[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 122 (Friday, June 24, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41200-41208]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14454]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 25, 121, and 129

[Docket No.: FAA-2014-0500; Amdt. Nos. 25-142, 21-376, and 129-53]
RIN 2120-AK30

Fuel Tank Vent Fire Protection

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is amending certain airworthiness regulations for
transport category airplanes to require fuel tank designs that prevent
a fuel tank explosion caused by the propagation of flames, from
external fires, through the fuel tank vents. This final rule requires a
delay of two minutes and thirty seconds between exposure of external
fuel tank vents to ignition sources and explosions caused by
propagation of flames into the fuel tank, thus increasing the time
available for passenger evacuation and emergency response. These
amendments apply to applications for new type certificates and certain
applications for amended or supplemental type certificates. The
amendments also require certain airplanes produced in the future and
operated by air carriers to meet the new standards.

DATES: Effective August 23, 2016. The compliance date for the
requirements in Sec.  25.975 is August 23, 2016. The compliance date
for the requirements in Sec. Sec.  121.1119 and 129.119 is August 23,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For information on where to obtain copies of rulemaking
documents and other information related to this final rule, see ``How
to Obtain Additional Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Mike Dostert, Propulsion and Mechanical Systems
Branch, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate,

Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601
Lind Ave SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety is found in
Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
Requirements.'' Under that section, the FAA is charged with promoting
safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations and minimum standards, for the design and performance of
aircraft, that the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air
commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority. It
prescribes new safety standards for the design and operation of
transport category airplanes.

I. Overview of Final Rule

A. General

    The FAA is amending title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
parts 25, 121, and 129 as described below. The intent of this rule is
to prevent fuel tank explosions caused by ignition from external
ignition sources of fuel vapor either contained in vapor spaces \1\ or
exiting from vapor spaces through the fuel tank vent outlets. Potential
external ignition sources include, but are not limited to, ground
handling equipment, fuel fires that result from refueling spills, or
ground fires that follow a survivable crash landing in which the fuel
tank and the vent system remain intact. Means to prevent or delay the
propagation of flame \2\ from external sources into the fuel tank
through the fuel tank vent system \3\ would also prevent or delay fuel
tank explosions following certain accidents. These means include flame
arrestors or fuel tank inerting. This prevention or delay would provide
additional time for the safe evacuation of passengers from the airplane
and for emergency personnel to provide assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A vapor space is any portion of the airplane fuel tanks and
the fuel tank vent system that, if such tanks and system held any
fuel, could contain fuel vapor.
    \2\ Flame propagation is the spread of a flame in a combustible
environment outward from the point at which the combustion started.
    \3\ A fuel tank vent system is a system that ventilates fuel
vapor from the airplane fuel tanks to the atmosphere. A fuel tank
vent system ensures that the air and fuel pressure within the fuel
tank stay within structural limits required by Sec.  25.975 (a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule applies to applications for new type certificates and
applications for amended or supplemental type certificates on
significant product-level change projects in which Sec.  25.975, ``Fuel
tank vents and carburetor vapor vents,'' is applicable to a changed
area. Additionally, a new operating requirement in both 14 CFR part
121, ``Operating Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental
Operations,'' and 14 CFR part 129, ``Operations: Foreign Air Carriers
and Foreign Operators of U.S.-Registered Aircraft Engaged in Common
Carriage,'' applies to airplanes that are issued an original
airworthiness certificate after a specified date. The FAA is not
requiring retrofit of the existing fleet.
    Concurrent with the publication of this rule, the FAA is publishing
Advisory Circular (AC) 25.975-1 that provides guidance concerning means
of compliance with the revised Sec.  25.975.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ AC 25.975-1 is available on the FAA Web site at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

A. Statement of the Problem

    This rulemaking addresses the problem of fuel tank explosions
caused by flame propagation from fires outside the airplane reaching
the fuel tank through the fuel tank vents. Fires outside of the
airplane fuel tanks can be caused by ignition of fuel spilled during
refueling, fuel and oil spillage from engines that separate from the
airplane following an accident, or fuel leaking from damaged airplane
fuel tanks. In some cases, external fires have ignited fuel vapors that
have exited the fuel tank vents, resulting in flames traveling back
through the vent lines into the fuel tank and causing fuel tank
explosions. These explosions have caused passenger fatalities and
prevented emergency personnel from assisting survivors.
    Existing requirements address some ignition sources. Airworthiness
standards in Sec.  25.981 for preventing fuel system explosions include
requirements to prevent ignition sources inside the fuel tanks caused
by failures of airplane components or external heating of the fuel tank
walls. The fuel tank venting standards in Sec.  25.975 include
requirements to ensure fuel tank structural integrity following
failures of the refueling system that could result in overfilling of
the fuel tanks, or clogging of the vents due to ice. Section 25.954,
``Fuel system lightning protection,'' requires that fuel tank vents be
designed and arranged to prevent the ignition of fuel vapor within the
system by lightning strikes. These regulations, however, do not address
the risk posed by flame from external ignition sources entering the
fuel tank through the fuel vents.
    Most new type designs and transport category airplanes currently in
production include flame arrestors or other means to prevent flame
propagation through the fuel vent lines into the fuel tanks. However,
some models of newly manufactured airplanes produced under older type
certificates and introduced into the U.S. fleet do not have a means of
preventing fuel tank explosions caused by external ignition sources. In
addition, lack of a specific part 25 regulation to address this has
resulted in some applicants completing initial airplane designs and
applying for a U.S. type certificate without having accounted for the
risk of flame propagation through fuel vent lines.

B. History

    These amendments stem from an industry study of potential post-
crash survivability and FAA airworthiness actions in response to
accidents that involved fuel tank explosions. The FAA has issued
airworthiness directives (ADs) that require flame arrestors, or
verification of their functionality, on several airplane models. In
1999, following a review of fuel tank explosions on older designs, the
FAA issued an AD \5\ mandating incorporation of flame arrestors on
Boeing Model 737 airplanes. That AD action eliminated the risk of fuel
tank explosions from flames entering the fuel tanks through the fuel
tank vents on early models of the Boeing 737. More recently, in 2008,
the FAA issued an AD requiring installation of flame arrestors on the
Lockheed Model 382.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ AD 99-03-04 BOEING: Amendment 39-11018; Docket 98-NM-50-AD
(effective March 9, 1999).
    \6\ AD 2011-15-02 LOCKHEED: Amendment 39-16749; Docket No. FAA-
2010-1305 (effective August 19, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Special Aviation Fire and Explosion Reduction (SAFER) Advisory
Committee \7\ examined transport category airplane post-crash fires and
determined that four fuel tank explosions resulting from post-crash
fires could have been avoided if flame arrestors or surge tank
explosion

