[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 174 (Friday, September 9, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55325-55328]
[FR Doc No: 2022-19298]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0815; Project Identifier AD-2021-00679-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, -900,
and -900ER series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by reports
of missing shims, a wrong type of shims, shanked fasteners, fastener
head gaps, and incorrect hole sizes common to the left and right side
at a certain station (STA) frame inner chord and web. This proposed AD
would require inspecting for existing repairs, inspecting the area for
cracking, and applicable on-condition actions. The FAA is proposing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 24,
2022.

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 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 NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view
this referenced service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0815.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0815; or in person at Docket
Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2022-0815; Project Identifier
AD-2021-00679-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Bill
Ashforth, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-
231-3520; email: [email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA
receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in
the public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA has received a report indicating that a Boeing quality
investigation found missing shims, a wrong type of shims, shanked
fasteners, fastener head gaps, and incorrect hole sizes common to the
left and right side STA 727 frame inner chord and S-18A web. These
conditions could exist on delivered airplanes. The FAA is proposing
this AD to address cracking in the left and right side of STA 727 frame
inner chord and S-18A web before the cracking reaches a critical
length. This condition, if not addressed, could result in cracks in
fatigue critical baseline structure (FCBS) and the inability of a
principal structural element (PSE) to sustain limit load, which could
adversely affect the structural integrity of the airplane.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1402 RB,
dated July 2, 2021. This service information specifies procedures for a
general visual inspection of the left and right side STA 727 frame
inner chord at S-18A for existing repairs, an open hole high frequency
eddy current (HFEC) inspection of the left and right side entire
stackup of the STA 727 frame inner chord at S-18A for cracking (for
certain configurations), a surface HFEC inspection of the left and
right side STA 727 frame inner chord at S-18A web for cracking, and
applicable on-condition actions. On-condition actions include
installing a new shim, a surface HFECD inspection of the STA 727 frame
inner chord at S-18A for cracking, and repair.
    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 ADDRESSES.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information already described, except for any
differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this
proposed AD. For information on the procedures and compliance times,
see this service information at www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2022-0815.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 1,925 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the
following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General visual inspection.............  2 work-hours x $85 per                $0            $170        $327,250
                                         hour = $170.
HFEC inspection and shim installation.  5 work-hours x $85 per                 0             425         818,125
                                         hour = $425.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary repairs
or inspections that would be required based on the results of the
proposed inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these repairs or inspections:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection....................................  3 work hours x $85 per hour =                 $0            $255
                                                 $255.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the 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.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA 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) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would 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:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2022-0815; Project Identifier AD-
2021-00679-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by October 24, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -
700C, -800, -900, and -900ER series airplanes, certificated in any
category, as identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-
53A1402 RB, dated July 2, 2021.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of missing shims, a wrong type
of shims, shanked fasteners, fastener head gaps, and incorrect hole
sizes common to the left and right side station (STA) 727 frame
inner chord and S-18A web. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
cracking in the left and right side of STA 727 frame inner chord and
S-18A web before it reaches a critical length. This condition, if
not addressed, could result in cracks in fatigue critical baseline
structure (FCBS) and the inability of a principal structural element
(PSE) to sustain limit load, which could adversely affect the
structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the
applicable times specified in the ``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1402 RB, dated July 2, 2021, do
all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
737-53A1402 RB, dated July 2, 2021.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g): Guidance for accomplishing the actions
required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
737-53A1402, dated July 2, 2021, which is referred to in Boeing
Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1402 RB, dated July 2, 2021.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where the Compliance Time columns of the tables in the
``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-
53A1402 RB, dated July 2, 2021, use the phrase ``the original issue
date of the Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1402 RB,'' this AD requires
using ``the effective date of this AD.''
    (2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1402 RB,
dated July 2, 2021, specifies contacting Boeing for repair
instructions or for alternative inspections:

This AD requires doing the repair, or doing the alternative
inspections and applicable on-condition actions using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(i) of this AD.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, 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 responsible Flight Standards Office,
as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of
the certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair
method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Bill Ashforth,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may view this referenced service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on July 1, 2022.
Christina Underwood,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-19298 Filed 9-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 127 (Friday, July 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38663-38666]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16628]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No FDA-2011-N-0457]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Experimental Study of Comparative Direct-to-Consumer
Advertising

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information and
to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on the Experimental Study of Comparative
Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Advertising. This study is designed to explore
how consumers understand and interpret DTC ads that explicitly compare
the efficacy, dosing, and risks, among other items, of two similar
drugs whether comparisons are named or unnamed.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by August 30, 2011.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
P150-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information before
submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this
requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of
information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Experimental Study of Comparative Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Advertising
Regulatory Background--(OMB Control No. 0910-New)

