabricating
manufacturer or the importer of the vehicle shall be considered
compliance by both. 49 CFR 573.3(b).

II. Remedy Requirements

    A manufacturer of a noncomplying motor vehicle is required to
remedy the vehicle without charge. 49 U.S.C. 30120(a). The manufacturer
may remedy the noncompliance by repairing the vehicle, by replacing the
vehicle with an identical or reasonably equivalent vehicle, or by
refunding the purchase

price, less a reasonable allowance for depreciation. 49 U.S.C.
30120(a). If a manufacturer decides to repair a noncomplying motor
vehicle and the repair is not done adequately within a reasonable time,
the manufacturer shall replace the vehicle without charge with an
identical or reasonably equivalent vehicle, or refund the purchase
price, less a reasonable allowance for depreciation. 49 U.S.C.
30120(c).
    On its own motion or on application by any interested person, NHTSA
may conduct a hearing to decide whether a manufacturer has reasonably
met the remedy requirements. 49 U.S.C. 30120(e). If NHTSA decides that
the manufacturer has not reasonably met the remedy requirements, it
shall order the manufacturer to take specified action to meet those
requirements, including by ordering the manufacturer to refund the
purchase price of the noncomplying vehicles, less a reasonable
allowance for depreciation. 49 U.S.C. 30120(a), (c), (e). NHTSA may
also take any other action authorized by the Safety Act, including
assessing civil penalties. See 49 U.S.C. 30120(e), 30165(a)(1). A
person that violates the Safety Act, including its remedy requirements,
or regulations prescribed thereunder, is liable to the United States
Government for a civil penalty of not more than $6,000 for each
violation. A separate violation occurs for each motor vehicle and for
each failure to perform a required act. The maximum penalty for a
related series of violations is $17,350,000. 49 U.S.C. 30165(a)(1); 49
CFR 578.6.

III. MY 2009 Wildfire WF650-C

    The MY 2009 WF650-C is a three-wheeled vehicle with an enclosed cab
body style. As a three-wheeled vehicle, the MY 2009 WF650-C is subject
to the FMVSSs for motorcycles. See 49 CFR 571.3(b).
    Wildfire is the importer of the MY 2009 WF650-C and the registered
agent for the fabricating manufacturer, Taixing Sandi Motorcycle Co.,
Ltd. (TSM) of China. Don Snyder is the President and CEO of the
privately held Wildfire.

