[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 19, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 63571]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22646]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[DOT-OST-2022]

Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee
(REDAC); Revitalization Membership Plan

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Solicitation of nominations for appointment to the Research,
Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC).

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the solicitation of memberships for the
Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC).

DATES: Nominations must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. eastern
time on December 31, 2022. Nominations received after the above due
date may be retained for evaluation for future REDAC vacancies after
all other nominations received by the due date have been reviewed and
considered.

ADDRESSES: Nominations can be submitted electronically (via email) to
Chinita Roundtree-Coleman, in the FAA's Research and Development
Management Division, ANG-E42, at [email protected]. The
body of the email must contain content or attachments that address all
requirements as specified in the below ``Materials to Submit'' section.
Incomplete/partial submittals, as well as those that exceed the
specified document length may not be considered for evaluation. An
email confirmation from the FAA will be sent upon receipt of all
complete nominations that meet the criteria in the ``Materials to
Submit'' section. Anyone wishing to submit an application by paper may
do so by contacting Chinita Roundtree-Coleman via email or telephone at
(609) 485-7149 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. The FAA will notify those appointed
to serve on the REDAC in writing.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chinita Roundtree-Coleman, REDAC PM/
Lead, FAA/U.S. Department of Transportation, at [email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee was
created under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), in accordance
with Public Law 100-591 (1988) and Public Law 101-508 (1990) to provide
advice and recommendations to the FAA Administrator in support of the
Agency's Research and Development (R&D) portfolio.

II. Description of Duties

    In accordance with 49 U.S. Code 44508, the REDAC conducts
assessments of the FAA's technical R&D programs and projects to:
     Provide advice and recommendations to the Administrator
regarding needs, objectives, plans, approaches, content, and
accomplishments with respect to the aviation research program,
     Assist in ensuring that the research is coordinated with
similar research being conducted outside the Administration,
     Review the operation of the air transportation centers of
excellence and,
     Review the annual allocations made by the Administrator
across major R&D categories.
    If selected to serve on the REDAC, travel to FAA headquarters in
Washington, DC (or other locations) no less than twice per year is
required in order to attend committee meetings. By accepting the
nomination, preparation and read ahead material review is often
necessary regarding agendas and/or special tasks as required.

III. Membership

    The membership must be fairly balanced in terms of points of view
represented and the functions performed. In accordance with 49 U.S.
Code 44508 and departmental policy, the REDAC will consist of no more
than 25 members on the parent committee. Membership terms are two years
and will be considered for renewal or resignation upon committee
evaluations to ensure the efficacy of team compositions required to
fulfill objectives. Selectees will be considered in one of the
following categories: Representatives, Special Government Employee
(SGE) or Regular Government Employee (RGE). Annual training and the
submission of required disclosure documentation must be completed upon
request.
    The desired stakeholder groups represented on the REDAC include
individuals with expertise and knowledge of industry trends in one or
more of the following areas:

--Aircraft Safety
--Airport Infrastructure and Technologies
--Human and/or Aeromedical Factors
--National Airspace System (NAS) Operations
--Environment & Energy
--Digital Systems and Technologies (Cybersecurity, Artificial
Intelligence, Machine Learning, Data Science and Analytics)
--Emerging Operations [Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS), Advanced Air
Mobility (AAM), Commercial Space, Autonomous Operations]

    a. Qualifications: Candidates must demonstrate good public standing
as well as technical capacities. Proficiencies, expertise, and subject
mastery that inform the Agency's strategy for R&D areas will be
critical to selections along with experience on advisory committees/
boards/councils and research and development. This solicitation is open
to leaders from industry, academia, other government agencies, and/or
subject matter expert/advisory committee representatives. Applicants
must be citizens or permanent residents of the United States.
    b. Materials to Submit: Proposed nominees for the Research,
Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC) are required to
submit a professional resume or curriculum vitae for review in order to
be considered for membership on the (REDAC). Submissions that do not
comply with the following rules, terms, and conditions may be
disqualified:
    i. Submissions must be in English and in a format readable by
Microsoft Word or Adobe PDF. Scanned hand-written submissions will be
disqualified.
    ii. Applicants may not be a current employee of the DOT, including
but not limited to the FAA;
    iii. Submission Marking and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5
U.S.C. 552: All materials submitted to the FAA as a part of a
membership nomination submission become FAA records and are subject to
release under the FOIA.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Chinita Roundtree-Coleman,
REDAC PM/Lead, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2022-22646 Filed 10-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 236 (Monday, December 11, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58098-58102]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26364]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0625; Product Identifier 2016-NM-089-AD; Amendment
39-19118; AD 2017-25-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2014-22-08,
which applied to all Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model
A320-111, -211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model
A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. AD
2014-22-08 required revising the maintenance or inspection program to
incorporate new or revised airworthiness limitation requirements. This
new AD requires revising the maintenance or inspection program to
incorporate new or revised airworthiness limitation requirements, and
removes airplanes from the applicability. This AD was prompted by a
determination that more restrictive maintenance instructions and
airworthiness limitations are necessary. We are issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 16, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of January 16,
2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of
December 17, 2014 (79 FR 67042, November 12, 2014).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax: +33 5 61 93 44 51; email: [email protected];
Internet: http://

www.airbus.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 425-
227-1221. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0625.

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-2017-
0625; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone: 800-
647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 425-
227-1149.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2014-22-08, Amendment 39-18013 (79 FR 67042,
November 12, 2014) (``AD 2014-22-08''). AD 2014-22-08 applied to all
Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes; Model A320-111, -211, -
212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -
131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on June 27, 2017 (82 FR 29016). The NPRM was
prompted by a determination that more restrictive maintenance
instructions and airworthiness limitations are necessary. The NPRM
proposed to revise the maintenance or inspection program to incorporate
new or revised airworthiness limitation requirements, and to remove
airplanes from the applicability. We are issuing this AD to prevent a
safety-significant latent failure (that is not annunciated), which, in
combination with one or more other specific failures or events, could
result in a hazardous or catastrophic failure condition.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2016-0092, dated May 13, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for all Airbus Model A318 and A319 series airplanes;
Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model
A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The
MCAI states:

    The airworthiness limitations for Airbus A320 family aeroplanes
are currently defined and published in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321
Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS) documents. The airworthiness
limitations applicable to the Certification Maintenance Requirements
(CMR), which are approved by EASA, are published in ALS Part 3.
    The instructions contained in the ALS Part 3 have been
identified as mandatory actions for continued airworthiness. Failure
to comply with these instructions could result in an unsafe
condition.
    Previously, EASA issued AD 2013-0148 [which corresponds to FAA
AD 2014-22-08] to require accomplishment of all maintenance tasks as
described in ALS Part 3 at Revision 01. The new ALS Part 3 Revision
03 (hereafter referred to as `the ALS' in this [EASA] AD) includes
new and/or more restrictive requirements.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD 2013-0148, which is superseded, and requires
accomplishment of all maintenance tasks as described in the ALS.