    Section 1701(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300u(a)(4)) authorizes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to
conduct research relating to health information. Section 903(b)(2)(c)
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C.
393(b)(2)(c)) authorizes FDA to conduct research relating to drugs and
other FDA regulated products in carrying out the provisions of the FD&C
Act.
    Regulations specify that sponsors cannot make comparative efficacy
claims in advertising for prescription drugs without substantial
evidence, most often in the form of well-controlled clinical trials, to
support such claims (21 U.S.C. 202.1(e)(6)(ii); 21 U.S.C. 314.126). FDA
has permitted some comparisons based on labeled attributes, such as
indication, dosing, and mechanism of action. When substantial evidence
does not yet exist, sponsors may use communication

techniques that invite implicit comparisons, such as making indirect
comparisons, using comparative visuals, and using vaguer language. This
study is designed to apply the existing comparative advertising
literature to DTC advertising, where little research has been conducted
to date.
    Moreover, as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (ARRA), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is
in the process of securing a large compendium of information on the
comparative effectiveness of medical treatments in 14 priority medical
conditions, including: Arthritis, cancer, dementia, depression,
diabetes, and substance abuse.\1\ As part of this process, they will
fund a set of CHOICE (Clinical and Health Outcomes Initiative in
Comparative Effectiveness) studies designed to explore comparative
effectiveness. When this large project is completed, FDA will have
additional information to consider when regulating DTC advertising. It
is possible that more DTC advertising will be comparative in nature. In
preparation for this change, FDA is embarking on the proposed research
to ensure that it has adequate information to assess whether
comparative DTC ads provide truthful and nonmisleading information to
consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ http://www.ahrq.gov/fund/cerfactsheets/. Last accessed May
23, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Comparative Advertising

    Comparative advertisements typically compare two or more named or
recognizably presented brands of the same product category, although
some comparative advertisements implicitly compare a product to other
brands by making superiority statements (e.g., ``Only Brand A can be
cooked in five minutes or less.''). These ads are frequently used for
commercial products, such as electronics, food products, and
automobiles.
    Marketing and advertising studies have investigated the influence
of comparative ads, particularly in contrast to noncomparative ads.\2\
Research specifically investigating the effects of comparative
advertising on consumer attitudes--including attitudes toward the ad,
the brand, and product use--has produced mixed results.\3\ The research
findings on the superiority of comparative versus noncomparative ads on
purchase intentions, however, have been more conclusive. Relative to
noncomparative ads, comparative ads were shown to result in greater
purchase intentions.\4\ Finally, other evidence suggests that there may
be more potential for consumers to confuse brands when viewing
comparative versus noncomparative ads. Brands advertised in a
comparative format were shown to be more likely to be perceived as
similar to the leading brand than brands advertised in a noncomparative
format.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Ang, S. H., and S. B. Leong (1994), ``Comparative
advertising: superiority despite interference?'', Asia Pacific
Journal of Management, 11(1), 33-46; Demirdjian, Z. S. (1983),
``Sales effectiveness of comparative advertising: An experimental
field investigation,'' Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 362-364;
Grewal, D., S. Kavanoor, E. F. Fern; C. Costley, and J. Barnes
(1997), ``Comparative versus noncomparative advertising: a meta-
analysis,'' Journal of Marketing, 61(4), 1-15; Priester, J. R., J.
Godek, D.J. Nayakankuppum, and K. Park (2004), ``Brand congruity and
comparative advertising: When and why comparative advertisements
lead to greater elaboration,'' Journal of Consumer Psychology,
14(\1/2\), 115-123.
    \3\ See, for example, Grewal, D., S. Kavanoor, E. F. Fern, C.
Costley, and J. Barnes (1997), ``Comparative versus noncomparative
advertising: A meta-analysis,'' Journal of Marketing, 61(4), 1-15;
Rogers, J. C., and T. G. Williams, (1989), ``Comparative advertising
effectiveness: Practitioners' perceptions versus academic research
findings,'' Journal of Advertising Research, 29(5), 22-37.
    \4\ Ang, S. H., S. B. Leong (1994), ``Comparative advertising:
superiority despite interference?'', Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 11(1), 33-46; Demirdjian, Z. S. (1983), ``Sales
effectiveness of comparative advertising: An experimental field
investigation,'' Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 362-364; Grewal,
D., S. Kavanoor, E. F. Fern, C. Costley, and J. Barnes (1997),
``Comparative versus noncomparative advertising: a meta-analysis,''
Journal of Marketing, 61(4), 1-15; Miniard, P. W., M. J. Barone, R.
L. Rose, and K. C. Manning (1994), ``A re-examination of the
relative persuasiveness of comparative and noncomparative
advertising,'' Advances in Consumer Research, 21(1), 299-303.
    \5\ Droge, C. and R. Y. Darmon (1987), ``Associative positioning
strategies through comparative advertising: Attribute versus overall
similarity approaches,'' Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 377-388;
Gorn, G. J.and C.B. Weinberg (1984), ``The impact of comparative
advertising on perception and attitude: Some positive findings,
Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 719-727; Iyer, E. S. (1988), ``The
influence of verbal content and relative newness on the
effectiveness of comparative advertising,'' Journal of Advertising,,
17(3), 15-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comparative Prescription Drug Advertisements