A. NHTSA's Investigation of the MY 2009 WF650-C

1. NHTSA's Testing and Apparent Noncompliances Identified
    In 2009, NHTSA tested a NHTSA-owned MY 2009 WF650-C for compliance
with FMVSS No. 122, Motorcycle brake systems, at Transportation
Research Center Inc. (TRC) in East Liberty, Ohio.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See NHTSA, Safety Compliance Testing for FMVSS 122, Final
Report No. 122-TRC-11-001 (Aug. 18, 2011). The test report is
publicly available by searching on http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/problems/comply/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA identified multiple apparent noncompliances with FMVSS No.
122. First, the vehicle did not comply with the first effectiveness
requirement of FMVSS No. 122, S5.2.1, Service brake system, because the
service brakes were not capable of stopping the motorcycle from 30
m.p.h. within 54 feet during NHTSA's testing.\4\ Due to this apparent
noncompliance with the stopping distance requirements, NHTSA terminated
its testing following this first (preburnished) effectiveness testing.
Additionally, NHTSA observed that the vehicle did not comply with FMVSS
No. 122, S<IP_ADDRESS>, Master cylinder reservoirs, because it did not have
a separate reservoir for each brake circuit with each reservoir filler
opening having its own cover, seal, and cover retention device. NHTSA
notified Wildfire of these apparent noncompliances on December 18,
2009.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The vehicle also was unable to stop from 45 m.p.h. within
121 feet, as required by the Standard, based on several attempted
stops.
    \5\ Letter from H. Thompson, NHTSA to D. Snyder, Wildfire (Dec.
18, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA also later identified and notified Wildfire of two additional
apparent noncompliances with other requirements of FMVSS No. 122.
First, the vehicle did not comply with FMVSS No. 122, S<IP_ADDRESS>,
Reservoir labeling, because there was no label as required. Second, the
vehicle did not comply with FMVSS No. 122, S<IP_ADDRESS>, Failure indicator
lamp, because the vehicle did not have a failure indicator lamp (which
is required to activate for pressure failure, low fluid, and
momentarily when the ignition switch is turned to the ``on'' or
``start'' position).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Letter from C. Harris, NHTSA to D. Snyder, Wildfire
(sent Dec. 27, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Wildfire's Response to Apparent Noncompliances Identified By NHTSA
    Although NHTSA provided Wildfire with information in December 2009
regarding the apparent noncompliances with the stopping distance and
master cylinder reservoir requirements, Wildfire did not acknowledge at
that time that the MY 2009 WF650-C failed to comply with FMVSS No. 122.
NHTSA's December 2009 letter requested certain information from
Wildfire, to further its investigation of the apparent
noncompliances.\7\ Wildfire responded on March 5, 2010 and made the
unsubstantiated allegation (on behalf of TSM) that the NHTSA-owned
vehicle's brakes must have been out of adjustment, and therefore it was
not a representative vehicle.\8\ Wildfire claimed that when TSM
conducted brake testing in China, ``the result was the brakes were
fine.'' \9\ Wildfire provided an untranslated Chinese test report.
However, that report did not appear to indicate that any stopping
distance tests were performed. Wildfire also indicated that it
conducted its own stopping distance tests, but did not provide any
documentation evidencing that those tests were consistent with FMVSS
No. 122.\10\ Wildfire did not provide any response regarding the
apparent noncompliance with FMVSS No. 122, S<IP_ADDRESS>, Master cylinder
reservoirs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Letter from H. Thompson, NHTSA to D. Snyder, Wildfire (Dec.
18, 2009).
    \8\ See Email from A. Tipton, Wildfire to S. Seigel, NHTSA (Mar.
5, 2010).
    \9\ Email from A. Tipton, Wildfire to S. Seigel, NHTSA (Mar. 5,
2010).
    \10\ See Letter from C. Harris, NHTSA to D. Snyder, Wildfire
(sent Dec. 27, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After NHTSA notified Wildfire that its response was deficient,
Wildfire purported to conduct stopping distance testing on a vehicle in
April 2010.\11\ The testing data provided by Wildfire did not appear
realistic, and NHTSA sought additional documentation from Wildfire.\12\
Instead, Wildfire inquired, in June 2010, if it could make arrangements
to observe the NHTSA-owned vehicle at TRC.\13\ In August 2010, Wildfire
specifically requested retesting of the NHTSA-owned vehicle and the
opportunity to make adjustments to the vehicle.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Letter from C. Harris, NHTSA to D. Snyder, Wildfire (sent
Dec. 27, 2011).
    \12\ See Letter from C. Harris, NHTSA to D. Snyder, Wildfire
(sent Dec. 27, 2011).
    \13\ See Letter from C. Harris, NHTSA to D. Snyder, Wildfire
(sent Dec. 27, 2011).
    \14\ See Letter from C. Harris, NHTSA to D. Snyder, Wildfire
(sent Dec. 27, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After making arrangements with NHTSA, on September 28, 2010,
Wildfire representatives inspected the vehicle at TRC and adjusted and
bled the brakes. Wildfire claimed that these adjustments would allow
the vehicle to comply with the stopping distance requirements. However,
the adjustments did not materially change the results. When the vehicle
was retested on September 30, 2010, it again failed to stop from 30
m.p.h. within 54 feet (or from 45 m.p.h. within 121 feet), as required
by FMVSS No. 122, S5.2.1, Service brake system.\15\ NHTSA notified
Wildfire of the results by email on October 1, 2010.\16\ Instead of
acknowledging the vehicle was noncompliant with FMVSS No. 122

following this testing, Wildfire continued to delay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Letter from C. Harris, NHTSA to D. Snyder, Wildfire (sent
Dec. 27, 2011).
    \16\ Email from S. Seigel, NHTSA to A. Tipton, Wildfire (Oct. 1,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In December 2011, NHTSA requested in writing that Wildfire and/or
TSM make a determination that the MY 2009 WF650-C is noncompliant with
FMVSS No. 122 and conduct a voluntary recall. NHTSA's recall request
letter addressed each of the four apparent noncompliances identified
above.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Letter from C. Harris, NHTSA to D. Snyder, Wildfire (sent
Dec. 27, 2011); see Letter from C. Harris, NHTSA to J. Ji, TSM (Jan.
18, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Wildfire's Notifications to NHTSA of FMVSS No. 122 Noncompliances