    The unsafe condition is a safety-significant latent failure (that
is not annunciated), which, in combination with one or more other
specific failures or events, could result in a hazardous or
catastrophic failure condition. You may examine the MCAI in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0625.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and
the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Revise Cost Estimate

    Delta Airlines (DAL) requested that we revise the cost estimate of
the proposed AD. DAL pointed out that revising the maintenance or
inspection program to incorporate new or revised airworthiness
limitation requirements is a fleet-based effort. DAL stated that it
estimates the cost to be 200 work-hours per operator, which would total
$17,000 per operator. DAL also stated that each operator would incur a
similar cost that is independent of fleet size.
    We disagree with the request to revise the cost estimate. The cost
estimate in ADs is based on an estimated cost per airplane regardless
of any operator's fleet size, which varies by operator. Additionally,
the cost estimate describes only the direct costs and time necessary to
perform the specific actions required by this AD. We recognize that, in
doing the actions required by an AD, operators might incur incidental
costs in addition to the direct costs. The cost analysis in AD
rulemaking actions, however, typically does not include incidental
costs such as the time necessary for planning or time necessitated by
other administrative actions. Those incidental costs, which might vary
significantly among operators, are almost impossible to calculate. We
have not changed this AD in this regard.

Requests To Revise Previously Approved Alternative Method of Compliance
(AMOC) Provisions

    DAL requested that we revise paragraph (k)(1)(ii) of the proposed
AD from approving previously approved AMOCs for AD 2014-22-08 as AMOCs
for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of the proposed AD,
to being approved for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (i) of
the proposed AD. DAL pointed out that this change would allow the AMOCs
previously approved for AD 2014-22-08 to be applicable to both
paragraphs (g) and (i) of the proposed AD, eliminating the need for new
AMOCs to address issues identified in AD 2014-22-08 and carried over to
the proposed AD.
    Spirit Airlines noted that, based on paragraph (k)(1)(ii) of the
proposed AD, AMOCs approved for AD 2014-22-08 would not be valid for
the new requirements of paragraph (i) of the proposed AD.
    We agree that certain AMOCs approved for AD 2014-22-08 are approved
for the corresponding provisions of this AD. We have added paragraph
(k)(1)(iii) to this AD to specify that the certain previous AMOCs that
are approved for AD 2014-22-08 are approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD. The previous
AMOCs include Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3, CMR, Revision 05,
dated April 6, 2017.

Request To Cite Latest Revision of the Service Information

    Spirit Airlines requested that we refer to Revision 05, dated April
6, 2017, of

Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3, CMR, (``ALS Part 3'') in
paragraph (i) of this AD (we referred to Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS
Part 3, CMR, Revision 03, dated December 21, 2015 (``Airbus A318/A319/
A320/A321 ALS Part 3, Revision 03''), as the appropriate source of
service information for accomplishing the revision specified in
paragraph (i) of the proposed AD).
    We do not agree with the request to specify the revised service
information in this final rule. The revised service information
includes new and more restrictive items and is applicable to additional
airplanes. To require incorporation of the revised service information,
we would have to issue a supplement NPRM for public comment and would
incur undue delay in issuance of the final rule. In addition, EASA has
not published an AD mandating Revision 05, dated April 6, 2017, of ALS
Part 3. We are considering further rulemaking to supersede this final
rule to require incorporating the revised service information. We have
made no change to this AD in this regard.

Request To Allow the of Use Later Approved Revisions of the Service
Information

    DAL requested that we allow the use of later approved revisions of
Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3. DAL stated that permitting later
approved revisions would reduce the number of requests for an AMOC. DAL
also mentioned that Airbus has requested approval of Variation 5.1, of
ALS Part 3, as an AMOC to AD 2014-22-08.
    We do not agree with DAL's request to allow the use of later
approved revisions of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3. We cannot
use the phrase, ``or later approved revisions,'' in an AD when
referring to the service document because doing so violates Office of
the Federal Register (OFR) regulations for approval of materials
``incorporated by reference'' in rules. However, as stated previously,
we have revised this AD to specify that AMOCs approved for AD 2014-22-
08 are approved for the corresponding provisions of this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD with the changes described previously and minor editorial
changes. We have determined that these changes:
     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.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations
Section (ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR),
Revision 03, dated December 21, 2015. This service information
describes maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations,
including updated inspections and intervals, to be incorporated into
the maintenance or inspection program. 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.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 1,032 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The actions required by AD 2014-22-08, and retained in this AD take
about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions
that are required by AD 2014-22-08 is $85 per product.
    We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost
of this AD on U.S. operators to be $87,720, or $85 per product.

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to
the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We 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);
    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.

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2014-22-08, Amendment 39-18013 (79 FR 67042, November 12, 2014), and
adding the following new AD:

2017-25-04 Airbus: Amendment 39-19118; Docket No. FAA-2017-0625;
Product Identifier 2016-NM-089-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective January 16, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2014-22-08, Amendment 39-18013 (79 FR 67042,
November 12, 2014) (``AD 2014-22-08'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD, certificated in any
category, with an original certificate of airworthiness or original
export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before December 21,
2015.
    (1) Model A318-111, -112, -121, and -122 airplanes.
    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133
airplanes.
    (3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes.
    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232
airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that more restrictive
maintenance instructions and airworthiness limitations are
necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent a safety-significant
latent failure (that is not annunciated), which, in combination with
one or more other specific failures or events, could result in a
hazardous or catastrophic failure condition.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision, With New
Terminating Action

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2014-22-08, with new terminating action. Within 30 days after
December 17, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-22-08), revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating
Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS)
Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 1,
dated June 15, 2012. The initial compliance time for accomplishing
the tasks specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3, CMR,
Revision 1, dated June 15, 2012, is at the applicable time specified
in the Record of Revisions of Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3,
CMR, Revision 1, dated June 15, 2012; or within 30 days after
December 17, 2014 (the effective date of AD 2014-22-08), whichever
occurs later. Accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph (i)
of this AD terminates the requirements of this paragraph.