suppression systems \8\ had been installed in the airplane fuel tank
vents.\9\ The SAFER Committee examined methods of preventing fuel tank
explosions following impact in survivable accidents, including
controlling the fuel tank flammability using nitrogen inerting systems,
using fire suppression systems, and installation of flame arrestors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Special Aviation Fire and Explosion Reduction (SAFER)
Advisory Committee Final Report, Volume 1, FAA-ASF-80-4, dated June
26, 1978, through June 26, 1980. A copy of this report has been
placed in the docket of this proceeding.
    \8\ Boeing developed surge tank explosion suppression systems
that were installed on some Boeing airplanes to prevent a lightning
strike from igniting fuel vapor in the fuel tank vent system. These
systems used light sensors that activated the discharge of fire
suppression agent into the vent surge tank to prevent the fire from
traveling through the vents into the airplane fuel tanks.
    \9\ SAFER Report, page 49, Figure 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SAFER Committee determined the most practical means of
preventing post-crash fuel tank explosions was the use of flame
arrestors. Flame arrestors stop the flame from traveling through the
fuel tank vents by quenching the flame. Flame arrestors are typically
made of numerous small stainless steel passages that remove heat from
the flame so it dies out before passing into the fuel tank. This delays
propagation of ground fires into the fuel tank and subsequent
explosions, providing additional time for the safe evacuation of
passengers. The two flame arrestors installed on a typical transport
airplane weigh approximately 2 to 4 pounds each.
    In 1995, based on the SAFER Committee report, the FAA issued an
NPRM entitled, ``Fuel System Vent Fire Protection,'' (60 FR 6632),
dated February 2, 1995. That NPRM proposed to require 5 minutes of fuel
tank vent fire protection in new type designs for transport category
airplanes, and amend certain operating rules to require retrofit of the
existing fleet of transport category airplanes. The FAA received
comments on the NPRM that questioned the proposed 5-minute standard and
the accuracy of the economic analysis related to the proposed retrofit
requirement. Comments also suggested that the FAA should develop
additional guidance, in the form of an AC, to provide an acceptable
method of qualifying flame arrestors as a means of meeting the proposed
requirement.
    To address those 1995 comments, the FAA obtained additional cost
information from component suppliers, and drafted an AC that included a
means of demonstrating compliance. That means of compliance was the
installation of fuel tank vent flame arrestors that would prevent
propagation of flames through the fuel tank vents into the fuel tanks
for a minimum of 2 minutes and 30 seconds. In 2001, the FAA tasked its
Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) to review a draft final
rule, including the FAA's proposed disposition of public comments, and
the draft AC. In 2002, due to the ARAC tasking, the FAA published in
the Federal Register a notice of withdrawal of the NPRM that had been
published in 1995. Because of industry resource issues and FAA
rulemaking prioritization activities, however, no work was done on
these ARAC taskings. The FAA published a withdrawal of the tasks on
June 21, 2004.
    As an alternative, the FAA developed a strategy for a number of
rulemaking projects that had been tasked to the ARAC. In 2005, the FAA
issued a letter \10\ to the head of the Transport Airplane and Engine
Issues Group describing the agency's intent to use the process under 14
CFR 21.21 of finding an unsafe design feature to address the need to
prevent flame propagation through fuel tank vents. Since 2005, the FAA
has used issue papers applicable to specific certification projects,
which have resulted in the inclusion of flame arrestors in the design
of new type certificated airplanes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ John Hickey, Director, Aircraft Certification Service, to
Craig Bolt, Assistant Chair, Transport Airplane and Engine Issues
Group, 14 June 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Prior to the FAA's issuance of the 2005 letter, however, many
manufacturers had followed industry recommendations and voluntarily
introduced flame arrestors into their new type designs.
    However, some business jets and smaller transport category
airplanes do not incorporate flame arrestors or other means to prevent
flame propagation into the fuel tanks. Also, some airplanes operating
under 14 CFR part 121 do not have such means, including older models
like the DC-9 and MD-80, and all DHC-8 turboprops and Canadair Regional
Jets, both of which are still in production. This amendment addresses
those airplanes.
    As discussed in the NPRM, the FAA based the 2 minute and 30
seconds, in part, on previous Aerospace Industries Association (AIA)
comments to the NPRM the FAA published in 1995 that proposed a 5-minute
standard. AIA stated that flame arrestors in production at that time
could not meet the proposed 5-minute standard and that 5 minutes was
overly conservative. Based on those comments, the FAA reviewed the
capability and the service experience of in-production designs, as well
as the conservatism of the flame-holding test methods used for
evaluating flame arrestor performance. In 1996, the FAA determined that
a 2 minute and 30 second capability allowed flame arrestors in
production at that time to provide adequate evacuation and emergency
response time. Since that time, under Sec. Sec.  21.21(b)(2) and
25.601, the FAA has applied issue papers to new type certification
projects that approved applicants' proposals to reduce the risk of fuel
tank explosions by incorporating flame arrestors with a 2 minute and 30
second delay capability.
    The FAA also reviewed other rules related to passenger safety when
selecting the delay of 2 minute and 30 seconds for a fuel tank vent
protection standard. Section 25.803, ``Emergency evacuation,'' sets a
performance-based standard that, under specified conditions, the
airplane must be capable of being evacuated within 90 seconds. The
conditions assume the availability of a minimum number of exits and
that all passengers are uninjured and physically capable of departing
the airplane. However, experience has shown that this is not always the
case after an accident, so additional time is needed for passenger
evacuation and emergency response.
    Section 25.856, ``Thermal/Acoustic insulation materials,'' sets
minimum standards for preventing penetration of a fuel fire through the
airplane fuselage, including testing requirements in appendix F of part
25 that require 5 minutes as the minimum burn-through time.\11\ Studies
of past accidents 12 13 show the greatest benefits in
evacuating passengers and allowing emergency crews time to arrive are
provided with a minimum burn-through time of 5 minutes. However, flame
arrestors that meet a 5-minute standard would need to be significantly
larger and heavier than a flame arrestor meeting the 2 minute and 30
second standard. Such arrestors could also require changes to the fuel
system vent lines in order to meet airplane refueling performance
requirements, resulting in additional cost. Therefore, a minimum
standard of 2 minutes and 30 seconds is appropriate for preventing the
propagation of flames from outside the tank through the fuel tank vents
into fuel tank vapor spaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ This time includes 1 minute for a fire to penetrate the
fuselage skin and an additional 4 minutes for the fire to burn
through the insulation.
    \12\ DOT/FAA/AR-99/57, ``Fuselage Burnthrough Protection for
Increased Postcrash Occupant Survivability: Safety Benefit Analysis
Based on Past Accidents,'' September 1999.
    \13\ DOT/FAA/AR-09/18, ``Determination of Evacuation and
Firefighting Times Based on an Analysis of Aircraft Accident Fire
Survivability Data,'' May 2009.

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

C. Summary of the NPRM

    On August 1, 2014, the FAA issued an NPRM proposing to amend
Sec. Sec.  25.975, 121.1119, and 129.119. The Federal Register
published that NPRM as Notice No. 14-07, Docket No. FAA-2014-0500, on
August 15, 2014 (79 FR 48098). In that NPRM, the FAA proposed to
require that fuel tank designs prevent fuel tank explosions, for a
minimum of 2 minutes and 30 seconds, caused by propagation of flames
from outside the tank through the fuel tank vents into vapor spaces
when any vent is continuously exposed to flame.
    The comment period closed on September 29, 2014.

D. General Overview of Comments

    The FAA received 19 comments from 10 commenters representing
airplane manufacturers, regulators, a pilots association, and
individuals. The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) and three
individuals provided general comments in support of the amendments. The
other commenters generally supported the proposed changes; however,
some commenters suggested changes.
    The FAA received comments on the following areas of the proposal:
     Minimum time for preventing flame propagation;
     Applicability of new Sec. Sec.  121.1119 and 129.119;
     Applicability and compliance time for newly manufactured
airplanes; and
     Economic evaluation.