    Following NHTSA's formal request, and over two years after NHTSA
notified Wildfire of the apparent noncompliances with the stopping
distance and master cylinder reservoir requirements, Wildfire initiated
a recall.\18\ Wildfire first notified NHTSA that the MY 2009 WF650-C
was noncompliant with FMVSS No. 122 by submitting a Part 573 Report
prepared on January 30, 2012.\19\ Wildfire acknowledged noncompliances
with the master cylinder reservoir, reservoir labeling, and failure
indicator lamp requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Although TSM did not respond to NHTSA's recall request,
compliance with recall regulations by either the fabricating
manufacturer or the importer of a vehicle is considered compliance
by both. 49 CFR 573.3(b). Nothing herein limits TSM's
responsibilities and liabilities for the noncompliance with these
vehicles.
    \19\ Recall No. 12V-031, Part 573 Report (prepared Jan. 30,
2012). Wildfire's Part 573 Reports and other documents relevant to
the recall are available at www.safercar.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, Wildfire did not address the stopping distance
requirements of FMVSS No. 122 in its initial Part 573 Report. In a
letter to Wildfire dated February 1, 2012, NHTSA again requested that
Wildfire determine there was a noncompliance with S5.2.1, Service brake
system.\20\ Wildfire responded with an amended Part 573 Report,
prepared February 3, 2012, acknowledging that NHTSA found that the
WF650-C did not meet the stopping distance requirements of FMVSS No.
122, in addition to acknowledging the other noncompliances addressed by
Wildfire's earlier Part 573 Report.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Letter from C. Harris, NHTSA to D. Snyder, Wildfire (Feb.
1, 2012).
    \21\ Recall No. 12V-031, Amended Part 573 Report (prepared Feb.
3, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA identified several deficiencies with Wildfire's amended Part
573 Report, including that it failed to include a clear and unequivocal
statement by Wildfire that a noncompliance existed with the stopping
distance requirements of FMVSS No. 122 and failed to specify a valid
remedy for that noncompliance.\22\ Wildfire subsequently submitted a
second amended Part 573 Report, prepared February 20, 2012.\23\ This
Part 573 Report acknowledged noncompliances with all four requirements
identified by NHTSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Letter from C. Harris, NHTSA to D. Snyder, Wildfire (Feb.
9, 2012).
    \23\ Recall No. 12V-031, Second Amended Part 573 Report
(prepared Feb. 20, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA assigned Recall Number 12V-031 to Wildfire's recall campaign.
Most recently, Wildfire reported that there are 197 vehicles subject to
the recall.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Recall No. 12V-031, Quarterly Report (Aug. 21, 2012).
Wildfire previously reported that there were 202 or 200 vehicles
subject to the recall, but has not explained why the number has
changed. See Recall No. 12V-031, Part 573 Report I (prepared Jan.
30, 2012) (202 vehicles); Recall No. 12V-031, Amended Part 573
Report I (prepared Feb. 3, 2012) (202 vehicles); Recall No. 12V-031,
Second Amended Part 573 Report I (prepared Feb. 20, 2012) (200
vehicles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Wildfire's Repair Remedy

