[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 61 (Monday, March 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 18024]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07092]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER14-1439-000]

TrailStone Power, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding
TrailStone Power, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 14, 2014.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 25, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-07092 Filed 3-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="PDFCreactiveX HTML Export">
<META name="creation-date" content="29/06/2008 08:17:05 ">
<TITLE></TITLE>


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 14, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52644-52647]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24166]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0712; Product Identifier 2017-NM-014-AD; Amendment
39-19095; AD 2017-23-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2016-13-14,
which applied to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series
airplanes. AD 2016-13-14 required an inspection to determine if certain
left and right main landing gear (MLG) retract actuator rod ends were
installed, repetitive liquid penetrant inspections (LPIs) of affected
left and right MLG retract actuator rod ends, and corrective actions if
necessary. This new AD retains the actions specified in AD 2016-13-14
and also requires replacement of the left and right MLG retract
actuator rod ends. This AD was prompted by a report of a cracked MLG
retract actuator rod end. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective December 19, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of July 20,
2016 (81 FR 43481, July 5, 2016).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected]; Internet:
http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue
SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2017-0712.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0712; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (telephone: 800-
647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aziz Ahmed, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to supersede AD 2016-13-14, Amendment 39-18579 (81 FR 43481,
July 5, 2016) (``AD 2016-13-14''). AD 2016-13-14 applied to certain
Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400 series airplanes. The NPRM published
in the Federal Register on July 28, 2017

(82 FR 35127). The NPRM was prompted by a report of a cracked MLG
retract actuator rod end. The NPRM proposed to continue to require the
actions specified in AD 2016-13-14. The NPRM also proposed to require
replacement of the left and right MLG retract actuator rod ends. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct fatigue cracking of the left and
right MLG retract actuator rod ends, which could lead to left or right
MLG collapse.
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2016-16R1, dated June
27, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model DHC-8-400 series
airplanes. The MCAI states:

    There has been a single reported case of a cracked MLG retract
actuator rod end in service. A supplier disclosure letter and
subsequent Bombardier analysis indicate that the MLG retract
actuator rod end P/N [part number] P3A2750 and P3A2750-1 may develop
fatigue cracking. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to
left hand (LH) or right hand (RH) MLG collapse.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates the inspection [to determine if
certain left and right main landing gear MLG retract actuator rod
ends are installed, repetitive LPIs of affected left and right MLG
retract actuator rod ends, and corrective actions if necessary], and
replacement of the LH and RH MLG retract actuator rod ends P/N
P3A2750 and P3A2750-1 [which is terminating action for the
repetitive LPIs].
    This [Canadian] AD was revised to clarify paragraph B. and C.
[of this Canadian AD], which specifies when the Liquid Penetrant
Inspections (LPI) should begin.

    Corrective actions include replacing cracked MLG retract actuator
rod ends. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2017-0712.

Comments

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

Conclusion

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

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier, Inc., has issued Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-142,
dated May 4, 2016. This service information describes procedures for an
inspection to determine if certain left and right MLG retract actuator
rod ends are installed, repetitive LPIs of the left and right MLG
retract actuator rod ends, and replacement of left and right MLG
retract actuator rod ends. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 52 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:
    The actions required by AD 2016-13-14, and retained in this AD,
take about 1 work-hour per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the inspection
that is required by AD 2016-13-14 is $85 per product.
    We also estimate that it will take about 3 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost about $2,019 per
product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on
U.S. operators to be $118,248, or $2,274 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will
take about 3 work-hours and require parts costing $2,019, for a cost of
$2,274 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need these actions.
    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all available costs in our
cost estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to
the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2016-13-14, Amendment 39-18579 (81 FR 43481, July 5, 2016), and adding
the following new AD:

2017-23-01 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-19095; Docket No. FAA-
2017-0712; Product Identifier 2017-NM-014-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective December 19, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2016-13-14, Amendment 39-18579 (81 FR 43481,
July 5, 2016) (``AD 2016-13-14'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model DHC-8-400, -401 and -
402 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers 4001,
and 4003 through 4325 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a cracked main landing gear
(MLG) retract actuator rod end. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct fatigue cracking of the left and right MLG retract actuator
rod ends, which could lead to left or right MLG collapse.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Part Number Inspection, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2016-13-14, with no changes. Within 100 flight cycles after July 20,
2016 (the effective date of AD 2016-13-14), inspect the left and
right MLG retract actuator rod ends to determine if part number (P/
N) P3A2750 or P3A2750-1 is installed. A review of airplane
maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if the
part number can be conclusively determined from that review.

(h) Retained Repetitive Liquid Penetrant Inspections (LPIs), With No
Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2016-13-14, with no changes. For each left or right MLG retract
actuator rod end having P/N P3A2750 or P3A2750-1: At the applicable
time specified in paragraph (h)(1) or (h)(2) of this AD, do an LPI
to detect cracks of the MLG retract actuator rod end, in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin
84-32-142, dated May 4, 2016, except as required by paragraph (k) of
this AD. Thereafter, repeat the LPI at intervals not to exceed 600
flight cycles.
    (1) If the MLG retract actuator rod end has accumulated more
than 6,000 flight cycles as of July 20, 2016 (the effective date of
AD 2016-13-14): Inspect within 100 flight cycles after July 20,
2016.
    (2) If the MLG retract actuator rod end has accumulated 6,000
flight cycles or fewer as of July 20, 2016 (the effective date of AD
2016-13-14): Inspect within 600 flight cycles after July 20, 2016.

(i) Retained Corrective Action, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2016-13-14, with no changes. If any crack is found during any
inspection required by paragraph (h) of this AD, before further
flight, replace the cracked MLG retract actuator rod end, P/N
P3A2750 or P3A2750-1, with a MLG retract actuator rod end, P/N
P3A6460, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-142, dated May 4, 2016, except as
required by paragraph (k) of this AD.

(j) Retained Optional Replacement, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the optional replacement specified in
paragraph (j) of AD 2016-13-14, with no changes. Replacement of the
left and right side MLG retract actuator rod ends, P/N P3A2750 or
P3A2750-1, with left and right MLG retract actuator rod ends, P/N
P3A6460, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-142, dated May 4, 2016, except as
required by paragraph (k) of this AD, constitutes terminating action
for the actions required by paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD for
that airplane.

(k) Retained Exception, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (k) of AD
2016-13-14, with no changes. If it is not possible to complete all
the instructions in Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-142, dated May
4, 2016, because of the configuration of the airplane: Before
further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO).

(l) Retained Parts Installation Prohibition, With No Changes

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (l) of AD
2016-13-14, with no changes. As of July 20, 2016 (the effective date
of AD 2016-13-14), no person may install a left or right MLG retract
actuator rod end, P/N P3A2750 or P3A2750-1, on any airplane.

(m) New Requirement of This AD: Replacement

    Within 1,800 flight cycles after accomplishing the initial
inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, replace the left
and right side MLG retract actuator rod ends having P/N P3A2750 or
P3A2750-1, with left and right MLG retract actuator rod ends having
P/N P3A6460, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-142, dated May 4, 2016, except as
required by paragraph (k) of this AD. Accomplishing this replacement
terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD for
that airplane.