(h) Retained Provision Regarding Alternative Actions and Intervals,
With a New Exception

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2014-22-08, with a new exception. Except as required by paragraph
(i) of this AD, after accomplishing the revisions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections)
or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are
approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.

(i) New Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate
Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS)
Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision 03,
dated December 21, 2015 (``Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3,
Revision 03''). The initial compliance time for accomplishing the
tasks specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 ALS Part 3, Revision
03, is at the applicable time specified in Airbus A318/A319/A320/
A321 ALS Part 3, Revision 03, or within 30 days after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later. Accomplishing the actions
specified in this paragraph terminates the requirements of paragraph
(g) of this AD.

(j) New Provision Regarding No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the action required by paragraph (i) of this AD has been
done, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be
used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an AMOC in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k)(1) of this
AD.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards 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 local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (l)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (i) 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.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2014-22-08 are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) this AD.
    (iii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2014-22-08, which are
included in the FAA AMOC letters specified in paragraphs
(k)(1)(iii)(A) and (k)(1)(iii)(B), are approved as AMOCs for the
corresponding provisions of paragraph (i) of this AD.
    (A) FAA AMOC letter ANM-116-17-002R1, dated November 14, 2016.
    (B) FAA AMOC letter ANM-116-17-323, dated June 12, 2017.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: As of the effective date of
this AD, for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions
from a manufacturer, the action must be accomplished using a method
approved by the Manager, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or
Airbus's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(l) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2016-0092, dated May 13, 2016, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2017-0625.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone:
425-227-1405; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
January 16, 2018.
    (i) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision
03, dated December 21, 2015.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
December 17, 2014 (79 FR 67042, November 12, 2014).
    (i) Airbus A318/A319/A320/A321 Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS) Part 3, Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMR), Revision
1, dated June 15, 2012.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus, Airworthiness Office--EIAS, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte,
31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone: +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax: +33
5 61 93 44 51; email: [email protected]; Internet:
http://www.airbus.com.
    (6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference 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/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 29, 2017.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-26364 Filed 12-8-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 186)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 59192-59195]
[DOCID:fr27se10-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0003; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1138]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual-chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the
communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to
seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory
flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream
locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part 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, these elevations, once
finalized, will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate
appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the
contents in those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before December 27, 2010.

ADDRESSES: The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community is available for
inspection at the community's map repository. The respective addresses
are listed in the table below.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1138, to
Roy E. Wright, Deputy Director, Risk Analysis Division, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy E. Wright, Deputy Director, Risk
Analysis Division, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs 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 BFEs and modified BFEs, 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 proposed elevations
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 these elevations are made final,
and for the contents in those buildings.
    Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other
than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging
receipt of any comments will not be sent.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This proposed rule is
categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,
Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not
been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This
proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria
of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This proposed rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule
meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.4  [Amended]

    2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.4 are
proposed to be amended as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  * Elevation in feet
                                                                 (NGVD) + Elevation in
                                                                 feet (NAVD)
                                       Location of referenced     Depth in feet above
         Flooding source(s)                  elevation         ground [caret] Elevation    Communities affected
                                                                    in meters (MSL)
                                                              --------------------------
                                                                Effective     Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Clinton County, Indiana, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prairie Creek.......................  Approximately 100 feet          None         +822  City of Frankfort,
                                       downstream of County                               Unincorporated Areas
                                       Road 100 North.                                    of Clinton County.
                                      Approximately 450 feet          None         +853
                                       upstream of Kelly
                                       Street.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Roy E. Wright, Deputy Director, Risk Analysis Division, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Frankfort

Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 301 East Clinton Street, Frankfort, IN 46041.

                                     Unincorporated Areas of Clinton County

Maps are available for inspection at the Clinton County Courthouse, 180 Courthouse Square, Frankfort, IN 46041.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Cerro Gordo County, Iowa, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Creek.......................  At the confluence with         +1116        +1118  City of Mason City.
                                       Willow Creek.
                                      Just downstream of             +1131        +1134
                                       Chicago, Milwaukee,
                                       St. Paul and Pacific
                                       Railroad.
Clear Creek.........................  At the confluence with          None        +1180  City of Clear Lake.
                                       Willow Creek.
                                      Just downstream of 40th        +1195        +1192
                                       Street.
Clear Lake..........................  Entire shoreline.......         None        +1228  City of Clear Lake,
                                                                                City of Ventura,
                                                                                Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Cerro Gordo County.
Willow Creek........................  Just upstream of State         +1157        +1158  City of Clear Lake,
                                       Road 122.                                          City of Mason City,
                                                                                Unincorporated Areas
                                                                                of Cerro Gordo County.
                                      Approximately 850 feet          None        +1195
                                       upstream of I-35.
Winnebago River.....................  Approximately 0.4 mile          None        +1061  City of Mason City,
                                       upstream of Chicago,                               Unincorporated Areas
                                       Milwaukee, St. Paul                                of Cerro Gordo County.
                                       and Pacific Railroad.
                                      Approximately 1.6 mile         +1093        +1092
                                       upstream of 13th
                                       Street.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Roy E. Wright, Deputy Director, Risk Analysis Division, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

City of Clear Lake

Maps are available for inspection at 15 North 6th Street, Clear Lake, IA 50428.

City of Mason City

Maps are available for inspection at 10 1st Street Northwest, Mason City, IA 50401.

City of Ventura

Maps are available for inspection at 101 Sena Street, Ventura, IA 50482.