    Wildfire elected the remedy of repairing the FMVSS No. 122
noncompliances subject to the recalls. See 49 U.S.C. 30120(a). However,
Wildfire reported in August 2012 that none of the vehicles subject to
the recall have been repaired.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Recall No. 12V-031, Quarterly Report (Aug. 21, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its notification letter to owners regarding the recall, Wildfire
indicated that the WF650-C should not be operated until the vehicle is
remedied, that parts should be available for the repair after May 14,
2012, and that owners should contact a Wildfire dealer as soon as
possible to obtain a service date.\26\ Wildfire first sent this letter
on April 18, 2012 to owners based on information from its internal
records about purchasers.\27\ It appears Wildfire subsequently sent the
same letter on June 1, 2012 to registered owners, based on vehicle
registration information, despite knowing that the information in the
letter was incorrect because parts were still not available.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Wildfire, Response to Special Order, Request for Production
of Documents No. 2, Att. (July 12, 2012).
    \27\ Wildfire, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory No. 14,
Att. (July 12, 2012).
    \28\ See Wildfire, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory No.
15 (July 12, 2012). In addition to receiving a notice containing
incorrect information, registered owners also did not receive a
notification of the recall until well after 60 days from Wildfire's
noncompliance decision, as is expected. See NHTSA, Safety Recall
Compendium at 7-8, http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/recalls/documents/recompendium.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After Wildfire failed to provide NHTSA with sufficient information
about its proposed repair remedy in response to NHTSA's requests, on
June 5, 2012 NHTSA sent Wildfire a Special Order seeking additional
information related to the recall and repair remedy. Wildfire responded
to the Special Order on July 12, 2012. Wildfire indicated in its
response that it did not expect parts to be available for the repairs
until July 20, 2012.\29\ Wildfire also indicated that it would send
dealers instructions for the repair remedy on July 20, 2012.\30\ It
appears that Wildfire did not do so.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Wildfire, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory No. 15
(July 12, 2012).
    \30\ Wildfire, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory No. 13
(July 12, 2012).
    \31\ A manufacturer is required to furnish NHTSA with a copy of
each communication involving a recall that the manufacturer issued
to, or made available to, more than one dealer, distributor, lessor,
lessee, other manufacturer, owner, or purchaser, no later than five
working days after the end of the month in which it is issued. 49
CFR 579.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wildfire also represented in its Special Order response, made under
oath, that its repair remedy would make MY 2009 WF650-Cs compliant with
all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 122.\32\ Wildfire indicated it
was relying on a representation from TSM (the Chinese fabricating
manufacturer).\33\ Wildfire did not provide any testing data or other
information to support the contention that the repair remedy was
effective. In fact, Wildfire acknowledged it was not sure whether the
remedy had been tested.\34\ Wildfire also represented in its response
that it hoped to have all MY 2009 WF650-Cs repaired by September 5,
2012.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Wildfire, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory No. 4
(July 12, 2012).
    \33\ Wildfire, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory No. 4
(July 12, 2012).
    \34\ Wildfire, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory No. 6
(July 12, 2012).
    \35\ Wildfire, Response to Special Order, Interrogatory No. 5
(July 12, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wildfire also entered into an Agreement with NHTSA to repair the
NHTSA-owned MY 2009 WF650-C in accordance with its repair remedy, which
NHTSA would then retest to the requirements of FMVSS No. 122.\36\
Wildfire retrieved the vehicle on July 23, 2012, purported to repair
it, and returned it to NHTSA on July 31, 2012.\37\ Pursuant to the
Agreement, by August 10, 2012, Wildfire was required to provide NHTSA
with a detailed description of every part installed as well as every
change or modification made to the vehicle, which Wildfire failed to
do. NHTSA proceeded with testing its repaired WF650-C vehicle in August
and September 2012. Based on

this testing, the repaired vehicle still did not meet the stopping
distance requirements of FMVSS No. 122, S5.2.1, Service brake system.
NHTSA also observed that the failure indicator lamp installed by
Wildfire as part of its remedy did not meet the requirements of FMVSS
No. 122, S<IP_ADDRESS>, Failure indicator lamp, because it did not: (1)
Activate as required for low fluid; (2) activate as required for
pressure failure; (3) momentarily activate when the ignition switch was
turned from the ``off'' to the ``on'' or to the ``start'' position; and
(4) include the required wording (``Brake Failure'').\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Letter from O. K. Vincent, NHTSA to D. Snyder, Wildfire
(July 17, 2012) (enclosing fully executed repair Agreement).
    \37\ Contrary to the terms of the Agreement, Wildfire kept the
vehicle longer than 5 business days and drove the vehicle
approximately 48 more miles than the 2 miles it was permitted.
    \38\ NHTSA, Safety Compliance Testing for FMVSS 122, Final
Report No. 122-TRC-12-003 (Sept. 19, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, contrary to Wildfire's representation, its repair remedy does
not bring the recalled vehicles into compliance with FMVSS No. 122. The
vehicles subject to the recall remain noncompliant.