    Despite extensive research on comparative advertising of consumer
products and a limited number of studies on how DTC ads could help
consumers compare drugs,\6\ very little research has been conducted on
comparative prescription drug advertisements.\7\ Consequently, it is
unclear whether these findings are applicable to comparative drug ads
or how such claims influence consumers' perceived efficacy of
advertised drugs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, for example, Schwartz, L. M., S. Woloshin, and H. G.
Welch (2009), ``Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits
and harms: two randomized trials,'' Annals of Internal Medicine,
150(8), 516-527; Hauber, A. B., A. F. Mohamed, F. R. Johnson, and H.
Falvey (2009), ``Treatment preferences and medication adherence of
people with Type 2 diabetes using oral glucose-lowering agents,''
Diabetic Medicine: A Journal of the British Diabetic Association,
26(4), 416-424.
    \7\ Mitra, A., J. Swasy, and K. Aikin (2006), ``How do consumers
interpret market leadership claims in direct-to-consumer advertising
of prescription drugs?'', Advances in Consumer Research, 33, 381-
387.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, most DTC ad comparisons focus on drug attributes, such
as differences in dosing or administration method.\8\ Because few head-
to-head clinical trials have been conducted, very few DTC ads include
efficacy-based comparisons; \9\ however, this may change given the
current national focus on comparative effectiveness research. Given the
growing opportunities for comparative prescription drug advertising,
the present study aims to investigate how consumers interpret and react
to DTC comparative drug ads. Specifically, the study will explore two
types of drug comparisons in DTC ads: (1) Drug efficacy comparisons;
and (2) other evidence-based comparisons, such as dosing, mechanism of
action, and indication. The study findings will inform FDA of relevant
consumer issues relating to comparative DTC advertising.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Applications for FDA Approval to Market a New Drug, 21 CFR
314.126. (2008), retrieved from http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/aprqtr/pdf/21cfr314.126.pdf.
    \9\ Mitra, A., J. Swasy, and K. Aikin (2006), ``How do consumers
interpret market leadership claims in direct-to-consumer advertising
of prescription drugs?'', Advances in Consumer Research, 33, 381-
387.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Design Overview

    This study will be conducted in two concurrent parts with random
assignment to experimental condition. The goal of Phase I is to: (a)
Explore how consumers understand and interpret ads that explicitly
compare the efficacy of two similar drugs; and (b) learn whether
including the name of the comparison drug affects comprehension and
perceptions. We have defined named comparisons as ads that explicitly
compare the drug's efficacy to another named medication. An example of
this is: ``Drug A was shown to be more effective than Drug B at
lowering high cholesterol.'' We have defined unnamed comparisons as ads
that implicitly compare the drug's efficacy to other medications. An
example of this is: ``Compared to other medications, Drug A lowered
cholesterol in more patients.'' The control condition will not include
a comparison to another drug.
    We will explore the issue of named versus unnamed comparisons in
print ads and television ads in a 2x3 factorial design as follows:

               Table 1--Proposed Design of Phase I (2 x 3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Type of Ad                  Labeling of Comparison Drug
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Named       Unnamed      Control
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Print............................  ...........  ...........  ...........
Television.......................  ...........  ...........  ...........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The goal of Phase II is to determine how ads that include evidence-
based comparisons are understood by consumers. These ads often compare
factual characteristics from the drug labels (e.g., dosing, mechanism
of action). These characteristics do not necessarily affect drug
efficacy, yet consumers may infer that one drug is better or more
effective than another. We will examine four such comparisons:
Indication, dosing, mechanism of action, and risk. In this phase, we
also examine the salience of the comparison drug by manipulating
whether the comparison drug is named in the ad or not. In this case, an
example of a named comparison is: ``Drug A is taken only once a month,
unlike Drug B, which you have to take every day.'' An example of a
relevant unnamed comparison is: ``Drug A is the only medication that
treats both high cholesterol and high blood pressure.'' Finally, we
will explore whether the presence of a visual aid alters the
understanding of these presentations. The control condition will not
include a comparison to another drug.
    These factors will be combined in a (2[type of ad] x 2[labeling of
comparison drug] x 2[presence of visual] x 4[type of comparison] +
2[controls]) factorial design. For ease of illustration, the design is
shown separately for print and television ads.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01JY11.013

    In both phases, we will examine the effects of these manipulated
variables on several dependent measures, including perceived benefit
and risk, comprehension of benefit and risk information, and behavioral
intentions. We will also include demographic variables (such as gender
and education level), and other variables such as health knowledge as
covariates to determine if they have any influence on the measures of
interest.
    The sample will include approximately 8,000 participants who have
been diagnosed with osteoarthritis (Phase I) or high cholesterol (Phase
II). The protocol will take place via the Internet. Participants will
be randomly assigned to view one print or one television ad for a
fictitious prescription drug that treats either osteoarthritis or high
cholesterol and will answer questions about it. The entire process is
expected to take no longer than 20 minutes. This will be a one time
(rather than annual) collection of information.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 4--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      No. of
            Activity                  No. of       responses per   Total annual   Average burden    Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses     per response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screener........................          16,000               1          16,000    .03 (2 min.)             480
Pretest.........................             600               1             600   .33 (20 min.)             200

Main Study......................           8,000               1           8,000   .33 (20 min.)           2,640
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............           3,320
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Dated: June 28, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-16628 Filed 6-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43628-43629]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15767]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1627]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before October 3, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1627, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.