                                   Unincorporated Areas of Cerro Gordo County

Maps are available for inspection at 220 North Washington Avenue, Mason City, IA 50401.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Lafayette Parish, Louisiana, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anselm Coulee.......................  Just upstream of the            None          +14  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       confluence with the                                Lafayette Parish.
                                       Vermillion River.
                                      Just downstream of the          None          +24
                                       confluence with Isaac
                                       Verot Coulee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Roy E. Wright, Deputy Director, Risk Analysis Division, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

                                    Unincorporated Areas of Lafayette Parish

Maps are available for inspection at 101 East Cypress Street, Lafayette, LA 70501.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Steele County, Minnesota, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Creek.........................  Approximately 400 feet         +1091        +1092  Unincorporated Areas of
                                       upstream of the                                    Steele County.
                                       confluence with the
                                       Straight River.
                                      At Frontage Road.......        +1091        +1092
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Roy E. Wright, Deputy Director, Risk Analysis Division, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

                                      Unincorporated Areas of Steele County

Maps are available for inspection at the Steele County Administration Center, 630 Florence Avenue, Owatonna, MN
 55060.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Clarion County, Pennsylvania (All Jurisdictions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny River.....................  Approximately 1.16 mile         None         +837  Township of Brady.
                                       upstream of the
                                       confluence with
                                       Redbank Creek.
                                      Approximately 2.12              None         +838
                                       miles upstream of the
                                       confluence with
                                       Redbank Creek.
Allegheny River.....................  Approximately 1.38 mile         None         +853  Township of Perry,
                                       downstream of the                                  Township of Toby.
                                       confluence with Black
                                       Fox Run.
                                      Approximately 480 feet          None         +868
                                       upstream of State
                                       Route 368.
Allegheny River.....................  Approximately 1,660             None         +873  Township of Richland.
                                       feet downstream of
                                       State Route 58.
                                      Approximately 1,245             None         +873
                                       feet downstream of
                                       State Route 58.
                                      Approximately 860 feet          None         +880
                                       downstream of I-80.
                                      Approximately 920 feet          None         +880
                                       upstream of I-80.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Roy E. Wright, Deputy Director, Risk Analysis Division, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES

Township of Brady

Maps are available for inspection at the Brady Township Building, 141 West Liberty Road, Slipery Rock, PA 16057.

Township of Perry

Maps are available for inspection at the Perry Township Building, 5687 Doc Walker Road, Parker, PA 16049.

Township of Richland

Maps are available for inspection at the Richland Township Building, 511 Dittman Road, Emlenton, PA 16373.

Township of Toby

Maps are available for inspection at the Toby Township Building, 37 Simmons Road, Rimersburg, PA 16248.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Dated: September 13, 2010.
Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Mitigation,
Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-24148 Filed 9-24-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52734-52737]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18770]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0074; Notice 2]

Baby Jogger, LLC, Ruling on Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Ruling on petition for inconsequential noncompliance.

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

SUMMARY: Baby Jogger, LLC (Baby Jogger), has determined that certain
Baby Jogger rear-facing infant seats and bases do not fully comply with
paragraphs S5.5, S5.6, S5.8, and S8.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Baby Jogger filed an
associated report dated June 4, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Baby Jogger then
petitioned NHTSA under 49 CFR part 556 requesting a decision that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Zachary
Fraser, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), Baby Jogger submitted a petition
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.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on September 8, 2015 in the Federal Register (80
FR 53914). No comments were received. To view the petition, and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2015-0074.''
    II. Child Restraints Involved: Affected are approximately 15,103 of
the following Baby Jogger rear-facing infant seats and bases
manufactured between November 3, 2014 and April 30, 2015:
 City GO Infant Car Seat/Model No. BJ64510
 City GO Infant Car Seat/Model No. BJ64529
 City GO Base for Infant Car Seat/Model No. BJ80400
 City GO Base for Infant Car Seat/Model No. BJ61500
 City Mini Infant Cars Seat/Stroller Travel System/Model
No.BJ72510
 Vue Lite Infant Car Seat/Stroller Travel System/Model No.
BJ70411
 Vue Lite Infant Car Seat/Stroller Travel System/Model No.
BJ70424
 Vue Lite Infant Car Seat/Stroller Travel System/Model No.
BJ70431
    III. Noncompliances: Baby Jogger explains that the affected child
restraints do not fully comply with numerous paragraphs of FMVSS No.
213 for the following reasons:
    Paragraph S5.5.2--The required information in English is no smaller
than 10 point type, but the Spanish information is smaller at about 7
point type. This only applies to models BJ64510 and BJ64529.
    Paragraph S5.5.2(d)--The ``manufactured in address'' on the label
is in about 8 font which is smaller than the required 10 point type.
    Paragraph S5.5.2(m)--The required ''Child restraints could be
recalled for safety reasons. . .'' text is on a black background with
white text instead of black text on a white background.
    Paragraph S5.5.2(g)(1)--The label has the ``Follow all
instructions. . .'' ahead of the ``Secure this child restraint''
statement, instead of the reverse order as required. This noncompliance
only affects models BJ64510 and BJ64529.
    Paragraph S5.5.2(n)--The label has ``This child restraint is
certified for use in motor vehicles and aircraft.'' Other than the
first word, no other words are capitalized.
    Paragraph S5.5.2.(k)(3)(ii)--The message area measures 23.4 square
cm on models BJ70411, BJ70424 and BJ70431 which is less than the
minimum required message area of 30 square cm.
    Paragraph S5.5.2.(k)(3)(iii)--On models BJ70411, BJ70424 and
BJ70431 the red circle on the required pictogram is 29 mm in diameter
which is less than the required 30 mm in diameter.
    Paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>--The instruction manuals do not include
reference to the required Web site in the section regarding child
restraint recalls.
    Paragraph S5.6.3--The instruction manuals do not include the
required statement ``A snug strap should not allow any slack. . .''
    Paragraph S5.8.2(a)(1)--The electronic registration form does not
have the required statement ``FOR YOUR CHILD'S CONTINUED SAFETY. . .''
    Paragraph S5.8.1(b)(2)--Figure 9a requires minimum 10 percent
screen tint on the lower half of the form. The form is missing the
required tinting.
    Paragraph S8.1--No instructions for installing the system in an
aircraft passenger seat were provided.
    IV. Summary of Baby Jogger's Analyses: Baby Jogger organized its
reasoning to substantiate inconsequentiality into the following five
issue groupings that it believes are similar between the numerous
noncompliances:
a. Information Type Size/Capitalization/Presentation Order
b. Background Color
c. On-Product Label Message Area and Pictogram Sizes
d. Omitted Information
e. Spanish Language Type Size
    Refer to Baby Jogger's petition for their complete reasoning and
associated illustrations. To view the petition and all supporting
documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site
at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search
instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2015-0074.''
    Baby Jogger additionally informed NHTSA that they have corrected
all labeling noncompliances and that all future production of the
subject infant car seat/stroller systems and stand-alone units will be
in full compliance with FMVSS No. 213.
    In summation, Baby Jogger believes that the described noncompliance
of the subject infant car seat/stroller systems and standalone units is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its

petition, to exempt Baby Jogger 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'S Decision