IV. Decision To Conduct a Public Hearing

    NHTSA has decided that it is necessary to conduct a public hearing
to decide whether Wildfire has reasonably met the remedy requirements
under 49 U.S.C. 30120. See 49 U.S.C. 30120(e); 49 CFR 557.6(d), 557.7.
NHTSA will conduct the public hearing in the Oklahoma City room of the
U.S. Department of Transportation Conference Center, located on the
first floor of the West Building at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590. Any interested person may make written and/or
oral presentations of information, views, and arguments on whether
Wildfire has reasonably met the remedy requirements. There will be no
cross-examination of witnesses. 49 CFR 557.7.
    NHTSA will consider the views of participants in deciding whether
Wildfire has reasonably met the remedy requirements under 49 U.S.C.
30120, and in developing the terms of an order (if any) requiring
Wildfire to take specified action as the remedy for the noncompliances
and/or take other action. 49 U.S.C. 30120(e); 49 CFR 557.8.
    Procedural Matters: Interested persons may participate in these
proceedings through written and/or oral presentations. Persons wishing
to attend must notify Sabrina Fleming, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590
(Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) (Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>), before the close of
business on October 9, 2012 (and October 4, 2012 for non-U.S.
citizens). Each person wishing to attend must provide his or her name
and country of citizenship. Non-U.S. citizens must also provide date of
birth, title or position, and passport or diplomatic ID number, along
with expiration date. Each person wishing to make an oral presentation
must also specify the amount of time that the presentation is expected
to last, his or her organizational affiliation, phone number, and email
address. NHTSA will prepare a schedule of presentations. Depending upon
the number of persons who wish to make oral presentations and the
anticipated length of those presentations, NHTSA may add an additional
day or days to the hearing, and/or may limit the length of oral
presentations.
    The hearing will be held at a site accessible to individuals with
disabilities. Individuals who require accommodations, such as sign
language interpreters, should contact Ms. Kerry Kolodziej using the
contact information in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
above no later than October 4, 2012. A transcript of the proceedings
will be placed in the docket for this notice at a later date.
    Persons who wish to file written comments should submit them so
that they are received by NHTSA no later than October 9, 2012.
Information on how to submit written comments to the docket is located
under the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 30120(e); 49 CFR 557.6(d), 557.7;
delegations of authority at 49 CFR 1.95(a), 501.2(a)(1), and 49 CFR
501.8.