III. Discussion of the Final Rule and Public Comments

A. ``Fuel tank vents and carburetor vapor vents'' (Sec.  25.975)

    With some modification from what the FAA proposed in the NPRM, this
final rule adds a new paragraph, (a)(7), to Sec.  25.975 to require
fuel tank vent systems be designed to prevent the propagation of flames
from outside the tank through the fuel tank vents into fuel tank vapor
spaces for a period of 2 minutes and 30 seconds. The intent of this new
requirement is to prevent or delay fuel tank explosions to allow safe
evacuation of passengers and crew, and to allow emergency personnel
time to reach an accident and provide assistance.
    Boeing recommended replacing the proposed minimum time requirement
of 2 minutes and 30 seconds with 90 seconds. Boeing commented that, to
meet the proposed requirement, current Boeing airplanes may need to be
redesigned, and current flame arrestor installations would have to be
redesigned and recertified, both at significant cost. Boeing also
commented that 90 seconds would allow sufficient time to evacuate
passengers safely and be consistent with other evacuation time limits
in Sec.  25.803.
    When considering Boeing's comment that its designs would not meet
the proposed 2 minute and 30 second delay, the FAA requested
certification data for in-production Boeing designs and confirmed that
existing Boeing flame arrestors meet the 2 minute and 30 second
standard. Boeing's own data, from its approved flame arrestor
installations, do not support its suggested standard of only 90
seconds. Also, as previously discussed, research data from accidents
used to develop the requirements in Sec.  25.856 do not support
Boeing's position that a 90-second standard would provide adequate
safety.
    Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company and Embraer commented their
currently approved flame arrestor systems may not comply with the
standard and would necessitate redesign of the systems for new
production airplanes.
    While the FAA determined that most \14\ of these systems would not
require redesign, the FAA has concluded that it would not be cost-
effective to require redesign of any existing systems that do not meet
the new standard. Therefore, we have revised the provisions of
Sec. Sec.  121.1119 and 129.119 to prohibit operation of new production
airplanes unless an FAA-approved means to prevent fuel tank explosions
caused by propagation of flames from outside the fuel tanks is
installed and operational. Both of these regulations permit the
continued installation and operational use of previously approved means
to prevent such fuel tank explosions. For those airplanes that do not
currently have such approved means, the design approval holder would be
required to show compliance with the new standard to obtain approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The previously approved Lockheed 328 and Embraer flame
arrestors would not have met the 2 minute and 30 second requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lockheed requested a reduction of the minimum time requirement to
120 seconds for airplanes approved for cargo-only operations due to
shorter evacuation times needed for fewer occupants in the airplane. In
addition, Lockheed contends that the FAA has previously accepted
designs on cargo airplanes that did not meet the 2 minute and 30 second
standard.
    Lockheed raised a valid point regarding the Lockheed 382 cargo
airplanes equipped with flame arrestors. In considering this request,
the FAA reviewed past certification data and supporting documentation
submitted by Lockheed. Lockheed amended the design of the Lockheed 382
to include fuel tank vent flame arrestors in 2008. At that time, there
was no regulatory requirement for a 2 minute and 30 second capability
for the fuel tank vent flame arrestors. Therefore, based on retrofit of
flame arrestors into an existing design and the operation of the
airplane for cargo use only, the FAA approved a 2-minute capability for
the flame arrestor installation on those airplanes.
    Since 2008, however, the FAA has determined that cargo operations
should not be a basis for a fuel vent protection regulatory
requirement. Cargo airplanes are commonly modified and operated in
various configurations that may allow carriage of supernumeraries and
passengers. Providing longer fuel tank vent protection time may also
prevent a fuel tank explosion that endangers ground support or
emergency response personnel. Therefore, the FAA does not agree with
Lockheed that a 2-minute standard should be adopted as the standard for
all cargo transport airplanes, and the FAA is adopting Sec.
25.975(a)(7) as proposed.
    Embraer requested the rule be limited to preventing fuel tank
explosions following a crash landing. Embraer supported its request by
inferring that Sec.  25.979, ``Pressure fueling system,'' and
associated refueling procedures included in aircraft maintenance
manuals address explosions during refueling and other ground operating
conditions.
    The FAA does not agree that the regulation should only apply to
post-crash scenarios. In addition to fuel and oil spillage following
survivable accidents, fires outside of the airplane fuel tanks have
been caused by fuel spilled during refueling and leaking airplane fuel
tanks. These external fires may ignite fuel vapors that exit the fuel
tank vents, resulting in flames traveling back through the vent lines
into the fuel tank, causing fuel tank explosions. Therefore, this
amendment addresses any event that could result in fire outside the
fuel tanks, including refueling operations. Additionally, it is not
redundant of Sec.  25.979 because that section only addresses the
design of the fueling system, which would not address or prevent
situations of spillage from improper fueling practices or leakage from
malfunctioning fueling systems.
    The FAA made minor editorial changes to new paragraph (a)(7) in
Sec.  25.975 from what was proposed in the

NPRM. The edits are for clarity and do not change the effect of the
regulation.

B. Amendment to Sec. Sec.  121.1119 and 129.119, ``Fuel tank vent
explosion protection''

    With minor modifications from what was proposed in the NPRM, the
FAA is adding new operations rules requiring operators of certain
transport category, turbine powered airplanes produced more than 2
years after the effective date of this rule to have FAA-approved fuel
tank vent fire protection means to prevent fuel tank vent explosions.
This requirement is added to 14 CFR part 121, ``Operating Requirements:
Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations,'' and 14 CFR part 129,
``Operations: Foreign Air Carriers and Foreign Operators of U.S.-
Registered Aircraft Engaged in Common Carriage.'' As discussed above,
the FAA is not requiring manufacturers with currently approved flame
arrestors to redesign their systems in order to comply with Sec. Sec.
121.1119 and 129.119.
    This amendment applies to subject airplanes that are issued an
original airworthiness certificate beginning 24 months after the
effective date of this final rule. The FAA based the 24-month
compliance period on time estimates needed to design and develop fuel
tank vent protection means for existing airplane models that do not
have previously approved flame arrestors. Flame arrestor technology is
currently available. Adaptation of this technology, and the
certification and incorporation of the design into airplanes currently
in production should be achievable within the two-year compliance time.
    Bombardier recommended withdrawal of the proposed changes to parts
121 and 129, citing a lack of demonstrated safety improvement and the
added cost of flame arrestors.
    The FAA accounted for the cost to Bombardier products in the
economic evaluation for the NPRM and found safety benefits based on
industry recommendations and the risks documented in the ADs issued on
certain airplane models. In addition to the 737 AD discussed in
paragraph IIB, the FAA has issued other ADs to either require flame
arrestors or verify their functionality on the Lockheed Model 1649A
piston airplane,\15\ Boeing Models 707 and 720,\16\ the Beech Model
400A,\17\ and the Lockheed Model 382.\18\ The FAA has found that there
is a safety benefit and economic justification to include a requirement
in this amendment to bring all newly produced airplanes that are
subject to this rulemaking that will operate under the requirements of
Sec.  121.1119 or Sec.  129.119 up to the level of safety established
for the airplanes that are subject to these referenced ADs. Therefore,
the FAA did not make any changes as a result of this comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ AD 59-20-02 LOCKHEED: Effective October 15, 1959, for items
(1) and (2) and December 1, 1959, for item (3).
    \16\ AD 67-23-02 BOEING: Amendment 39-462. Effective September
10, 1967.
    \17\ AD 92-16-14 BEECH: Amendment 39-8323; Docket No. 92-NM-95-
AD; effective September 1, 1992.
    \18\ AD 2011-15-02 LOCKHEED: Amendment 39-16749; Docket No. FAA-
2010-1305; effective August 19, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Embraer stated that it believes that the FAA's intent is to address
specifically those higher capacity airplanes operating in scheduled
airline service, and to prevent operators from escaping compliance by
reducing the passenger or payload capacity to below the specified
limits; and it believes that the FAA's intent is not to also require
compliance for certain business jets that happen to be on a type
certificate. Embraer noted that these smaller airplanes do not operate
in part 121, but there are foreign-based charter operators who operate
airplanes leased from U.S. owners who have FAA operating certificates
issued under Sec.  129.1(b). Embraer noted that if these operators were
U.S. based, they would be part 135 air taxi operations that would not
be subject to the requirements proposed in the NPRM. Therefore, Embraer
suggested that the proposed Sec.  129.119 be revised to except the
Bombardier CL-600-2B16 and the Embraer EMB-135BJ.
    The FAA does not concur with the request to exclude specific models
from coverage under Sec.  129.119. As proposed, this section would
exclude airplanes with capacities below the specified thresholds.
However, as Embraer recognizes, the proposed Sec.  129.119(a) included
the following qualifier: ``as a result of original type certification
or later increase in capacity.'' The proposed Sec.  121.1119(a)
contained this same language. Embraer correctly points out that, for
certain Embraer and Bombardier models, this would have the unintended
effect of applying the requirements to business jets that are included
on the same type certificates as larger air carrier airplanes, even
though the business jets have capacities below those specified in
Sec. Sec.  129.119 and 121.1119. To prevent the requirement from
applying to these smaller airplanes, the FAA has eliminated the quoted
qualifier in both identified sections in this final rule. In the
future, if either Embraer or Bombardier choose to amend the type
certificates to increase the capacity of these airplanes above the
specified thresholds, Sec. Sec.  129.119 and 121.1119 would apply to
those newly produced airplanes.