    NHTSA's Analysis: NHTSA examined the noncompliances that Baby
Jogger described in its petition by category as follows:

a. Information Type Size/Capitalization/Presentation Order

    Baby Jogger printed labels required in paragraph S5.5.2 containing
the place of manufacture in 8 point type rather than the required 10
point type. Baby Jogger believes the smaller type of the place of
manufacture will not have any impact on child passenger safety. Baby
Jogger failed to capitalize certain first letters of words contained in
a label to instruct the user that the restraint is certified for use in
motor vehicles and aircraft (paragraph S5.5.2(n)). Baby Jogger believes
the lower case letters will not have any impact on child passenger
safety. Finally, Baby Jogger printed on-product labels with two of the
required statements of paragraph S5.5.2(g)(1)in incorrect order. Baby
Jogger believes the out of order information will not have any impact
on child passenger safety.
    NHTSA does not concur with Baby Jogger's reasons for
inconsequentiality stated above. With regard to the noncompliant 8
point font size, in the Final Rule establishing FMVSS No. 139, ``New
pneumatic radial tires for light vehicles,'' the agency stated ``With
respect to the size of the text on the placard and label, NHTSA learned
from focus groups that the public generally prefers larger fonts in
label text because it is easier to read. This helps ensure the placard
and label will effectively convey the message to the reader.'' \1\
Also, in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to upgrade dynamic testing in
FMVSS No. 213, the agency originally proposed that labeling be in block
lettering ``3/32 inch high.'' \2\ In the final rule to upgrade FMVSS
No. 213, the agency changed this to ``10 point type'' and made other
changes in response to a comment from General Motors.\3\ General Motors
stated ``The proposal restricts the lettering to block lettering which
results in instructions which are hard to read. We recommend that the
body type for the label be specified to require at least a 10 point
type, based on the character case with the option of using capitals or
upper and lower case. We believe this specification will result in an
easier to read label which, in turn, should promote more complete
reading of the label by the consumer.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 67 FR 69600; November 18, 2002.
    \2\ 43 FR 21470; May 18, 1978.
    \3\ 44 FR 72131; December 13, 1979.
    \4\ Docket no. 74-09-N04, comment #78, sent 12/1/78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, NHTSA believes that font size less than the
required 10 point type results in undesirable reading conditions which
may cause eye strain and lead to the consumer failing to complete
reading all the important safety instructions.
    Baby Jogger failed to capitalize certain first letters of words
contained in a label to instruct the user that the restraint is
certified for use in motor vehicles and aircraft (paragraph S5.5.2(n)).
Baby Jogger believes the lower case letters will not have any impact on
child passenger safety.
    The agency believes that failure to capitalize the required
statements for proper use of child restraints may result in the
consumer not adequately seeing and understanding the important safety
information pertaining to proper use of the restraints.
    Baby Jogger printed on-product labels with two of the required
statements of paragraph S5.5.2(g)(1)in incorrect order. Baby Jogger
believes the out of order information will not have any impact on child
passenger safety because the statements are stand-alone and do not
depend on another statement; therefore, the order of bulleted
statements do affect the proper use of the car seat.
    NHTSA disagrees with this reasoning. S5.5.2(g)(1) requires the
heading ```WARNING! DEATH or SERIOUS INJURY can occur', capitalized as
written and followed by bulleted statements in the following order:''
(emphasis added). The order of statements follows a sequence beginning
with instructions for rear-facing usage (S5.5.2(k)(1)), the maximum
mass of children that can safely occupy the system (S.5.5.2(f)), the
proper adjustment of the belts provided with the child restraint
(S5.5.2(h)), instructions for securing a child restraint to the vehicle
with a top tether strap (S5.5.2(j), and instructions for securing a
booster seat to the vehicle using the vehicle's seat belt system
(S5.5.2(i)). Baby Jogger incorrectly placed the statements required by
S5.5.2(i) before the statements required by S5.5.2(j). The agency
intentionally created a sequence of information that begins with
instructions that call for interaction between the occupant and the
restraint system, and ends with instructions that call for interaction
between the occupant and the written instruction. If this sequence is
disrupted by placing items out of order the user could become
distracted and disregard important instructions.
    The agency believes the above label noncompliances, in totality,
have a compounding effect that may result in the user mistrusting
information on the labels and thereby ignoring the labels.

b. Background Color

    Baby Jogger notified the agency of the following two noncompliances
related to background color:
    (1) Paragraph S5.5.2 requires a label with information that child
restraints could be recalled for safety reasons to be printed on a
white background with black text. The noncompliant label contains the
required information but is printed on black background with white
text. Baby Jogger believes there is no indication that the reversed
color combination will affect consumers' ability to understand the
information on the label, and, therefore, the contrasting colors will
not have any impact on child passenger safety.
    NHTSA disagrees with Baby Jogger's assessment that the reversal of
required text/label color will not affect the consumers' ability to
understand the label. A visual inspection of the label in a photograph
provided by Baby Jogger shows that the white text on the black
background is not as easy to read as the compliant text located above.
(This picture is located in the docket). The consumer may not read the
label in its entirety if the ability to read the information on the
label creates a challenge to the reader, which would result in the
reader not being aware of important recall information.
    (2) S5.8.1(b)(2) requires the registration form to conform to
Figures 9a and 9b which require portions of the card to have a minimum
10% screen tint. The registration card provided by Baby Jogger does not
have any screen tint. Baby Jogger believes that the missing screen tint
will not have an impact on motor vehicle safety because there is no
indication that the missing tint will affect consumers' ability to
understand the information on the registration card.
    The image of the registration card provided in Baby Jogger's
petition would seem to support Baby Jogger's argument that the missing
tint does not affect the ability to understand the required information
provided on the registration card.