(n) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In
accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal
inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier Inc.'s TCCA DAO. If approved by
the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(o) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2016-16R1, dated June 27, 2016, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2017-0712.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Aziz Ahmed,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe and Mechanical Systems Section, FAA,
New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY
11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(p) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
July 20, 2016 (81 FR 43481, July 5, 2016).
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 84-32-142, dated May 4, 2016.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Q-Series Technical Help Desk, 123 Garratt
Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M3K 1Y5, Canada; telephone: 416-375-
4000; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected];
Internet: http://www.bombardier.com.
    (5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    (6) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 30, 2017.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-24166 Filed 11-13-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9744-9746]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04028]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-4070; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-31-AD;
Amendment 39-18408; AD 2016-04-14]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Turboshaft Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain

Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1E2 turboshaft engines. This AD requires removing
the tachometer box on affected engines. This AD was prompted by reports
of uncommanded in-flight shutdowns (IFSDs). We are issuing this AD to
prevent failure of the tachometer box, which could lead to failure of
the engine, IFSD, and loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: This AD becomes effective April 1, 2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00; fax:
33 (0)5 59 74 45 15. You may view this service information at the FAA,
Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
781-238-7125. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
4070.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
4070; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

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

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The
NPRM was published in the Federal Register on November 24, 2015 (80 FR
73147). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    There have been reports of Arriel 1E2 engines having experienced
an uncommanded in-flight shut-down (IFSD) due to an untimely
activation of the tachometer box shut-off system which was activated
by the power turbine monitoring function of the tachometer box.
    This condition, if not corrected, could potentially lead to
further cases of IFSD, possibly resulting in a forced landing.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 73147, November 24,
2015).

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed.

Related Service Information

    Turbomeca S.A. has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 292 77
0844, Version B, dated July 6, 2015. The service information describes
procedures for removing pre-TU 369 tachometer boxes.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 200 engines installed on
helicopters of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it will take about
3 hours per engine to comply with this AD. The average labor rate is
$85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD
on U.S. operators to be $51,000.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2016-04-14 Turbomeca S.A.: Amendment 39-18408; Docket No. FAA-2015-
4070; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-31-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective April 1, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1E2 turboshaft
engines with tachometer boxes with the following part number (P/N)
and serial number (S/N) combinations:
    (i) P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>--all S/Ns
    (ii) P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>--all S/Ns
    (iii) P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>--all S/Ns
    (iv) P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>--all S/Ns
    (v) P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>--all S/Ns 1499 and below with or without
suffix letters and all S/Ns 1500 and above that do not contain the
suffix letters EL.
    (2) This AD applies only to Turbomeca S.A. Arriel 1E2 turboshaft
engines with

tachometer boxes identified in paragraph (c)(1) of this AD that also
have installed electrical connectors labeled as P10106, P10098, and
P10108; or P11F, P13F, and P15F.

(d) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of uncommanded in-flight
shutdowns (IFSDs). We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the
tachometer box, which could lead to failure of the engine, IFSD, and
loss of control of the helicopter.

(e) Actions and Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) Within 1,600 flight hours after the effective date of this
AD, remove the affected tachometer box from the engine.
    (2) Reserved.

(f) Credit for Previous Action

    You may take credit for the action required by paragraph (e) of
this AD if you performed the action before the effective date of
this AD in accordance with Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin
292 77 0844, Version A, dated March 4, 2015.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Philip Haberlen,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2015-0175,
dated August 24, 2015, which includes Mandatory Service Bulletin No.
292 77 0844, Version B, dated July 6, 2015, for related information.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2015-4070.
    (3) Turbomeca S.A. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 292 77 0844,
Version B, dated July 6, 2015, which is not incorporated by
reference in this AD, can be obtained from Turbomeca S.A., using the
contact information in paragraph (h)(4) of this AD.
    (4) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Turbomeca S.A., 40220 Tarnos, France; phone: 33 (0)5 59 74 40 00;
fax: 33 (0)5 59 74 45 15.
    (5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
781-238-7125.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on February 16, 2016.
Ann C. Mollica,
Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-04028 Filed 2-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                                    AGENDA                   U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)                      FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL (SAP)                                   OPEN MEETING                               JULY 29-JULY 31, 2014               FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/                    DOCKET NUMBER: EPA - HQ - OPP - 2014 - 0331                      U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY                          CONFERENCE CENTER LOBBY LEVEL                         ONE POTOMAC YARD (SOUTH BLDG.)                   2777 S. CRYSTAL DRIVE, ARLINGTON, VA 22202                                                  Scientific Issues Associated with New High Throughput Methods                          To Estimate Chemical Exposure Please note that all times are approximate (see note at the end of the Agenda).                                     Day 1                              Tuesday, July 29, 2014