C. Comments on the Economic Evaluation

    EASA supported the proposal but commented that the regulatory
economic evaluation should be revised to include the ATR42 and ATR 72
(ATR42/72). EASA noted these airplane models do not have flame
arrestors in the fuel tank vents and would be affected by the flame
arrestor requirement for newly manufactured airplanes entering U.S.
service under parts 121 and 129.
    The FAA does not agree. Certification costs incurred by foreign
manufacturers are not included in cost analyses of proposed U.S.
regulations. Costs incurred by U.S. operators of foreign-produced
airplanes are included in such analyses. For this final rule, however,
the FAA estimates these costs to be minimal for newly produced ATR42/72
airplanes, since the FAA expects the annual number of ATR42/72
deliveries to be few, if any. The FAA has determined that there are no
planned deliveries of ATR42/72 airplanes to U.S. airline operators
after 2018 when the final rule will take effect. Therefore, the FAA is
not revising the economic analysis to include the ATR42/72.
    Embraer also commented that the cost of the rule should be revised
to include modification of an additional airplane model. One of its
airplane models is designed to open a secondary refueling valve when
the airplane being refueled does not have a flame arrestor. The primary
vent outlets located near the wing tips have previously approved flame
arrestors that meet the rule. The only affected airplane model with the
open secondary vent design is the EMB145. Embraer currently has no
orders or forecast deliveries for EMB145 airplanes with the unique
secondary refueling vent.
    In addition, even if future sales of this model occur, costs
incurred by foreign manufacturers are not included in the costs of
compliance, as costs directly attributable to foreign entities are not
included in the cost-benefit analysis of U.S. regulations. Therefore,
the FAA did not change the economic evaluation in response to this
comment.

D. Differences Between the NPRM and the Final Rule

    The FAA is adopting these rules as proposed in the NPRM with
modifications as discussed above. Specifically, the FAA is revising
Sec. Sec.  121.1119 and 129.119 to remove the

qualifying statement ``as a result of original type certification or
later increase in capacity,'' and to require only that fuel tank vent
system explosion prevention means for new production airplanes be FAA-
approved.

IV. Regulatory Notices and Analyses

A. Regulatory Evaluation

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct that each
Federal agency shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned
determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its
costs. Second, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354)
requires agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes
on small entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39)
prohibits agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary
obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United States. In developing
U.S. standards, the Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's
analysis of the economic impacts of the final rule. The FAA suggests
readers seeking greater detail read the full regulatory evaluation, a
copy of which is in the docket for this rulemaking.
    In conducting these analyses, the FAA has determined that this
final rule: (1) Has benefits that justify its costs; (2) is not an
economically ``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section
3(f) of Executive Order 12866; (3) is not ``significant'' as defined in
DOT's Regulatory Policies and Procedures; (4) will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;
(5) will not create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States; and (6) will not impose an unfunded mandate on
state, local, or tribal governments, or on the private sector by
exceeding the threshold identified above. These analyses are summarized
below.
Total Costs and Benefits of This Final Rule
    The FAA finds the final rule to be cost-beneficial because the
costs of the rule are low enough that the benefits of preventing just
two fatalities outweigh the expected costs ($4.9 million in present
value benefits versus $4.4 million in present value costs). If this
action is not taken, a hazard will continue to exist even though
effective and low-cost means are available to minimize or eliminate it.
Who is potentially affected by this Rule?
    This rule applies to applicants for new type certificates, amended
and supplemental type certificates involving significant product-level
changes, and manufacturers and operators of currently certificated
airplanes produced two or more years after the effective date of this
rule. This rule does not require retrofit of the existing fleet.
Principal Assumptions and Sources of Information
     Discount rate is 7 percent (Office of Management & Budget,
Circular A-94, ``Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost
Analysis of Federal Programs,'' October 29, 1992, p. 8).
     Value of statistical life (VSL) begins at $9.2 million in
2013, and increases thereafter by an annual growth factor of 1.0107.
Memorandum: Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a
Statistical Life in Department Analyses--2014 Adjustment, June 13,
2014. United States, Office of the Secretary of Transportation.
     For small part 25 manufacturers: An FAA study anticipates
two U.S. airplane certifications in next 10-year period, twenty-one
annual U.S. deliveries per U.S. certification; three foreign airplane
certifications in next 10-year period, eleven annual U.S. deliveries
per foreign certification, 15-year airplane production run; 30-year
retirement age. Internal FAA study.
     Current airplane models that could be affected by
production cut-in requirement: Bombardier Dash 8, CJ-700, and CJ-900.
FAA 2013 Fleet Forecast, Fleet Forecast Sheet ``FAA U.S. Airlines 2013-
2013 1-18-2103,'' ``Totals & FAA Tables.''
     The period of analysis for new certifications is 45 years
to account for a complete product life cycle determined by a 15-year
production period and a 30-year service period.
     Certification cost estimates for part 25 airplanes--Small
U.S. part 25 airplane manufacturers.
     Maintenance cost per airplane (every four years) for
Bombardier CJ-700/CJ-900 regional jets (subject to production cut-in)--
$240. This estimate is much lower than the U.S. estimate because it is
for passenger airplane models while the U.S. estimate is for business
jet models. Since business jets are more prone to sit for extended
periods of time, their flame arrestors can more easily be clogged by
ice, mud daubers, or other debris, thus requiring more frequent and
longer maintenance.
     Minimal fuel costs as flame arrestors weigh between 2 and
4 pounds each.
Costs of This Final Rule
    The costs of the final rule are engineering, production, and
maintenance compliance costs for newly certificated part 25 airplanes
and for the production cut-in of part 25 airplanes used in part 121
operations. The FAA first estimates compliance costs for new
certifications and then for the production cut-in.
    For newly certificated airplanes, compliance costs consist of
engineering and production costs of U.S. manufactured airplanes
delivered to U.S. operators and maintenance costs of both U.S. and
foreign airplanes delivered to U.S. operators. U.S. part 25
manufacturers directly incur the engineering and production costs while
U.S. operators directly incur the maintenance costs. Engineering and
production costs incurred by foreign manufacturers are not included in
the costs of compliance, as costs directly attributable to foreign
entities are not included in the U.S. social cost and benefit analysis
of U.S. regulations.
    To calculate the cost of new U.S. certifications, the FAA assumes
that all new certifications will be approved one year after the
effective date of the rule, with production beginning one year later.
Using an airplane life cycle model, the FAA estimates the economic
impact for two new certificates, production of 21 airplanes/
certificate/year, production runs of 15 years and an airplane
retirement age of 30 years. Compliance costs per year are calculated
over an airplane life cycle of 45 years.
    Cost estimates were solicited from small part 25 manufacturers
because large airplane manufacturers (Boeing and Airbus) are already
compliant with the final rule. These cost estimates are shown in the
table below.