c. On-Product Label Message Area and Pictogram Sizes

    Three of the Baby Jogger models have the air bag warning label
required by

paragraph S5.5.2(k)(3)(ii) with a message area measuring 23.4 square cm
which is less than the minimum required message area of 30 square cm.
Baby Jogger does not believe the noncompliance creates a risk to motor
vehicle safety because the label is prominently displayed and clearly
communicates the required warning, and there is no indication that the
sizing issue affects customers' ability to understand the warnings. In
addition, the pictogram required in paragraph S5.5.2(k)(3)(iii) for the
Baby Jogger label measures 29 millimeters in diameter which is less
than the minimum required diameter of 30 millimeters. Baby Jogger
believes that the pictogram that is 1 millimeter too small will not
have any impact on child passenger safety.
    In addition, Baby Jogger maintains for both noncompliances above
that the required information is provided in the printed instructions
and is prominently featured on the affected products, and there is no
indication that the sizing issue affects consumers' ability to
understand or appreciate the warnings.
    We disagree with Baby Jogger that the smaller than required air bag
warning label message area creates no risk to motor vehicle safety. The
air bag warning labels are the agency's primary method for obtaining
the consumer's attention and conveying important safety information
with respect to the proper location to install a rear-facing child
restraint. The agency believes that these air bag warning labels are
necessary to make consumers aware of the potentially serious
consequences of placing a rear-facing child seat or any child twelve
and under on the front seat with an air bag, and that the rear seat is
the safest place for these children. In NHTSA's occupant crash
protection rule published on May 12, 2000,\5\ the agency stated ``. . .
as with the current labels, manufacturers may provide translations of
the required English language message as long as all the requirements
for the English language are met, including size'' \6\ (emphasis
added). Thus, the agency reconfirmed the importance of the message area
requirement in the advanced air bag final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 65 FR 30680.
    \6\ 65 FR 30722.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The air bag warning label requirements in FMVSS No. 213, Child
Restraint Systems, were established as part of a FMVSS No. 208,
Occupant Crash Protection, final rule requiring new air bag warning
labels in motor vehicles.\7\ The intent of the final rule is that the
warning or alert message fills the message area.\8\ Not filling the
message area would make purposeless the specification. The Baby Jogger
label has a message area that is 22 percent below the required 30
square cm. This is a significant reduction in message area equivalent
to not filling the message area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 61 FR 60206; November 27, 1996.
    \8\ 61 FR 60206 at 60210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The pictogram of the air bag warning label has a diameter that is 3
percent below the required 30 mm. Even though the pictogram minimum
format is not met, NHTSA believes in this case that the consumer will
have a message size that is acceptable.

d. Omitted Information

    Baby Jogger notified the agency of the following four
noncompliances related to missing information required in the printed
instructions or electronic registration form in FMVSS No. 213:
    (1) Paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> requires the printed instructions to include
the statement in paragraph (ii) that ``Child restraints could be
recalled . . . or register on-line at (insert Web site for electronic
registration form).'' The printed instruction manual does not include
the Web site address in the section regarding child restraint
registration. Baby Jogger does not believe the noncompliance with
paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> creates a risk to motor vehicle safety since on-line
registration is optional.
    The agency disagrees with Baby Jogger that the missing information
for on-line registration does not create a risk to motor vehicle
safety. While the manufacturer has the choice to provide on-line
registration or not, if the manufacturer does provide the option for
on-line registration then they are required to provide the Web site
address in the section regarding child seat registration. The agency
recognizes the importance of child restraint registrations. To support
increasing the number of registrations, the agency is currently
studying efforts to increase the rate of child restraint registrations
so that in the event of a recall, all owners of affected units will be
notified of a potentially unsafe product.
    (2) Paragraph S5.6.3 requires the printed instructions to include
the statement: ``A snug strap should not allow any slack. It lies in a
relatively straight line without sagging. It does not press on the
child's flesh or push the child's body into an unnatural position.''
The printed instruction manual does not include this information. Baby
Jogger does not believe that this noncompliance creates a risk to motor
vehicle safety because the printed instructions provide adequate text
to adjust the harness around the child including statements addressing
snugness and sagging (see Baby Jogger's Petition in Docket NHTSA-2015-
0074 for detail).
    NHTSA disagrees with Baby Jogger that the provided text to address
strap snugness in lieu of the required text is sufficient to replace
the required text. The text provided by Baby Jogger contains additional
information not related to strap snugness. In addition, the provided
text fails to provide guidance to achieve a snug fit which may result
in an improper securing of the child in the restraint and a compromise
of the child seat's safety effectiveness in the event of a crash.
    (3) Paragraph S8.1 requires the printed instructions to include a
step-by-step procedure (including diagrams) for installing the system
in aircraft passenger seats, securing a child in the system when it is
installed in aircraft, and adjusting the system to fit the child. The
printed instruction manual does not include instructions for installing
the system in aircraft passenger seats. Baby Jogger does not believe
that the missing aircraft installation information creates a risk to
motor vehicle safety because the printed instructions address the
installation of the child seat in a vehicle equipped with a lap belt
only, which is similar to the installation of the child seat in an
aircraft passenger seat with lap belt only. Baby Jogger believes that
the installation instructions provided for a vehicle lap belt will be
logically understood as the method to secure the child seat to the
aircraft passenger seat.
    NHTSA disagrees with Baby Jogger's line of reasoning. We have
concerns that absent the required instructions specific to aircraft
passenger installation, the user will be unprepared to properly secure
the child restraint to the aircraft passenger seat, properly secure the
child when it is installed in an aircraft, and properly adjust the
system to fit the child. These potential improper procedures could
result in a compromise of the child seat's safety effectiveness during
flight.
    (4) Paragraph S5.8.2(a)(1)(i) requires the electronic registration
form to contain the statement ``FOR YOUR CHILD'S CONTINUED SAFETY'' at
the top of the form. The electronic registration form on the Baby
Jogger Web site did not include this statement at the top. Baby Jogger
believes that users of child restraints have a basic understanding that
recalls are conducted for safety reasons, and that one who navigated to
the electronic registration form would not be

dissuaded from registering due to the missing phrase.
    The Agency agrees that a consumer who has navigated to the on-line
registration will not be dissuaded from registering due to the missing
phrase. Also, the Agency notes that Baby Jogger has corrected this
omission on its on-line registration form and the required statement is
present.

e. Spanish Language Type Size

    Paragraph S5.5.2 of FMVSS No. 213 requires the information in the
English language to be not smaller than 10 point type. An on-product
warning label provided by Baby Jogger has the Spanish information at
approximately 7 point type. The English language label is in full
compliance with this requirement. Baby Jogger believes that the
noncompliant text does not create a risk to motor vehicle safety
because the information is clearly displayed on the affected child
restraints and clearly communicates the required information.
    NHTSA believes that the 7 point type text provided in the Spanish
language label is not clearly displayed and is difficult to read. The
smaller font size likely poses a challenge to the consumer's ability to
read the text and could result in the consumer ignoring the text due to
the difficulty in being able to read it. NHTSA disagrees with Baby
Jogger's reasons for inconsequentiality as supported by the reasons
stated above under the category ``Information Type Size.''
    NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
determined that Baby Jogger has not met its burden of persuasion that
the subject FMVSS No. 213 noncompliances are inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety for: (a) Information Type Size/Capitalization/
Presentation order, (b) Background color (excluding the 10 percent tint
noncompliance), (c) On-Product Label Message Area and Pictogram Sizes
(excluding the pictogram noncompliance), (d) Omitted Information
(excluding the missing statement at the top of the on-line registration
form), and (e) Spanish Language Type Size. Accordingly, Baby Jogger's
petition is hereby denied for these noncompliances and Baby Jogger is
obligated to provide notification of, and free remedies for, the
noncompliances as required under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the
petitioner has met its burden of persuasion that the noncompliances
identified above as ``excluded'' in its petition are inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety: (b) minimum 10 percent tint on registration card,
(c) minimum 30 mm diameter pictogram on air bag warning label, and (d)
missing statement at the top of the on-line registration form.
Accordingly, we grant its petition on these issues.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8).