    Issued: September 19, 2012.
Daniel C. Smith,
Senior Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety.
[FR Doc. 2012-23606 Filed 9-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1094-1095]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00200]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Waiver of Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance: The Eastern Iowa
Airport, (CID) Cedar Rapids, IA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Intent of Waiver with respect to land.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is considering a
proposal from the City of Cedar Rapids (sponsor), Cedar Rapids, IA, to
release 3 tracts totaling 489.72 + (Tract 1: 259.88 + acres, Tract 2:
215.52 + acres and Tract 3; 14.32 + acres) of land from the federal
obligation dedicating it to aeronautical use and to authorize these
parcels to be used for revenue-producing, non-aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 8, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-
610C, 901 Locust, Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to: Marty Lenss, CM, 2515 Arthur Collins Parkway
SW, Cedar Rapids, IA 52404-8952,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-
610C, 901 Locust, Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106, Telephone number
(816) 329-2644, Fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to change approximately 489.72 + acres of airport property at
The Eastern Iowa Airport (CID) from aeronautical use to non-
aeronautical for revenue producing use. The tracts of land are located
along the Northern boundary of the airport, near 76th Avenue SW and on
the corner of 76th Ave. SW and Edgewood Road SW and the corner of 76th
Ave. and 18th St. SW. These tracts will be used for light industrial/
business park.
    No airport landside or airside facilities are presently located on
these tracts, nor are airport developments contemplated in the future.
There is no current use of the surface of these tracts. The tracts will
serve as revenue producing lots with the proposed change from
aeronautical to non-aeronautical. The request submitted by the Sponsor
meets the procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration and the change to non-aeronautical status of the
property does not and will not impact future aviation needs at the
airport. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no
sooner than thirty days after the publication of this Notice.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The Eastern Iowa Airport (CID) is proposing the release of three
tracts of land totaling 489.72 more or less acres from aeronautical to
non-aeronautical. The release of land is necessary to comply with
Federal Aviation Administration Grant Assurances that do not allow
federally acquired airport property to be used for non-aviation
purposes. The rental of the subject property will result in the land at
The Eastern Iowa Airport (CID) being changed from aeronautical to
nonaeronautical use and release the lands from the conditions of the
Airport Improvement Program Grant Agreement Grant Assurances. In
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 47107(c) (2)(B)(i) and (iii), the airport
will receive fair market rental value for the property. The annual
income from rent payments will generate a long-term, revenue-producing
stream that will further the Sponsor's obligation under FAA Grant
Assurance number 24, to make The Eastern Iowa Airport as financially
self-sufficient as possible.
    Following is a legal description of the subject airport property at
The Eastern Iowa Airport (CID):

Legal Description Tract 1

    A tract of land located in Section 24, Township 82 North, Range 8
West of the fifth principal meridian, Linn County, Iowa, more
particularly described as follows:

    Beginning at a point 20.00 feet South of the North line of said
Section 24 and 33.00 feet East of the West line of said Section 24;
thence North 88[deg]28'54'' East, 2636.28 feet to the East line of the
Northwest quarter of said section; thence North 88[deg]24'05'' East,
2545.44 feet; thence South 32[deg]33'15'' East, 85.48 feet to the West
right-of-way line of Edgewood Road SW; thence South 02[deg]00'36''
East, 2151.98 feet along said west right-of-way line; thence South
89[deg]42'36'' West, 5229.22 feet; thence North 01[deg]57'33'' West,
2109.54 feet to the point of beginning, containing 11,320,472 square
feet or 259.88 acres more or less.

Legal Description Tract 2

    A tract of land located in Section 19, Township 82 North, Range 7
West of the fifth principal meridian, Linn County, Iowa, more
particularly described as follows:

    Commencing at the Northwest corner of the Northeast quarter of the
Northeast quarter of said Section 19, thence 42.52 feet along the West
line of said Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter to the point of
beginning; thence continuing along said West line south 01[deg]59'21''
East, 1279.63 feet to the Southwest corner of said Northeast quarter of
the Northeast quarter; thence South 01[deg]59'49'' East, 275.12 feet
along the west line of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter;
thence North 89[deg]41'40'' East, 1286.86 feet to the west right-of-way
of 18th Street SW; thence South 01[deg]57'44'' East, 514.69 feet along
said West right-of-way line; thence South 81[deg]10'45'' West, 874.43
feet; thence South 89[deg]42'36'' West, 4335.69 feet to the East right-
of-way line of Edgewood Road SW; thence North 02[deg]00'36'' West,
2156.18 feet along said East right-of-way line; thence North
29[deg]37'07'' East, 55.43 feet to the South right-of-way line of 76th
Avenue SW; thence North 89[deg]51'08'' East, 2569.06 feet along said
South right-of-way line to the East line of the Northwest quarter of
said section 19; thence North 89[deg]39'57'' East, 1320.46 feet
continuing along said South right-of-way line to the point of
beginning, containing 9,388,150 square feet or 215.52 acres more or
less.