 Industry Cost Estimates Using Flame Arrestors To Comply With Final Rule
                                ($ 2013)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Cost category                 Cost               Notes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonrecurring Engineering Costs....       $ 142,000  per model.
Recurring Cost (Hardware &                   3,000  per model (two flame
 Installation).                                      arrestors @$1,500
                                                     each).
Maintenance Cost (U.S.                         415  per airplane
 manufactured airplanes).                            annually.
Maintenance Cost (Bombardier                   240  per airplane every 4
 manufactured airplanes).                            years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The basic cost estimates consist of nonrecurring (one-time)
engineering costs, production costs for two flame arrestors per
airplane (one per fuel tank) and maintenance costs per airplane per
year. The Bombardier maintenance cost estimate is used for estimating
production cut-in costs of compliance.
    Incorporating the industry cost estimates into the airplane life
cycle model, the FAA finds total costs for new certification airplanes
to be $16.2 million with present value of $4.2 million. $2.2 million of
these costs (present value $1.2 million) are directly incurred by U.S.
manufacturers, and $14.0 million (present value $2.1 million) are
directly incurred by U.S. operators.\19\ For details, see the full
regulatory evaluation in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Details may not sum to totals due to rounding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the requirement applying to new certifications, the
final rule will also require a production cut-in for currently produced
part 25 airplanes used in part 121 operations.\20\ To calculate this
cost, the FAA first notes that the only currently produced and U.S.-
operated airplane models not already in compliance are the Bombardier
Dash 8 turboprops and Bombardier CRJ-700/CRJ-900 regional jets. The
final rule will apply to these Bombardier models produced beginning in
2018. Since the FAA forecasts no Dash 8 deliveries to U.S. airline
operators after 2017, the FAA expects no Dash 8 compliance cost for
those operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ We do not estimate costs for the analogous part 129
requirement as these costs are directly incurred by foreign
operators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA does forecast the delivery of 338 CRJ-700 and 161 CRJ-900
model airplanes to U.S. airline operators over the period 2018-2033.
The engineering and production compliance costs for these airplanes are
not included in our cost estimates because, as noted above, costs
directly incurred by foreign entities are not included in the cost and
benefit analysis of U.S. regulations. Accordingly, for these airplanes
the FAA assesses the impact on U.S. operators only, using Bombardier's
maintenance cost estimate of $240 every four years. Allocating this
cost as $60 annually and assuming a production period of 16 years, the
FAA calculates the maintenance costs for these airplanes from the first
year of service to the retirement year of the last airplanes produced,
using a procedure analogous to that used for new certification
airplanes. The FAA finds these costs to operators to be $898,200 with
present value $178,439.
    Production cut-in costs of $898,200 (present value $178,439) added
to new certification airplane costs of $16.2 million (present value
$4.2 million) yield total rule costs of $17.1 million (present value
$4.4 million).
Benefits of This Final Rule
    Notwithstanding the absence of post-crash fuel tank explosions in
recent years and lacking other sufficient bases upon which to estimate
future risks, the merits of the final rule can be assessed by
considering the number of fatalities that would need to be prevented to
offset the costs of the rule.
    The FAA estimates the breakeven benefits of the rule by estimating
the number of averted fatalities necessary to offset the $4.4 million
present value costs of the rule. The FAA finds that just two averted
fatalities would offset these estimated costs. For details see the full
regulatory evaluation in the docket.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354)
establishes ``as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies shall
endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of applicable
statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements to the scale
of the businesses, organizations, and governmental jurisdictions
subject to regulation. To achieve this principle, agencies are required
to solicit and consider flexible regulatory proposals and to explain
the rationale for their actions to assure that such proposals are given
serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide-range of small entities,
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions. Agencies must perform a review to determine
whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. If the agency determines that it will, the
agency must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in
the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
    All small U.S. manufacturers affected by this rule are wholly owned
subsidiaries of large companies, who have more than 1,500 employees
(the small business criterion for aircraft manufacturing) and,
therefore, are not classified as small entities by the Small Business
Administration. Part 121 operators will be directly affected by the
average $415 annual maintenance cost per airplane. These costs are
minimal, especially compared to the high cost of new part 25 airplanes.
The FAA received no comments on this same finding in the NPRM.
    If an agency determines that a rulemaking will not result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
the head of the agency may so certify under section 605(b) of the RFA.
Therefore, as provided in section 605(b), the head of the FAA certifies
that this rulemaking will not result in a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.

C. International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39), as amended by the
Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Pub. L. 103-465), prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing standards or engaging in related activities
that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of the United
States. Pursuant to these Acts, the establishment of standards is not
considered an unnecessary obstacle to the foreign commerce of the
United States, so long as the standard has a legitimate domestic
objective, such as the protection of safety, and does not operate in a
manner that excludes imports that meet this objective. The

statute also requires consideration of international standards and,
where appropriate, that they be the basis for U.S. standards.
    The FAA has assessed the effect of this final rule and determined
that its purpose is to ensure the safety of U.S. civil aviation.
Therefore, the rule is in compliance with the Trade Agreements Act.

D. Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $155.0 million in lieu of $100
million. This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore,
the requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The FAA has determined that
there is no new requirement for information collection associated with
this final rule.

F. International Compatibility and Cooperation

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to conform to
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
determined that there are no ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices
that correspond to these proposed regulations.

G. Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 312f and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.

V. Executive Order Determinations

A. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. The agency determined
that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, or the relationship between the Federal Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, and, therefore, does not have Federalism
implications.

B. Executive Order 13211, Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    The FAA analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). The agency has determined that it
is not a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order, and
it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.

VI. How To Obtain Additional Information

A. Rulemaking Documents

    An electronic copy of a rulemaking document may be obtained by
using the Internet--
    1. Search the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visit the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/ or
    3. Access the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/.
    Copies may also be obtained by sending a request (identified by
notice, amendment, or docket number of this rulemaking) to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

B. Comments Submitted to the Docket

    Comments received may be viewed by going to http://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions to search the
docket number for this action. Anyone is able to search the electronic
form of all comments received into any of the FAA's dockets by the name
of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires the FAA to comply with small entity requests for
information or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations
within its jurisdiction. A small entity with questions regarding this
document, may contact its local FAA official, or the person listed
under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at the beginning of
the preamble. To find out more about SBREFA on the Internet, visit
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/sbre_act/.

List of Subjects

14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

14 CFR Part 121

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

14 CFR Part 129

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends parts 25, 121, and 129 of title 14, Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

0
1. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Amend Sec.  25.975 by revising paragraphs (a)(5) and (6) and adding
paragraph (a)(7) to read as follows:

Sec.  25.975  Fuel tank vents and carburetor vapor vents.

    (a) * * *
    (5) There may be no point in any vent line where moisture can
accumulate with the airplane in the ground attitude or the level flight
attitude, unless drainage is provided;
    (6) No vent or drainage provision may end at any point--
    (i) Where the discharge of fuel from the vent outlet would
constitute a fire hazard; or
    (ii) From which fumes could enter personnel compartments; and
    (7) Each fuel tank vent system must prevent explosions, for a
minimum of 2 minutes and 30 seconds, caused by propagation of flames
from outside the tank through the fuel tank vents into fuel tank vapor
spaces when any fuel

tank vent is continuously exposed to flame.
* * * * *

PART 121--OPERATING REQUIREMENTS: DOMESTIC, FLAG, AND SUPPLEMENTAL
OPERATIONS

0
3. The authority citation for part 121 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40119,
41706, 42301 preceding note added by Pub. L. 112-95, sec. 412, 126
Stat. 89, 44101, 44701-44702, 44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-
44717, 44722, 44729, 44732; 46105; Pub. L. 111-216, 124 Stat. 2348
(49 U.S.C. 44701 note); Pub. L. 112-95, 126 Stat 62 (49 U.S.C. 44732
note).