    Issued on: August 2, 2016.
Stephen A. Ridella,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2016-18770 Filed 8-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 11214]
[FR Doc No: 2017-03318]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #2

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER17-753-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Errata to Correct RTEP Approved by
Board in Dec 2016 submitted in ER17-753-000 to be effective 4/6/2017.
    Filed Date: 2/14/17.
    Accession Number: 20170214-5073.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-969-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3165 Otter Tail Power
Company NITSA and NOA Notice of Cancellation to be effective 2/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 2/14/17.
    Accession Number: 20170214-5070.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-970-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: CAPX-Multi-Hawks Nest Const-
647-0.0.0 to be effective 1/25/2017.
    Filed Date: 2/14/17.
    Accession Number: 20170214-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/7/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF17-676-000.
    Applicants: City of Charlotte, North Carolina.
    Description: Form 556 of City of Charlotte.
    Filed Date: 2/9/17.
    Accession Number: 20170209-5306.
    Comments Due: None Applicable.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    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 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.
    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: February 14, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-03318 Filed 2-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 140 (Monday, July 26, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40044-40045]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15803]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0078; FRL 8681-01-OAR]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Landfill Methane Outreach Program (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR), ``Landfill Methane
Outreach Program'' (EPA ICR No. 1849.10, OMB Control No. 2060-0446) to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is
soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed
information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension
of the ICR, which is currently approved through April 30, 2022. 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: Comments must be submitted on or before September 24, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0078, 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.
    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: Lauren Aepli, Climate Change Division,
Office of Atmospheric Programs, (6207A), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; 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, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate 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; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: The Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP), created by
EPA as part of the United States' commitment to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, is a voluntary program designed to encourage and facilitate the
development of environmentally and economically sound landfill gas
(LFG) energy projects across the United States to reduce methane
emissions from landfills. LMOP meets these objectives by educating
local governments and communities about the benefits of LFG recovery
and use; building partnerships between state agencies, industry, energy
service providers, local communities, and other stakeholders interested
in developing this valuable resource in their community; and providing
tools to

evaluate LFG energy potential. LMOP signed voluntary Memoranda of
Understanding (MOUs) with these organizations to enlist their support
in promoting cost-effective LFG utilization. The information collection
includes completion and submission of the MOU, periodic information
updates, and annual completion and submission of basic information on
landfill methane projects with which the organizations are involved as
an effort to update the LMOP Landfill and Landfill Gas Energy Project
Database. The information collection is to be utilized to maintain up-
to-date data and information about LMOP Partners and LFG energy
projects with which they are involved. The data will also be used by
the public to access LFG energy project development opportunities in
the United States. In addition, the information collection will assist
EPA in evaluating the reduction of methane emissions from landfills. No
confidential information is requested or required in this information
collection.
    Form Numbers: 5900-157, 5900-158, 5900-159, 5900-160, and 5900-161.
    Respondents/affected entities: Private companies and municipalities
that own or operate landfills; manufacturers and suppliers of
equipment/knowledge to capture and utilize LFG; utility companies; end-
users of energy from landfills; developers of LFG energy projects;
State agencies; and other LFG energy stakeholders.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 1,066 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Total estimated burden: 2,176 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $199,457 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in estimates: There is decrease of 94 hours in the total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by
OMB. This decrease is due to anticipated slowed growth in the number of
new LMOP Partners annually.

Paul M. Gunning,
Director, Climate Change Division.
[FR Doc. 2021-15803 Filed 7-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Why were normal distributions and Weibull distributions chosen as distributions of random effects?

 GLMM are used to analyze non-normal data distributions.  Since the data are not normally distribution, the appropriate link function is used for the data.  Current SAS statistical software assumes the random effects (not raw data) in GLMM model are normally distributed.  Therefore, it is reasonable to generate the random effects (animal or day) in terms of logit values from normal distributions.
 We also did the sensitivity analysis by generating the random effects from Weibull distributions. However, as indicated above, the currently available GLMM model in SAS statistical software assumes the random effects to be normally distributed.  If the random effects in terms of logit values were generated from a distribution with a shape so different from the shape of a normal distribution, the results of simulations are not reliable (i.e. the estimates are not close to the true parameters used to create the data) and non-convergence is more likely to happen for the dataset.

Purpose of the appendix II
 Since the random effects current available from GLMM in SAS statistical software are assumed to be normally distributed, we want to see whether the estimates of the datasets are close to the true value since the random effects were randomly generated from Weibull distributions, not from normal distributions as assumed in GLMM.
 Based on the results of the simulations, the method we used to generated data and the parameters of the Weibull distributions (SubVar = 1 and DayVar = 0.5) in the simulations are reasonable since the estimates from the datasets using the GLMM are "best estimates" of the true parameters of the distributions: the medians of the estimates were close to the true values that we set in the simulations.
 Therefore, for the simulations of power/sample size of pet product studies, it is reasonable to generate the random effects (animal and day) from normal distributions or Weibull distributions.