Legal Description Tract 3

    A parcel of land located in the North half of the Northwest quarter
of the Northwest quarter of Section 20, Township 82 North, range 7 West
of the fifth principal meridian lying west of the C.R. & I.C. Inter
Railway, Linn County, Iowa, more particularly described as follows:

    Beginning at the intersection of the South right-of-way line of
76th Avenue SW and the West right-of-way line of the C.R. & I.C. Inter
Railway Company, thence South 07[deg]13'24'' West, 624.42 feet along
said West right-of-way to the South line of said North half of the
Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter; thence South 89[deg]37'21''
West, 959.81 feet along said South line to the East right-of-way line
of 18th Street SW; thence North 01[deg]57'44'' West, 569.18 feet along
said East right-of-way line; thence North 43[deg]49'35'' East, 69.73
feet to the South right-of-way line of 76th Avenue SW; thence North
89[deg]37'23'' East, 1009.53 feet along said South right-of-way line to
the point of

beginning, containing 623,678 square feet or 14.32 acres more or less.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect the
application, notice and other documents determined by the FAA to be
related to the application in person at The Eastern Iowa Airport.

    Issued in Kansas City, MO on January 3, 2018.
Jim A. Johnson,
Director, Airports Division Central Region.
[FR Doc. 2018-00200 Filed 1-8-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 17, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 181)]
[Notices]
[Page 53896]
[DOCID:fr17se08-124]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1773-DR]

Missouri; Amendment No. 11 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1773-DR), dated June 25, 2008, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 8, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Missouri is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his
declaration of June 25, 2008.

    Callaway County for Individual Assistance.
    Chariton, Harrison, and Macon Counties for Individual Assistance
(already designated for Public Assistance.)
    Adair, Monroe, and Putnam Counties for Individual Assistance and
Public Assistance.
    Knox, Randolph, Saline, Schuyler, Scotland, and Worth Counties
for Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E8-21657 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-10-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 158 (Thursday, August 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39122-39123]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17385]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243; FRL-9965-04-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Plywood and Composite Wood Products National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) Risk and
Technology Review (RTR)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), for the ``Plywood and Composite
Wood Products National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) Risk and Technology Review (RTR)'' (EPA ICR No. 2552.01, OMB
Control No. 2060--NEW) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
This is a request for approval of a new collection. Public comments
were previously requested via the Federal Register (81 FR 62125) on
September 8, 2016, during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows
for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of
the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the
public. An agency may not conduct or sponsor

and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before September 18,
2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0243, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    The 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: John Bradfield, Sector Policies and
Programs Division (E143-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The
telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about the EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: This ICR is being conducted by the EPA's Office of Air
and Radiation to assist the EPA Administrator to fulfill his
responsibilities under sections 112(d) and 112(f) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), as amended. The CAA requires a review of each NESHAP following
the application of the standard to determine any remaining risk and
whether the standard is protective to public health with an ample
margin of safety and prevents adverse environmental effects. The CAA
also requires that the standard be reviewed and revised, as necessary,
taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control
technology. For efficiency and to reduce burden, these reviews are
conducted concurrently and known as RTR. The federal emission standard
that is the subject of this information collection is the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite
Wood Products (PCWP) (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD). On March 22, 2017,
the EPA was ordered by the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit to complete the PCWP RTR no later than
June 30, 2020. In addition to the CAA reviews, in 2007, the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a
remand requiring the administrator to develop standards for emission
units identified in the PCWP NESHAP for which emission limits were not
promulgated.
    The ICR will provide specific, required information, including
emission inventories, compliance demonstrations, process changes, and
information about control technologies/practices adopted since the
application of maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The ICR
will be sent to all known operators of PCWP facilities that are major
sources for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) regulated by the PCWP NESHAP
and synthetic area sources that may have used technology to avoid major
source status triggering NESHAP applicability. The information
collection seeks to collect facility-level information (e.g., facility
name, location, contact information, and process unit details),
emissions information, compliance data, control information, and
descriptions of technological innovations.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Major sources regulated by the PCWP
NESHAP and synthetic area sources that may have used technology to
avoid major source status triggering NESHAP applicability.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory under the authority
of section 114 of the CAA.
    Estimated number of respondents: 397 (total).
    Frequency of response: Once.
    Total estimated burden: 59,437 hours (one-time). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $4,199,272 (one-time), which includes $6,650
in operation and maintenance costs (O&M) to cover mailing hard copies.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-17385 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P6560-50-P