0
4. Add Sec.  121.1119 to subpart AA to read as follows:

Sec.  121.1119  Fuel tank vent explosion protection.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies to transport category,
turbine-powered airplanes with a type certificate issued after January
1, 1958, that have:
    (1) A maximum type-certificated passenger capacity of 30 or more;
or
    (2) A maximum payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or more.
    (b) New production airplanes. No certificate holder may operate an
airplane for which the State of Manufacture issued the original
certificate of airworthiness or export airworthiness approval after
August 23, 2018 unless means, approved by the Administrator, to prevent
fuel tank explosions caused by propagation of flames from outside the
fuel tank vents into the fuel tank vapor spaces are installed and
operational.

PART 129--OPERATIONS: FOREIGN AIR CARRIERS AND FOREIGN OPERATORS OF
U.S.-REGISTERED AIRCRAFT ENGAGED IN COMMON CARRIAGE

0
5. The authority citation for part 129 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 1372, 40113, 40119, 44101, 44701-44702,
44705, 44709-44711, 44713, 44716-44717, 44722, 44901-44904, 44906,
44912, 46105, Pub. L. 107-71 sec. 104.

0
6. Add Sec.  129.119 to subpart B to read as follows:

Sec.  129.119  Fuel tank vent explosion protection.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies to transport category,
turbine-powered airplanes with a type certificate issued after January
1, 1958, that have:
    (1) A maximum type-certificated passenger capacity of 30 or more;
or
    (2) A maximum payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or more.
    (b) New production airplanes. No certificate holder may operate an
airplane for which the State of Manufacture issued the original
certificate of airworthiness or export airworthiness approval after
August 23, 2018 unless means, approved by the Administrator, to prevent
fuel tank explosions caused by propagation of flames from outside the
fuel tank vents into the fuel tank vapor spaces are installed and
operational.

    Issued under authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 106(f) and 44701(a)
in Washington, DC, on June 7, 2016.
Michael P. Huerta,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-14454 Filed 6-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 73750]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30793]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Tuesday, November
29, 2011 at 5 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(10), permit consideration
of the scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the item
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session, and determined that no
earlier notice thereof was possible.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Tuesday,
November 29, 2011 will be: A matter relating to enforcement
proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 23, 2011.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-30793 Filed 11-25-11; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 177)]
[Notices]
[Page 54037]
[DOCID:fr13se06-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-431-001]

El Paso Natural Gas Company; Notice of Request for Waivers

September 6, 2006.
    Take notice that on August 31, 2006, El Paso Natural Gas Company
(EPNG) filed to request the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to
permit EPNG to revise and/or extend certain penalty and tariff waivers
described in its Requests for Waiver Filing filed July 11, 2006 in
Docket No. RP06-431-000.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on September 13, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-15156 Filed 9-12-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 245 (Friday, December 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70178-70179]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27496]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1982-015; ER10-1246-014; ER10-1252-014; ER10-
1253-014.
    Applicants: Consolidated Edison Energy, Inc, Consolidated Edison
Solutions, Inc., Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Orange
and Rockland Utilities, Inc.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis of the Con Edison
Companies.
    Filed Date: 12/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20191216-5098.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/14/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2732-018; ER10-2733-018; ER10-2734-018; ER10-
2736-018; ER10-2737-018; ER10-2741-018; ER10-2749-018; ER10-2752-018;
ER12-2492-014; ER12-2493-014; ER12-2494-014; ER12-2495-014; ER12-2496-
014; ER14-264-005; ER16-2455-008; ER16-2456-008; ER16-2457-008; ER16-
2459-008; ER18-1404-004; ER19-2096-001.
    Applicants: Emera Energy Services, Inc., Emera Energy LNG, LLC,
Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 1 LLC, Emera Energy Services
Subsidiary No. 2 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 3 LLC, Emera
Energy Services Subsidiary No. 4 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary
No. 5 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 6 LLC, Emera Energy
Services Subsidiary No. 7 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 8
LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 9 LLC, Emera Energy Services
Subsidiary No. 10 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 11 LLC,
Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 12 LLC, Emera Energy Services
Subsidiary No. 13 LLC, Emera Energy Services Subsidiary No. 15 LLC,
Emera Energy U.S. Subsidiary No. 1, Inc., Emera Energy U.S. Subsidiary
No. 2, Inc., Emera Maine, NS Power Energy Marketing Inc.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Update for Northeast Region of
the Emera Entities.
    Filed Date: 12/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20191216-5065.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/14/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-3376-005; ER11-3377-005; ER11-3378-005.
    Applicants: North Hurlburt Wind, LLC, Horseshoe Bend Wind, LLC,
South Hurlburt Wind, LLC.
    Description: Triennial Market Power Analysis for Northwest Region
of North Hurlburt Wind, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 12/13/19.
    Accession Number: 20191213-5225.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/11/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-460-005.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Order No. 841 Compliance Filing in
Response to October 2019 Order to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 12/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20191216-5060.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/6/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-469-003.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing Pursuant October
17, 2019 Order re ESR to be effective 12/3/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20191216-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/6/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-270-002.
    Applicants: Dynegy Oakland, LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Deferral of Commission Action to
Permit Ongoing Settlement Discussions to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 12/13/19.
    Accession Number: 20191213-5205.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/3/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-599-000.
    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of a CIAC Agreement
to be effective 2/11/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/13/19.
    Accession Number: 20191213-5181.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/3/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-600-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: FPL-TECO-Revisions to Rate
Schedule No. 23 Contract for Interchange Service to be effective 1/1/
2020.
    Filed Date: 12/13/19.
    Accession Number: 20191213-5187.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/3/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-601-000.
    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of a CIAC Agreement
to be effective 2/11/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/13/19.
    Accession Number: 20191213-5206.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/3/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-602-000.
    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of a CIAC Agreement
to be effective 1/15/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/13/19.
    Accession Number: 20191213-5207.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/3/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-603-000.
    Applicants: Northern Indiana Public Service Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of a CIAC Agreement
to be effective 1/15/2020.
    Filed Date: 12/13/19.
    Accession Number: 20191213-5209.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/3/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-604-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Notice of Cancellation of Rate Schedule No. 298 of
PacifiCorp.
    Filed Date: 12/13/19.
    Accession Number: 20191213-5239.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/3/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-605-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-12-16_SA 3391 Ameren
IL-Maple Flats Solar Energy Center GIA (J813) to be effective 12/2/
2019.
    Filed Date: 12/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20191216-5071.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/6/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-606-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2019-12-16_SA 3390 MDU-
Emmons-Logan Wind GIA (J302 J503) to be effective 12/2/2019.
    Filed Date: 12/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20191216-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/6/20.

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

    Docket Numbers: ES20-11-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Application Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
for Authorization to Issue Securities of ITC Midwest LLC.
    Filed Date: 12/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20191216-5105.

    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 1/6/20.