9:00 A.M. Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures -- Fred Jenkins, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

9:05 A.M. Introduction and Identification of Panel Members -- James McManaman, Ph.D., FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Session Chair

9:10 A.M. Welcome and Opening Remarks  -  David Dix, Ph.D., Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy (OSCP), EPA

9:20 A.M. Introduction and Overview: New High Throughput Methods to Estimate Chemical Exposure -- Alan Dixon, Exposure Assessment Coordination and Policy Division (EACPD, OSCP), EPA

Exposure Prioritization with ExpoCast Research

10:00 A.M. A Framework for High Throughput Exposure (HTE) Estimation -- John Wambaugh, Office of Research and Development (ORD), and National Center for Computational Toxicology (NCCT), EPA

10:30 A.M. Break

10:45 A.M. High Throughput Forward Prediction of Human Exposure -- Peter P. Egeghy, Ph.D. M.P.H., National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL), ORD, EPA

11:05 A.M. Inference (Reverse Prediction) of Human Exposure -- Woodrow Setzer, National Center for Computational Toxicology (NCCT), ORD, EPA

11:35 A.M. Systematic Empirical Evaluation of Models (SEEM) Analysis and High Throughput Exposure Estimates -- John Wambaugh, ORD, NCCT, EPA

12:00 P.M. Lunch

High Throughput Toxicokinetics (HTTK) and Reverse Toxicokinetics (RTK)

1:00 P.M. High Throughput Toxicokinetics (HTTK) and Reverse Toxicokinetics (RTK) for the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) -- John Wambaugh ORD, NCCT, EPA

Ongoing Research Needs: Ecological Exposure Predictions

2:10 P.M.  High Throughput Ecological Exposure Modeling -- Craig Barber, Ph.D. NERL, ORD, EPA

2:35 P.M. Break

2:50 P.M.  Evaluation Data and Statistical Framework for Ecological Exposure Predictions -- Woodrow Setzer, NCCT, ORD, EPA

Ongoing Research Needs: Near Field Human Exposure Modeling

3:10 P.M. Toward a Third Generation SEEM Analysis: New Data and Models --  Kristin Isaacs, Ph.D. NERL, ORD, EPA

Future Applications

3:50 P.M.  EDSP Integrated Activity and Exposure Based Prioritization and Screening  -  Steven Knott, Director, EACPD, OSCP, EPA

4:35 P.M. Adjourn

                                    Day 2                             Wednesday, July 30, 2014

9:00 A.M. Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures  -  Fred Jenkins, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

9:05 A.M. Introduction and Identification of Panel Members  -  James McManaman, Ph.D., FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Session Chair

9:10 A.M. Follow-up from the Previous Day Presentations

10:00 A.M. Public Comments

10:45 A.M. Break

11:00 A.M. Public Comments (Cont'd)

12:00 P.M. Lunch

1:00 P.M. Charge to Panel

Charge Question 1.1. In the absence of sufficient exposure information to estimate exposure for the majority of the chemicals of interest in the Endocrine Disruption Screening Program (EDSP) using EPA's historical low-throughput methods, please comment on whether the Systematic Empirical Evaluation of Models approach (SEEM) is scientifically sound and suitable for using High Throughput Exposure (HTE) methods to estimate relative levels of chemical exposures and the associated uncertainty of these estimates for consideration in a prioritization approach.

2:00 P.M. Charge to Panel

Charge Question 1.2 Please suggest the most important steps for EPA that could decrease uncertainties and increase confidence in using the HTE approach to predict exposures in various demographic groups (e.g., young children, women of child bearing age) for large numbers of chemicals.