    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location and
the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables.
For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies
can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM
date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and
FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA
Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: May 19, 2016.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
    I. Non-watershed-based studies:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Sacramento County, California, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Project: 15-09-2391S Preliminary Date: February 26, 2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Sacramento       Municipal Services Agency,
 County.                                  Department of Water Resources,
                                          827 7th Street, Suite 301,
                                          Sacramento, CA 95814.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Wright County, Minnesota, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Project: 08-05-4043S Preliminary Date: June 22, 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Buffalo........................  Administration Office, 212
                                          Central Avenue, Buffalo, MN
                                          55313.
City of Clearwater.....................  City Hall, 605 County Road 75,
                                          Clearwater, MN 55320.
City of Cokato.........................  City Clerk Office, 255 Broadway
                                          Avenue South, Cokato, MN
                                          55321.
City of Delano.........................  City Hall, 234 North 2nd
                                          Street, Delano, MN 55328.
City of Maple Lake.....................  City Hall, 10 Maple Avenue
                                          South, Maple Lake, MN 55358.
City of Monticello.....................  City Hall, 505 Walnut Street,
                                          Suite One, Monticello, MN
                                          55362.
City of Montrose.......................  City Hall, 311 Buffalo Avenue
                                          South, Montrose, MN 55363.
City of Otsego.........................  City Hall, 13400 90th Street
                                          Northeast, Otsego, MN 55330.
City of St. Michael....................  City Hall, 11800 Town Center
                                          Drive Northeast, St. Michael,
                                          MN 55376.
City of Waverly........................  City Hall, 502 Atlantic Avenue,
                                          Waverly, MN 55390.
Unincorporated Areas of Wright County..  Wright County Government
                                          Center, 10 2nd Street
                                          Northwest, Buffalo, MN 55313.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Muskingum County, Ohio, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Project: 11-05-2523S Preliminary Date: September 18, 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Muskingum        Mapping Department, 401 Main
 County.                                  Street, Zanesville, OH 43701.
Village of Roseville...................  Municipal Building, 107 North
                                          Main Street, Roseville, OH
                                          43777.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Perry County, Ohio, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Project: 11-05-2523S Preliminary Date: September 18, 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Perry County...  County Offices, 109-A East Gay
                                          Street, Somerset, OH 43783.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-15767 Filed 7-1-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: May 17, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 94)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27422-27424]
[DOCID:fr17my10-10]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0158; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-006-AD;
Amendment 39-16289; AD 2010-10-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Hawker Beechcraft Corporation (Type
Certificate No. A00010WI Previously Held by Raytheon Aircraft Company)
Model 390 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Model 390 airplanes. This AD requires you
to inspect the essential bus lightning strike protection for proper
installation of metal oxide varistor (MOV) and spark gap wiring. This
AD also requires you to rework the wiring as necessary to achieve the
required lightning strike/surge protection. This AD results from a
report that the wires to the MOV and spark gap were swapped. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct improper installation of the MOV
and spark gap wiring, which could result in overload of the MOV in a
lightning strike and allow electrical energy to continue to the
essential bus and disable equipment that receives power from the
essential bus. The disabled equipment could include the autopilot,
anti-skid system, hydraulic indicator, spoiler system, pilot primary
flight display, audio panel, or the 1 air data computer. This
failure could lead to a significant increase in pilot workload during
adverse operating conditions.

DATES: This AD becomes effective on June 21, 2010.
    On June 21, 2010, the Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, 9709 East Central, Wichita, Kansas
67201; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet:
https://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/service_support/pubs/.
    To view the AD docket, go to U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov. The docket number is FAA-2010-0158;
Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-006-AD.

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

Discussion

    On February 16, 2010, we issued a proposal to amend part 39 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to include an AD that
would apply to certain Hawker Beechcraft Corporation Model 390
airplanes. This proposal was published in the Federal Register as a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on February 23, 2010 (75 FR 8001).
The NPRM proposed to require you to inspect the essential bus lightning
strike protection for proper installation of metal oxide varistor (MOV)
and spark gap wiring. The NPRM also proposed to require you to rework
the wiring as necessary to achieve the required lightning strike/surge
protection.

Comments

    We provided the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the proposal or on the
determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We have carefully reviewed the available data and determined that
air safety and the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed
except for minor editorial corrections. We have determined that these
minor corrections:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 170 airplanes in the U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to do the inspection (includes any
necessary follow-on action):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Total cost per     Total cost on
                 Labor cost                             Parts cost                airplane       U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 work-hours x $85 per hour = $255..........  Not applicable................              $255           $43,350
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Warranty credit may be given to the extent specified in Hawker
Beechcraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 24-3995, issued September
2009.