Parameters in the simulations: why SD_Sub = 033 and SD_Day = 0.166
 We have reviewed some historical data, but the information we obtained was limited due to few datasets (different animals, different pest species) and small sample size.  Note that we do not estimate the proportions of blood-fed arthropods in these datasets.  We want to estimate the variation between animals (SD_Sub) and the inflation factor (SD_Day) that cause the variation of the data greater than the variation of typical binomial distributions; therefore, in order to estimate and have reliable estimate of variation between animals and inflation factor in the variation of the binomial distributions, we need to have larger sample size datasets.
 We don't want to assume no variation between animals or days; however, we don't want to overstate these variations.  We started the SD_Sub = 0.33 and SD_Day = 0.166 to see how the distribution of true proportions due to the variations of animals or days.  Below is a table showing the 95% coverage of distributions of true proportions (of animals or days) associated with SD_Sub = 0.33 and SD_Day = 0.166.  For example, if the average proportion of blood-fed arthropods of the animals is 0.45, the 95% coverage of the distribution of true proportions of blood-fed arthropods of the animals is from 0.297 to 0.613.
 From the 95% coverage of the distribution of true proportions of blood-fed arthropods of the animals in the table, we think a SD_Sub = 0.33 is reasonable for the variation of true blood-fed arthropod proportions of the animals.  Note that this is an additional source of variation in the data besides the variation of binomial distributions.
 Differences among measurements of the same animals on different days can be assumed to be the variation of binomial distributions (SD_Day = 0).  However, there may be some studies that the variation in the data is higher than typical variation of binomial distribution (overdispersion).  Using a value > 0 for SD_Day parameter in the simulations would make the simulated datasets to be overdispersion.  When the true blood-fed arthropods of an animal is 0.45, the 95% coverage of proportions of blood-fed arthropods can range from 0.370 to 0.533.  The 95% coverage of the true proportions among days of an animal associated with SD_Day = 0.166 is probable acceptable (higher value for SD_Day, i.e. greater overdispersion dataset, would probably cause the non-convergence in the data).

                   Additional Source variation of variations
                         True proportion of population
                                     logit
                                      SD
                                  logit - 2SD
                                  logit + 2SD
                95% coverage of true proportions of the animals
                                    Animals
                                     0.45
                                    -0.2007
                                     0.33
                                    -0.8607
                                    0.4593
                                     0.297
                                     0.613

                                      0.6
                                    0.4055
                                     0.33
                                    -0.2545
                                    1.0655
                                     0.437
                                     0.744

                                     0.75
                                    1.0986
                                     0.33
                                    0.4386
                                    1.7586
                                     0.608
                                     0.853

                                      0.8
                                    1.3863
                                     0.33
                                    0.7263
                                    2.0463
                                     0.674
                                     0.886
                                     Days
                                     0.45
                                    -0.2007
                                     0.166
                                    -0.5327
                                    0.1313
                                     0.370
                                     0.533

                                      0.6
                                    0.4055
                                     0.166
                                    0.0735
                                    0.7375
                                     0.518
                                     0.676

                                     0.75
                                    1.0986
                                     0.166
                                    0.7666
                                    1.4306
                                     0.683
                                     0.807

                                      0.8
                                    1.3863
                                     0.166
                                    1.0543
                                    1.7183
                                     0.742
                                     0.848

 In order to have similar range from the lowest values to the median value between the random effects generated from normal distributions and Weibull distributions, we set the SubVar = 3*SD_Sub = 3*0.33 ~ 1 and DayVar = 3*SD_Day = 3*0.166 ~ 0.5.

 We also conducted simulations using SubVar = 0, 1, and 1.5 and DayVar = 0, 0.5, and 1.  The results show that the estimated proportions of blood-fed would be biased as the values of SubVar and DayVar increases.  The results show that the estimates from the simulations where SubVar = 1 and DayVar = 0.5 are reasonably close to the true values.

How the efficacy is calculated using GLMM.  Need to show examples.
 GLMM for binomial distributions with logit link function:
 please see the section of Mathematical derivation of the estimated efficacy using a binomial model with logit link function (provided by Dr. Cohen) in the Supplemental of Sample Size Calculations of Pet Product Studies.
 GLMM for binomial distributions with log link function:
            Using a binomial distributions with the non-canonical log-link function, the probability that an arthropod is blood fed is given in the equation below:
                        Log(P(blood fed)) = μ+groupg+dayd+group*daygd

            P is Probability. In this model, μ is the intercept, groupg is the effect for group g (either the treatment or the control group), dayd is the effect for day  d (1, 2, 3, or 4), and group*daygd is the group*day interaction term. The logarithms are natural logarithms. The control group is group 0 and the treatment group is group 1.

            For day d, define the log for the control group and treatment group by
                  α=μ+group0+dayd+group*day0d,
                  β=μ+group1+dayd+group*day1d.
            From the GLMM model in SAS, we can estimate τ=β-α and its 95% CI.

            Exp(τ) 	= exp(β-α)
                  = exp(β)/exp(α)
            = P(blood fed for treatment)/P(blood fed for control)

      Efficacy = 1  -   P(blood fed for treatment)/P(blood fed for control)

            Therefore, efficacy (and its 95% CI) can be estimated using the estimates of τ (and its 95% CI)
 GLMM for Poisson distribution.
            The log-link function is used in the GLMM for Poisson distributions.  Instead of Probability of blood-fed arthropods in GLMM for binomial distribution, the rate of blood-fed arthropods is used.  Note that all the arthropods have the same exposure duration, so the "time follow-up" is set = 1 for all subject.

            For day d, define the log for the control group and treatment group by
                  α=μ+group0+dayd+group*day0d,
                  β=μ+group1+dayd+group*day1d.
      From the GLMM model in SAS, we can estimate τ=β-α and its 95% CI.

      Exp(τ) 	= exp(β-α)
            = exp(β)/exp(α)
            = rate(blood fed for treatment)/rate(blood fed for control)

      Efficacy = 1  -   rate(blood fed for treatment)/rate(blood fed for control)

            Therefore, efficacy (and its 95% CI) can be estimated using the estimates of τ (and its 95% CI)

Higher true efficacy (95%) to increase power/reduce sample size
 In the simulations, we set the true efficacy = 0.95, 0.925, 0.90, and 0.85 on days 1, 2, 3, and 4.  A true efficacy = 0.95 is reasonably high, a true efficacy = 0.925 is slightly higher than the accepted value, a true efficacy = 0.90 is the accepted value, and a true efficacy = 0.85 is close but unaccepted value.
 When the true efficacy = 0.90, less than 50% of the datasets are accepted (observed efficacy >= 0.90 and precision <= 0.05).  Using a higher true efficacy would reduce the sample size; however, there is a high probability that a product is rejected if its true efficacy is slightly higher than acceptable level.
 For example, in the ticks study on dog or cat, if the true efficacy = 0.925 is used, the power = 0.877 for a study design with sample size = 14.  If the true efficacy = 0.95 is used, the power = 0.851 for a study design with sample size = 10.  However, the study design only has a power = 0.553 if the true efficacy = 0.925.