2:45 P.M. Break

3:00 P.M. Charge to Panel

Charge Question 2.1. In the absence of sufficient empirical toxicokinetics information for the thousands of EDSP relevant chemicals, please comment on the approach of using High  Throughput TK (HTTK), High Throughput PBTK (HTPBTK), In Vitro-In Vivo Extrapolation (IVIVE), and Reverse Toxicokinetics (RTK) for estimating chemical TK to provide an administered dose context to the concentrations showing bioactivity in the endocrine-related High-throughput screening (HTS) assays.   4:00 P.M. Charge to Panel

Charge Question 2.2. A comparison of the HTTK-predicted steady-state blood concentrations with in vivo values from the literature suggests that the overall correlation is low, but that the discrepancy between the two can be predicted using a combination of chemical properties, quantitative structure activity relationships (QSAR), and cutoffs from the HTTK assays.  Please comment on: a) how well this approach characterizes the uncertainty in the steady-state blood concentrations, and b) whether the identification of chemical classes that need additional TK investigation is useful in a chemical prioritization or initial screening context.

5:00 P.M. Adjourn

                                    Day 3                             Thursday, July 31, 2014

9:00 A.M. Opening of Meeting and Administrative Procedures  -  Fred Jenkins, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

9:05 A.M. Introduction and Identification of Panel Members  -  James McManaman, Ph.D., FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Session Chair

9:10 A.M. Follow-up from the Previous Day Discussions

9:20 A.M. Charge to Panel (Cont'd)

Charge Question 2.3. Please comment on whether the assumptions made in these models are appropriate given the current state of the science and data limitations.

10:00 A.M. Charge to Panel

Charge Question 2.4. Please suggest the most important steps EPA should take to improve the various kinetic models to provide rapid and cost-effective predictions for large number of chemicals.

10:45 A.M. Break

11:00 A.M. Charge to Panel

Charge Question 2.5. Please comment on the approaches presented in the present White Paper for comparing RTK-derived endocrine-active dose ranges with exposure predictions from ExpoCast.  Discuss the strengths and limitations of these comparisons, and whether this or other approaches are suitable for clearly distinguishing chemicals with higher predicted doses from chemicals with lower predicted RTK adjusted doses.   12:00 P.M. Lunch

1:00 P.M. Charge to Panel (Cont'd)

Charge Question 3.1. Please comment on the three key areas including whether there are other areas that are of equal or higher priority to support an integrated activity/hazard and exposure based prioritization and screening approach within the EDSP or other chemical programs.

1:45 P.M. Charge to Panel

Charge Question 3.2. We propose applying the ExpoCast framework to ecological exposures using aggregated water monitoring data to evaluate the predictions of environmental fate and transport models. Please identify other data, models or environmental media that may be of greater value in the initial model calibration and uncertainty analysis.

2:30 P.M. Break

2:45 P.M. Charge to Panel

Charge Question 3.3. Please identify other relatively high-throughput sources of exposure-related information that should be included in these three key areas and suggest how this information would be used to help prioritize chemicals.

3:45 P.M. Charge to Panel

Charge Question 3.4. For the HTTK work going forward, please comment on additional studies that could be performed or approaches that could be taken to improve rapid and cost efficient predictions of TK for large numbers of chemicals.