    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: December 16, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-27496 Filed 12-19-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 21 (Thursday, January 31, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 855]
[FR Doc No: 2019-00501]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84987; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2018-82]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change Regarding Certain Changes Relating to Investments of the PGIM
Active High Yield Bond ETF

January 17, 2019.
    On November 16, 2018, NYSE Arca, Inc. filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change with respect to certain changes
regarding the investments of the PGIM Active High Yield Bond ETF, a
series of PGIM ETF Trust. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on December 6, 2018.\3\ The Commission
has received no comment letters regarding the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84696 (November 30,
2018), 83 FR 62915.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that, within 45 days of
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it find such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is January 20, 2019. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ designates
March 6, 2019, as the date by which the Commission shall either approve
or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-NYSEArca-2018-82).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-00501 Filed 1-30-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 208 (Monday, October 28, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57772-57773]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23458]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2017-0004]

Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health
(MACOSH): Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice of MACOSH meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This Federal Register notice announces meetings of the
Maritime Advisory Committee for Occupational Safety and Health (MACOSH)
workgroups and full Committee on November 19 and 20, 2019 in
Washington, DC.

DATES: MACOSH will meet from 9:00 a.m. until approximately 4:00 p.m.,
ET.

ADDRESSES: The workgroups and Committee will meet at the U.S.
Department of Labor, Frances Perkins Building, 200 Constitution Avenue
NW, Washington, DC 20210. The workgroups will meet on November 19,
2019, and the full-committee on November 20, 2019, in Conference Rooms
N4437A-D. Meeting attendees must use the visitor's entrance located at
3rd & C Streets, NW.

    Submission of comments and requests to speak: Submit comments and
requests to speak at the MACOSH meeting, identified by the docket
number for this Federal Register notice (Docket No. OSHA-2017-0004), by
November 1, 2019, in one of the following methods:
    Electronically: You may submit comments, including attachments,
electronically at: http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. Follow the online instructions for submitting nominations.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, do not exceed
10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regular mail, express mail, hand delivery, and messenger or courier
service: You may submit comments and attachments to the OSHA Docket
Office, Docket No. OSHA-2017-0004, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3653, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries (express mail, hand
(courier) delivery, and messenger service) are accepted during the OSHA
Docket Office's normal business hours, 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., ET.
    Requests for special accommodations: Submit requests for special
accommodations for MACOSH and workgroup meetings by November 1, 2019,
to Danielle Watson, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N-3609, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202) 693-2222; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
OSHA docket number for this Federal Register notice (Docket No. OSHA-
2017-0004). Because of security-related procedures, submissions by
regular mail may result in a significant delay in receipt. Please
contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about security
procedures for making submissions by express mail, hand (courier)
delivery, and messenger service.
    OSHA will place comments and requests to speak, including personal
information, in the public docket, which may be available online.
Therefore, OSHA cautions interested parties about submitting personal
information such as Social Security numbers and birthdates.
    Docket: To read or download documents in the public docket for this
MACOSH meeting, go to http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in the
public docket are listed in the index; however, some documents (e.g.,
copyrighted material) are not publicly available to read or download
through http://www.regulations.gov. All submissions are available for
inspection and, when permitted, copying at the OSHA Docket Office at
the above address. For information on using http://www.regulations.gov
to make submissions or to access the docket, click on the ``Help'' tab
at the top of the homepage. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for
information about materials not available through that website and for
assistance in using the internet to locate submissions and other
documents in the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For press inquiries: Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of
Communications, U.S. Department of Labor; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information about MACOSH: Ms. Amy Wangdahl, Director,
Office of Maritime and Agriculture, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For copies of this Federal Register Notice: Electronic copies of
this Federal Register notice are available at http://www.regulations.gov. This notice, as well as news releases and other
relevant information, are also available at OSHA's web page at
www.osha.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Interested persons may attend the workgroup
and full Committee meetings at the time and place listed above. The
workgroups will discuss protecting workers when working in confined
spaces, fire watch safety, hazards associated with preservative
coatings during hot work, lashing safety, mechanic safety, and the
update/expansion of OSHA training that pertains to maritime safety. The
tentative agenda for the full Committee will include: Updates from OSHA
National Office Directorates; updates on maritime enforcement
activities from OSHA Regions; and reports from the Longshoring and
Shipyard workgroups.
    Public Participation: Any individual attending the MACOSH meeting,
including the workgroup meetings, at the U.S. Department of Labor,
Frances Perkins Building, must use the entrance located at 3rd & C
Streets NW and pass through Building Security. Attendees must have
valid government-issued photo identification to enter the building.
Please contact Danielle Watson at<PHONE_NUMBER> (email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for additional information about building
security measures for attending the MACOSH Committee and workgroup
meetings. Interested parties may submit a request to make an oral
presentation to MACOSH by any one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES section above. The request must state the amount of time
requested to speak, the interest represented (e.g., organization name),
if any, and a brief outline of the presentation. The MACOSH Chair has
discretion to grant requests to address the full Committee as time
permits.
    Interested parties also may submit written comments, including data
and other information, using any one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES section above. OSHA will provide all submissions to MACOSH
members prior to the meeting. Individuals who need special
accommodations to attend the MACOSH meeting should contact Danielle
Watson as specified above under the heading Requests for special
accommodations in the ADDRESSES section.

Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this
notice under the authority granted by 29 U.S.C. 655(b)(1) and 656(b), 5
U.S.C. App. 2, Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912), and
29 CFR part 1912.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on October 4, 2019.
Loren Sweatt,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety
and Health.
[FR Doc. 2019-23458 Filed 10-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4052-4053]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01452]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0046]

QPS Evaluation Services, Inc.: Grant of Renewal of Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to grant
renewal of recognition to QPS Evaluation Services, Inc. as a Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).

DATES: The renewal of recognition becomes effective on January 26,
2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications, U.S. Department of Labor, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email: [email protected].
    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, phone:
(202) 693-2110 or email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of Final Decision

    OSHA hereby gives notice that it is granting the renewal of
recognition of QPS Evaluation Services, Inc. (QPS) as a NRTL under 29
CFR 1910.7.
    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements in Section 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal
Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the
organization can perform independent safety testing and certification
of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition and is
not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of
recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL
to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification. OSHA
maintains an informational web page for each NRTL that details the
scope of recognition available at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    OSHA processes applications submitted by an NRTL for renewal of
recognition following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. OSHA
conducts renewals in accordance with the procedures in 29 CFR 1910.7,
App. A II.C. In accordance with these procedures, NRTLs submit a
renewal request to OSHA between nine months and one year before the
expiration date of the current recognition. A renewal request includes
a request for renewal and any additional information demonstrating
their continued compliance with the terms of the recognition and 29 CFR
1910.7. If OSHA has not conducted an on-site assessment of the NRTL
headquarters and any key sites within the past 18 to 24 months, it will
schedule the necessary on-site assessment prior to the expiration date
of the NRTL's recognition. Upon review of the submitted material and,
as necessary, the successful completion of the on-site assessment, OSHA
announces the preliminary decision to grant or deny renewal in the
Federal Register and solicits comments from the public. OSHA then
publishes a final Federal Register notice responding to any comments
and renewing the NRTL's recognition for a period of five years, or
denying the renewal of recognition.
    QPS initially received OSHA recognition as a NRTL on March 2, 2011
(76 FR 11518). QPS's most recent renewal was granted on April 25, 2016,
for a five-year period ending on April 25, 2021 (81 FR 24133). QPS
submitted its request for renewal in July, 2019 (OSHA-2010-0046-0016).
While OSHA should have rejected the renewal request because it was
submitted more than one year before the expiration of QPS's current
recognition (see above discussion), OSHA failed to do so and instead
accepted the request. Because OSHA accepted the request rather than
rejecting it, OSHA is processing the renewal request even though it was
filed outside the time period permitted by 29 CFR 1910.7 Appendix A.
    The renewal application was amended on August 25, 2021 (OSHA-2010-
0046-0017) to indicate that a change in company ownership had occurred
after QPS submitted the original renewal application. Through
communications with QPS, OSHA confirmed that QPS's acquisition by
another company was the only material change that occurred after QPS
submitted its initial renewal application.