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 AD.

Regulatory Findings

    We have determined that this AD will not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. 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.
    We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and
other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed
it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a
request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket
No. FAA-2010-0158; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-006-AD'' in your
request.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (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. FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2010-10-10 Hawker Beechcraft Corporation (Type Certificate No.
A00010WI Previously Held by Raytheon Aircraft Company): Amendment
39-16289; Docket No. FAA-2010-0158; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-
006-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This AD becomes effective on June 21, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model 390 airplanes, serial numbers RB-4
through RB-248, that are certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 24: Electric
Power.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD results from a report that the metal oxide varistor
(MOV) and spark gap wiring of the essential bus lightning strike
protection were swapped. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct improper installation of the MOV and spark gap wiring, which
could result in overload of the MOV in a lightning strike and allow
electrical energy to continue to the essential bus and disable
equipment that receives power from the essential bus. The disabled
equipment could include the autopilot, anti-skid system, hydraulic
indicator, spoiler system, pilot primary flight display, audio
panel, or the 1 air data computer. This failure could lead
to a significant increase in pilot workload during adverse operating
conditions.

Compliance

    (f) To address this problem, you must do the following, unless
already done:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Actions                             Compliance                            Procedures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Inspect the essential bus         Within the next 200 hours time-in-    Follow Hawker Mandatory Service
 lightning strike protection for       service after June 21, 2010 (the      Bulletin SB 24-3995, issued
 proper installation of MOV and        effective date of this AD) or         September 2009.
 spark gap wiring.                     within the next 12 months after
                                       June 21, 2010 (the effective date
                                       of this AD), whichever occurs
                                       first.
(2) Where improper wiring             Before further flight after the       Follow Hawker Mandatory Service
 installation is found, rework the     inspection in paragraph (f)(1) of     Bulletin SB 24-3995, issued
 essential bus lightning strike        this AD.                              September 2009.
 wiring installation for the MOV and
 spark gap.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (g) The Manager, Wichita Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to
Attn: Kevin Schwemmer, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Wichita Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1801 Airport Road, Room 100, Wichita,
Kansas 67209; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (h) You must use Follow Hawker Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 24-
3995, issued September 2009, to do the actions required by this AD,
unless the AD specifies otherwise.

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Hawker Beechcraft Corporation, 9709 East Central, Wichita, Kansas
67201; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet:
https://www.hawkerbeechcraft.com/service_support/pubs/.
    (3) You may review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD at the FAA, Central Region,
Office of the Regional Counsel, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri
64106. For information on the availability of this material at the
Central Region, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may also review copies of the service information
incorporated by reference for this AD at the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability
of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://
www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/
ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on April 30, 2010.
Steven W. Thompson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-10717 Filed 5-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 3, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26542-26543]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10257]

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

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: RP16-865-000.
    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Louisiana Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Rate Schedule PALS Cleanup to
be effective 5/25/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/25/16.
    Accession Number: 20160425-5082.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-866-000.
    Applicants: East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: ETNG 2016 Negotiated Rate
Cleanup Filing to be effective 5/26/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/25/16.
    Accession Number: 20160425-5084.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-867-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--May 2016
Chevron TEAM 2014 Release to be effective 5/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/25/16.
    Accession Number: 20160425-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-868-000.
    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Annual Report of Penalty Revenues of Cameron
Interstate Pipeline, LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/25/16.
    Accession Number: 20160425-5212.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-869-000.
    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Annual Report of Transportation Imbalances and Cash-
out Activity of Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/25/16.
    Accession Number: 20160425-5213.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-870-000.
    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.

    Description: Annual Report of Operational Imbalances and Cash-out
Activity of Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/25/16.
    Accession Number: 20160425-5214.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-871-000.
    Applicants: Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Annual Report of Operational Imbalances and Cash-out
Activity of Cameron Interstate Pipeline, LLC.
    Filed Date: 4/25/16.
    Accession Number: 20160425-5217.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/9/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP16-872-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming Negotiated Rate
Service Agreement Filing (Anadarko) to be effective 5/25/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/25/16.
    Accession Number: 20160425-5292.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/9/16.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and Sec.  385.214) 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: RP15-1026-001.
    Applicants: Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing MNUS Settlement Filing to be
effective 5/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 4/25/16.
    Accession Number: 20160425-5216.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/9/16.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of 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 by
clicking on the links or 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>.