4:30 P.M. Closing Remarks  -  James McManaman, Ph.D., FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Session Chair  Fred Jenkins, Ph.D., Designated Federal Official, Office of Science Coordination and Policy, EPA

5:00 P.M. Adjourn

Note:  Please be advised that agenda times are approximate; when the discussion for one topic is completed, discussions for the next topic will begin. For further information, please contact the Designated Federal Official for this meeting, Dr. Fred Jenkins, via telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34853-34855]
[FR Doc No: 2023-11493]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2023-0284; FRL-10996-01-OGC]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed consent decree; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Clean Air Act, as amended (CAA or the
Act), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is
providing notice of a proposed consent decree in California Communities
Against Toxics, et al. v. Regan, No. 1:22-cv-03724 (D.D.C.). On
December 14, 2022, Plaintiffs California Communities Against Toxics,
Clean Power Lake County, Rio Grande International Study Center, Sierra
Club, and Union of Concerned Scientists filed a complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that EPA
has failed to perform its nondiscretionary duty to ``review, and revise
as necessary'' the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Ethylene oxide Emissions Standards for Sterilization
Facilities, at least every 8 years. The proposed consent decree would
establish a deadline for EPA to sign a final rule for this action.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by June 30, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OGC-2023-0284, online at https://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method). Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
number for this action. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Additional Information
about Commenting on the Proposed Consent Decree'' heading under the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Huang Branning, Air and Radiation
Law Office, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining a Copy of the Proposed Consent Decree

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2023-0284) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at
the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The electronic version of the public docket for this action
contains a copy of the proposed consent decree and is available through
https://www.regulations.gov. You may use https://www.regulations.gov to
submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the official public docket, and access those documents in
the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, key in the appropriate docket identification number then select
``search.''

II. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    On December 14, 2022, Plaintiffs California Communities Against
Toxics, Clean Power Lake County, Rio Grande International Study Center,
Sierra Club, and Union of Concerned Scientists (collectively
``Plaintiffs'') filed a complaint in the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia alleging that EPA has failed to perform
its nondiscretionary duty under CAA section 112(d)(6) to ``review, and
revise as necessary'' the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (``NESHAP''): Ethylene oxide Emissions Standards for
Sterilization Facilities, 40 CFR part 60, subpart O (``Sterilization
Facilities NESHAP''), at least every 8 years. EPA promulgated the
Sterilization Facilities NESHAP in 1994. 59 FR 62585 (December 6,
1994). In 2006, EPA conducted a risk assessment of this source category
pursuant to CAA section 112(f)(2) and a technology review of its NESHAP
pursuant to section 112(d)(6), neither of which resulted in revisions
to the Sterilization Facilities NESHAP. 71 FR 17712 (April 7, 2006).
EPA has not completed a section 112(d)(6) review of this NESHAP since
then. EPA recently published a proposed rule that includes revisions to
the Sterilization Facilities NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6)
of the Act. 88 FR 22790 (April 13, 2023). The proposed consent decree,
if finalized, would require that EPA sign a final rule on its review
and ``necessary revisions'' of the Sterilization Facility NESHAP
pursuant to section 112(d)(6) by March 1, 2024.
    In accordance with section 113(g) of the CAA, for a period of
thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this document,
the Agency will accept written comments relating to the proposed
consent decree. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or
withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments
disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is
inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the
requirements of the Act.

III. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2023-
0284, via https://www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from this docket. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit to EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. For additional information about submitting information
identified as CBI, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. Note that written
comments containing CBI and submitted by mail may be delayed and
deliveries or couriers will be received by scheduled appointment only.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment. This ensures that you
can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to
contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your
comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of
a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the
official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public
docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties

and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment.
    Use of the https://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments
to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments.
The electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
    Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.

Gautam Srinivasan,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2023-11493 Filed 5-30-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


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

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as a regular user of e-cigarettes to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.  I believe that these regulations are far too complex and much too important for a comment period of 75 days.

The Proposed Rule will affect the availability of products for my use of e-cigarettes.  It is very important to my health that the liquids, devices, and materials I use for this remain as available as possible.  I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited since I work a demanding job (55-60 hours a week). I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took several years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, as such; I think six months is a reasonable comment period for the people to respond and comment. Once the comment period is complete, this opportunity is gone forever.  I know that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on previous occasions.