    QPS retains its recognition pending OSHA's final decision in this
renewal process. The current address of the QPS facility recognized by
OSHA and included as part of the renewal request is: QPS Evaluation
Services, Inc., 81 Kelfield Street, Unit 8, Toronto, Ontario M9W 5A3
Canada.
    OSHA evaluated QPS's application for renewal and made a preliminary
determination that QPS can continue to meet the requirements prescribed
by 29 CFR 1910.7 for recognition.
    OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing QPS's renewal
application in the Federal Register on December 15, 2021 (86 FR 71284).
The agency requested comments by December 30, 2021, and received no
comments in response to this notice. OSHA is now proceeding with this
final notice to renew QPS's NRTL recognition.
    To obtain or review copies of the publicly available information in
QPS's application and other pertinent documents (including exhibits),
as well as all submitted comments, contact the Docket Office, Room N-
3653, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor; these materials also are available online at http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. OSHA-2010-0046. Please note: Due
to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Docket Office is closed to the public at
this time but can be contacted at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Final Decision and Order

    OSHA hereby gives notice of the renewal of recognition of QPS as a
NRTL. OSHA examined QPS's renewal application and all pertinent
information related to QPS's request for renewal of NRTL recognition.
Based on this review of the renewal request and other pertinent
information, OSHA finds that QPS meets the requirements of 29 CFR
1910.7 for renewal of recognition as a NRTL, subject to the specified
limitation and conditions. OSHA limits the renewal of QPS's recognition
to include the terms and conditions of QPS's recognition found in 81 FR
24133. The NRTL scope of recognition for QPS is also available on the
OSHA website at: https://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/qps.html. This
renewal extends QPS's recognition as a NRTL for a period of five years
from January 26, 2022.

A. Conditions

    In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7,
QPS must abide by the following conditions of recognition:
    1. QPS must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any
change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major
change in their operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the
change(s);
    2. QPS must meet all the terms of their recognition and comply with
all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
    3. QPS must continue to meet the requirements for recognition,
including all previously published conditions on QPS's scope of
recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
    Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby renews the
recognition of QPS as a NRTL.

III. Authority and Signature

    Douglas L. Parker, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210,
authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is
issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393, September 18, 2020), and 29 CFR
1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on January 14, 2022.
Douglas L. Parker,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2022-01452 Filed 1-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40743-40745]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14751]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-[2015-0342]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA confirms its decision to exempt 91 individuals from its
rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes mellitus (ITDM)
from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce.
The exemptions enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were effective on April 1, 2016. The exemptions
expire on April 1, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On March 1, 2016, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal
diabetes exemption applications from 91 individuals and requested
comments from the public (81 FR 10703). The public comment period
closed on March 31, 2016, and 5 comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the 91 applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The Agency established the current requirement for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that drivers with diabetes had a
higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The
diabetes rule provides that ``A person is physically qualified to drive
a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control'' (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the
Agency's July 2000 study entitled ``A Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of

a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated Diabetes Mellitus
to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the Transportation Act
for the 21st Century.'' The report concluded that a safe and
practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to operate CMVs is
feasible. The September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441), Federal Register notice
in conjunction with the November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777), Federal
Register notice provides the current protocol for allowing such drivers
to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    These 91 applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 43 years.
These applicants report no severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in
loss of consciousness or seizure, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning symptoms, in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the past 5 years. In each case,
an endocrinologist verified that the driver has demonstrated a
willingness to properly monitor and manage his/her diabetes mellitus,
received education related to diabetes management, and is on a stable
insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying
conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the
vision requirement at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were
stated and discussed in detail in the March 1, 2016, Federal Register
notice and they will not be repeated in this notice.

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received five comments in this proceeding. Brad Frazier,
Ernie Sanchez, James Dowden, Gregory Skloda, and an anonymous commenter
are in favor of granting the exemptions.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption
is likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than
would be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the
applicants to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and
reviewed the treating endocrinologists' medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is
likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:
(1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist
completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual
checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each
individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes
of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to
manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other
adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is
related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide
a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical
examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that
each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to
the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep
a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-
employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when
driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local
enforcement official.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 91 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the diabetes requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above 949 CFR
391.64(b)):

Erich R. Adam (WI)
Phillip W. Ballew (GA)
Dennis B. Basmajian (PA)
Glen A. Bayne (ND)
Gary E. Bennett (NC)
Harry Berrios (MA)
Terry D. Bettcher (NE)
Jeremy S. Beyerl (PA)
Norvan D. Bilyeu (OK)
Robert P. Blum (IA)
Mario Boccio (FL)
Christopher J. Branham (SC)
Willard A. Brown (VA)
Chanley W. Carter (FL)
Trevor K. Chaplin (IA)
Candace L. Coccimiglio (PA)
Matthew C. Costa (MA)
Wilfredo Costa (NY)
Joseph F. Coyle (KY)
Robert P. Crisp (SD)
Philip W. Cumbie (AL)
John H. Cuppett (GA)
Quentin W.S. Dasilva (PA)
Randal L. DeBord (TN)
Eudes N. De-Leon (PA)
Eric H. DeVaughn (MD)
Aleksandr Faynkikh (NY)
Berry C. Feuerbacher (GA)
Isaac W. Fitzgerald (UT)
Alex C. Ford (IL)
Robert C. Freeman (VA)
Timothy D. Frye (NY)
Samuel J. Gonzales (NM)
Carlos Guzman-Pineda (WA)
Steven R. Hatch (MI)
William D. Herman (MN)
Kyle W. Higgs (IL)
Floyd E. Holt, Jr. (VA)
Michael J. Jaques (MN)
Randall L. Jastram (SD)
Thomas M. Johnson (NM)
Steven R. Jordan (NC)
Kevin A. Kane (NY)
Ryan B. Kincade (CA)
Christopher S. Kuiper (MN)
Herman M. Laggart (MO)
William M. LaPrade (VA)
Martin L. Layden (NY)
John Malloy (PA)
Bobby L. McCallister (WV)
James W. McMenamin (PA)
Daniel J. Milles, Jr. (FL)
Miguel A. Molina (CO)
Darin R. Mullins (NY)
Douglas B. Murrell (IN)
Joshua A. Myers (OH)
Howard L. Nelson (IA)
William C. Nelson (IA)
Chris R. Niles (WA)
Keith E. Osterbaan (MI)
George R. Otis (MA)
Bolaji B. Oyegbola (DC)
Teddy D. Peller (AL)
Jeffrey P. Peloquin (NC)
Scott A. Pietruszynski (IL)
Louis Polillo (NJ)
John P. Reed, III (NJ)
Valentin Reyna, Jr. (AZ)
Randy D. Rinnels (IA)
William A. Robinson (IA)
Thomas W. Scott, Jr. (PA)
Gregory J. Skloda (NY)
Charles L. Spencer (NY)
Ricky L. Spencer (ME)
Roy E. Stroud (IA)
Kenneth W. Terhune, Jr. (DE)
Robert B. Thomas (PA)
Raymond L. Torrez (MI)
Bore Trivuncic (FL)
William M. Turner (NJ)
Timothy C. Urrutia (ID)
Eloy O. Valdez (CA)
James H. Vogt (IL)
Ronald L. Voigt (MN)
Michael P. Volpe (MA)
James R. Watkins (UT)
Anthony G. Wick (MA)
Michael C.J. Wilcox (NY)
Donald L. Winslow (ME)

James J. Wolf, Jr. (PA)
Kevin J. Yates (IL)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption is
valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will
be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with
the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the
exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the
person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at
that time.

     Issued on: June 13, 2016.
 Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-14751 Filed 6-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P