    Dated: April 26, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-10257 Filed 5-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 183)]
[Notices]
[Page 54027-54028]
[DOCID:fr21se07-77]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

September 17, 2007.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP01-205-015.
    Applicants: Southern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Southern Natural Gas Co submits its Seventh Revised
Sheet 23A et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 09/14/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070917-0199.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 26, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-552-001.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission LP.
    Description: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits Sub Original
Sheet 537A to its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 09/14/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070917-0197.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 26, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-563-001.
    Applicants: Pine Prairie Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Pine Prairie Energy Center, LLC submits Substitute
Original Sheet 11 et al to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 09/14/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070917-0200.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 26, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-693-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission LP.
    Description: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits its First
Revised Sheet 537A and Fourth Revised Sheet 538 to FERC Gas Tariff,
Seventh Revised Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 09/14/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070917-0198.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 26, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-694-000.
    Applicants: Vitol Inc. and Natural Gas Pipeline Comp.
    Description: Vitol Inc and Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America
submits a Joint Petition for Limited Waivers and Request for Expedited
Action.
    Filed Date: 09/14/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070917-0205.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 26, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-695-000.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy-Mississippi River Transmission.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy-Mississippi River Transmission
Corporation submits Sixty-Second Revised Sheet 5 et al to its FERC Gas
Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1, to become effective 11/1/07.
    Filed Date: 09/14/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070917-0206.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 26, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-696-000.
    Applicants: Interstate Natural Gas Assn. of America.
    Description: Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company LP et al submits a
list of organizations to which the refunds were made along with the
amounts and date of the donations re the Gas Research Institute.
    Filed Date: 09/14/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070917-0207.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 26, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP07-697-000.
    Applicants: Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Transwestern Pipeline Company LLC submits a non-
conforming amended Operator Balancing Agreement and its Third Revised
Sheet 15 to FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1, etc.
    Filed Date: 09/14/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070917-0208.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 26, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP96-312-168.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company.
    Description: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co submits its Ninth Revised
Sheet 413A to its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1, in
compliance with FERC's 2/15/07 Order.
    Filed Date: 09/14/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070917-0196.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 26, 2007.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-301-163.
    Applicants: ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: ANR Pipeline Co submits amendments to Rate Schedule
FTS-1 negotiated rate agreements with Madison Gas & Electric Co.
    Filed Date: 09/14/2007.
    Accession Number: 20070917-0201.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 26, 2007.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need

not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Acting Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-18649 Filed 9-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 13, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 30)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7114-7115]
[DOCID:fr13fe04-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Parts 201 and 610

[Docket No. 1980N-0208]

Biological Products; Bacterial Vaccines and Toxoids;
Implementation of Efficacy Review; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule and final order; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a final
rule and final order that appeared in the Federal Register of January
5, 2004 (69 FR 255). The document amended the biologics regulations and
categorized certain biological products licensed before July 1, 1972,
based on their safety, effectiveness, and labeling. The document was
published with some typographical errors in the reference section. This
document corrects those errors.

DATES: Effective February 13, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Astrid Szeto, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug Administration, 1401
Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852-1448,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 03-32255, appearing on page 255,
in the

Federal Register of January 5, 2004, the following corrections are
made:
    1. On page 265, in the third column, the second reference is
corrected to read ``Lois M. Joellenbeck, Lee L. Zwanziger, Jane S.
Durch, and Brian L. Strom, Editors, Committee to Assess the Safety and
Efficacy of the Anthrax Vaccine, Medical Follow-Up Agency, The National
Academies Press, Washington, DC, April 2002, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10310.html
 (FDA has verified the Web site address, but we are

not responsible for subsequent changes to the Web site after this
document publishes in the Federal Register).''
    2. On page 266, in the first column, the third reference is
corrected to read ``Fellows, P. F., M. K. Linscott, B. E. Ivins, M. L.
M. Pitt, C. A. Rossi, P. H. Gibbs and A. M. Friedlander, `Efficacy of a
Human Anthrax Vaccine in Guinea Pigs, Rabbits, and Rhesus Macaques
Against Challenge by Bacillus Anthracis Isolates of Diverse
Geographical Origin,' Vaccine, 19(23/24):3241-3247, 2001.''
    3. On page 266, in the first column, the fourth reference is
corrected to read ``Ivins, B. E., P. F. Fellows, M. L. M. Pitt, J. E.
Estep, S. L. Welkos, P. L. Worsham and A. M. Friedlander, `Efficacy of
a Standard Human Anthrax Vaccine Against Bacillus Anthracis Aerosol
Spore Challenge in Rhesus Monkeys,' Salisbury Medical Bulletin
87(Suppl.):125-126, 1996.''
    4. On page 266, in the first column, the fifth reference is
corrected to read ``Ivins, B. E.; M. L. M. Pitt; P. F. Fellows; J. W.
Farchaus; G. E. Benner; D. M. Waag; S. F. Little; G. W. Anderson, Jr.;
P. H. Gibbs; and A. M. Friedlander, `Comparative Efficacy of
Experimental Anthrax Vaccine Candidates Against Inhalation Anthrax in
Rhesus Macaques,' Vaccine, 16(11/12):1141-1148, 1998.''
    5. On page 266, in the first column, the seventh reference is
corrected to read ``Wright, G. G.; Green, T. W.; and Kanode, Jr., R.
G., `Studies on Immunity in Anthrax: V. Immunizing Activity of Alum-
Precipitated Protective Antigen,' Journal of Immunology, 73:387-391,
1954.''
    6. On page 266, in the first column, the tenth reference is
corrected to read ```Guidance for Industry: How to Complete the Vaccine
Adverse Event Reporting System Form (VAERS-1)', September 1998, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/vaers-1.pdf.
 (FDA has verified the Web site

address, but we are not responsible for subsequent changes to the Web
site after this document publishes in the Federal Register).''
    7. On page 266, in the first column, the eleventh reference is
corrected to read ```Estimated Vaccination Coverage With 3+DTP Among
Children 19-35 Months of Age by Race/Ethnicity,' and by State and
Immunization Action Plan Area--U.S., National Immunization Survey, Q3/
2000 - Q2/2001, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.cdc.gov/nip/coverage/NIS/00-01/tab19-3dpt_race_iap.htm.
 (FDA has verified the Web site address, but we are not

responsible for subsequent changes to the Web site after this document
publishes in the Federal Register).''
    8. On page 266, in the second column, the twelfth reference is
corrected to read ``Protecting Our Kids: What Is Causing the Current
Shortage in Childhood Vaccines?--Testimony Before the Committee on
Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, June 12, 2002, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leavingFR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.cdc.gov/nip/news/testimonies/vac-shortages-walt-6-12-2002.htm.
 (FDA

has verified the Web site address, but we are not responsible for
subsequent changes to the Web site after this document publishes in the
Federal Register).''

    Dated: February 5, 2004.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 04-3135 Filed 2-12-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 72 (Wednesday, April 15, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 20233]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08614]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-0001]

Joint Workshop on Drug Transporters in Absorption, Distribution,
Metabolism, and Excretion: From the Bench to the Bedside

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

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

    The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing a public
workshop entitled ``Drug Transporters in Absorption, Distribution,
Metabolism, and Excretion (ADME): From the Bench to the Bedside.'' The
public workshop is an American Association of Pharmaceutical
Scientists/International Transporter Consortium (AAPS/ITC) Joint
Workshop, cosponsored with AAPS, the American Society for Clinical
Pharmacology and Therapeutics, and the European Federation for
Pharmaceutical Sciences. The goals of this public workshop are to
provide an opportunity for scientists in academia, industry, and
regulatory agencies to exchange ideas about the cutting edge science in
transporters, and to facilitate and enhance translational applications
of new development in transporter research in drug development and
regulatory review of new therapeutics.
    Date and Time: The public workshop will be held on April 20, 2015,
from 8:15 a.m. to 7 p.m.; April 21, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.; and
April 22, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 3:45 p.m.
    Location: The public workshop will be held at the Renaissance
Baltimore Harborplace Hotel, 202 East Pratt St., Baltimore, MD 21202.
The hotel's phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Contacts: FDA: Lei Zhang, Food and Drug Administration, Center for
Drug Evaluation and Research, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm.
3196, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>AAPS: For questions related to this event,
please contact AAPS at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Registration: Workshop information and the registration link are
posted at the AAPS meetings and professional development conference
site. To register for the workshop, please visit http://www.aaps.org/Meetings_and_Professional_Development/Conference_Mini_Sites/AAPS_WS_Transporters15/Register/. The cost of registration is as
follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
AAPS Member................................................       $1,815
Nonmember..................................................        2,190
Government.................................................          675
Academic...................................................          880
Student....................................................          110
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The registration fee will be waived for 50 FDA employees. If you
need special accommodations because of a disability, please contact
AAPS at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Onsite registration on the day of the
workshop will be available.
    Additional Information About the Workshop: The workshop agenda and
additional background materials will be accessible at http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/NewsEvents/ucm439157.htm to all registrants.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Transporters serve an important role in the ADME of drugs, and in
turn could affect their safety or efficacy. The AAPS/ITC joint
transporter workshop in 2015 aims to continue on the success of
preceding AAPS workshops on Drug Transporters meetings (2003, 2005,
2007, 2009, 2011, 2013) and ITC transporter workshops (2008 and 2012)
to provide an opportunity for scientists in academia, industry, and
regulatory agencies to exchange ideas about the cutting-edge science.
Key areas of focus will include the following:
     Transporter tools of the future (e.g., organs-on-a-chip,
humanized mouse models, and transporter imaging);
     Interplay of drug metabolism and transporters;
     ``State of the art'' sessions on:
    [cir] Emerging transporters,
    [cir] Endogenous biomarkers to assess transporter-mediated drug
efficacy and toxicity or to predict drug-drug interactions, and
    [cir] Quantitative transporter proteomics in translational drug
metabolism and pharmacokinetics;
     ``Hot Topics'' in the translation of transporter data to
the clinic;
     Prospective transporter substrate modeling; and
     Review of comments related to transporters following
recent guidances issued from the regulatory agencies, including FDA,
European Medicines Agency, and Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices
Agency (Japan).

II. Goals and Objectives

     To provide a forum for open interchange, dissemination,
and discussion of cutting edge science in transporters among scientists
from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies.
     To develop a mutual understanding on what needs to be done
in transporter research and how to translate knowledge obtained from
the bench to bedside.
     To facilitate and enhance translational applications of
new development in transporter research in drug development and
regulatory review of new therapeutics.

    Dated: April 8, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-08614 Filed 4-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


From:		James Hirtz<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Sent:		Tuesday, July 03, 2012 12:09 PM

To:		Higgins, Cortney

Cc:		Bill Schrock; John Bradfield; Kelley Spence; Robin Dunkins; Terri
Hollingsworth

Subject:	RE: Pulp and Paper RTR draft final rule

 Here is the Final Risk Assessment Report and Appendices

(See attached file: Appendix 8.pdf)(See attached file: Appendix
1.pdf)(See attached file: Appendix 2.pdf)(See attached file: Appendix
3.pdf)(See attached file: Appendix 4 Multipathway.pdf)(See attached
file: Appendix 5.pdf)(See attached file: Appendix 6.pdf)(See attached
file: Appendix 7.pdf)(See attached file: Pulp Paper Risk Assessment
Final 2012.pdf)

James Hirtz

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

OAQPS/HEID/ATAG

109 T. W. Alexander Drive

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(919)-541-0881 voice

(919)-541-0359 Fax


[Federal Register: June 4, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 107)]
[Notices]
[Page 31839-31840]
[DOCID:fr04jn10-107]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0060; Notice 1]

Ford Motor Company, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

    The Ford Motor Company (Ford) \1\ has determined that certain model
year 2010 Ford Taurus passenger cars, built from June 1, 2009, through
October 5, 2009, and certain model year 2010 Lincoln MKT multi-purpose
vehicles, built from June 29, 2009, through October 8, 2009, do not
fully meet the windshield marking requirements of paragraph S6.2 of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 205 Glazing
Materials. On November 12, 2009, Ford filed an appropriate report
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Ford is a domestic manufacturer of motor vehicles,
incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, with offices
at The American Road, Dearborn, Michigan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), Ford has petitioned for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    This notice of receipt of Ford's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    Ford estimates approximately 15,663 model year 2010 Ford Taurus
passenger car models, built from June 1, 2009, through October 5, 2009,
at Ford's Chicago Assembly Plant, and approximately 3,565 model year
2010 Lincoln MKT multi-purpose vehicle models, built from June 29,
2009, through October 8, 2009, at Ford's Oakville Assembly Plant, a
total of approximately 19,228 vehicles are not in compliance with
paragraph S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205 relating to windshield marking.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Ford additionally notes that the nonconforming windshields
installed in the subject vehicles were manufactured by Zeledyne,
Inc. (Zeledyne), at their facility located at 7200 W. Centennial
Boulevard, Nashville, TN 37209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph S6.2 of FMVSS No. 205 requires in pertinent part:

    S6.2 A prime glazing manufacturer certifies its glazing by
adding to the marks required by section 7 of ANSI/SAE Z26.1-1996, in
letters and numerals of the same size, the symbol ``DOT'' and a
manufacturer's code mark that NHTSA assigns to the manufacturer. * *
*

    Ford describes the noncompliance as the improper location of the
``AS1'' glazing marking. The standard requires that the ``AS1'' glazing
marking be located in close proximity to the official designated
trademark area (lower portion) of the windshield. However, Ford said
that the ``AS1'' symbol is marked in the upper portion of the
windshield, on both sides of the affected windshields and that the
windshields conform to all other FMVSS No. 205 requirements.
    Ford states the basis for why they believe this noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety as:

    No other Ford vehicles are affected by this condition and we are
not aware of any field or owner complaints related to this
condition. In our judgment, the condition does not present a risk to
motor vehicle safety because the windshield fully meets the
performance and physical requirements of FMVSS [No.] 205.
Additionally repair service will be unaffected because the selection
of replacement windshields is typically done utilizing a
distributor, a catalog, or NAGS [National Auto Glass Specification]
number. Furthermore, repairers will be able to determine the
appropriate glazing because the upper portions of the windshield are
properly labeled with the ``AS1,'' designation, the glazing is
clearly marked as ``Laminated,'' and all other markings required by
FMVSS [No.] 205 are properly labeled.

    Additionally, Ford stated that Zeledyne discovered the
noncompliance during its trademark content project study in which its
laboratory personnel noticed that the ``AS1'' symbol was missing from
the designated trademark location on the lower corner of the
windshields for the affected vehicles.
    Ford also has informed NHTSA that it has corrected the problem that
caused these errors so that they will not be repeated in future
production.
    Therefore, Ford believes that the described noncompliance does not
present a risk to motor vehicle safety. Thus, Ford requests that its
petition, to exempt it from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and
notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted by
any of the following methods:
    a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    b. By hand delivery to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays.
    c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed
to 1-202-493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive

confirmation that your comments were received, please enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that all
comments received will be posted without change to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at  http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Comment closing date: July 6, 2010.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8).

    Issued on: May 27, 2010.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2010-13402 Filed 6-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P