I am passionate about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes since they have had a dramatic effect on my life.  I weigh 45 pounds less than I did when I was smoking, because I can actually get exercise now without getting winded in the first two steps.  I feel better, I look great, and I don’t smell of cigarette smoke.  I truly feel better than I have in at least ten, maybe more like twenty, years.  I know that I will not only live longer, but I will live better.  These devices have made a tremendous improvement in my life.  I personally have introduced about a dozen smokers to the world of e-cigarettes.  We all are grateful in the improvements “vaping” has to our lives.

I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all interested parties have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.  This is what the comment period is for, is it not?  By permitting just a bit more time, you will get a lot more feedback on what makes sense for these industry-shaping regulations.

Regards,


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 208 (Monday, November 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60267-60268]
[FR Doc No: 2021-23750]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2021-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-2173]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security.

ACTION: Notice.

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

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

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before January 31, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the
respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below.
Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each
community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2173, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email) [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
[email protected]; or visit the FEMA Mapping and Insurance
eXchange (FMIX) online at https://www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at https://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_overview.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location
https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/prelimdownload and the respective
Community Map Repository address listed in the tables. For communities
with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies can be
identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM date
listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at https://msc.fema.gov for comparison.

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

Michael M. Grimm,
Assistant Administrator for Risk Management, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Rice County, Kansas and Incorporated Areas
 Project: 12-07-0333S Preliminary Date: September 12, 2019 and June 30,
                                  2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Bushton........................  City Hall, 217 South Main
                                          Street, Bushton, KS 67427.
City of Chase..........................  City Hall, 507 Main Street,
                                          Chase, KS 67524.
City of Frederick......................  City of Frederick, Rice County
                                          Planning and Zoning, 460 North
                                          Logan Avenue, Lyons, KS 67554.
City of Geneseo........................  City Hall, 802 Silver Avenue,
                                          Geneseo, KS 67444.
City of Little River...................  City Hall, 125 Main Street,
                                          Little River, KS 67457.
City of Lyons..........................  City Hall, 217 East Avenue
                                          South, Lyons, KS 67554.
City of Raymond........................  City Hall, 105 West 4th Street,
                                          Raymond, KS 67573.
City of Sterling.......................  City Hall, 114 North Broadway,
                                          Sterling, KS 67579.

Unincorporated Areas of Rice County....  Rice County Planning and
                                          Zoning, 460 North Logan
                                          Avenue, Lyons, KS 67554.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Cayuga County, New York (All Jurisdictions)
          Project: 20-02-0019S Preliminary Date: March 23, 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Town of Sterling.......................  Town Hall, Code Enforcement
                                          Office, 1290 State Route 104A,
                                          Sterling, NY 13156.
Village of Fair Haven..................  Fair Haven Village Hall, 14523
                                          Cayuga Street, Sterling, NY
                                          13156.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Oswego County, New York (All Jurisdictions)
          Project: 20-02-0020S Preliminary Date: April 5, 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Oswego.........................  City Hall, Engineering Office,
                                          Third Floor, 13 West Oneida
                                          Street, Oswego, NY 13126.
Town of Mexico.........................  Town Office, 64 South Jefferson
                                          Street, Mexico, NY 13114.
Town of New Haven......................  Town Hall, 4279 State Route
                                          104, New Haven, NY 13121.
Town of Oswego.........................  Town Hall, 2320 County Route 7,
                                          Oswego, NY 13126.
Town of Richland.......................  Richland Town Hall, 1 Bridge
                                          Street, Pulaski, NY 13142.
Town of Sandy Creek....................  Town Hall, 1992 Harwood Drive,
                                          Sandy Creek, NY 13145.
Town of Scriba.........................  Scriba Municipal Building, 42
                                          Creamery Road, Oswego, NY
                                          13126.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Clark County, Washington and Incorporated Areas
          Project: 19-10-0012S Preliminary Date: March 12, 2021
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of La Center......................  Public Works Department, 305
                                          Northwest Pacific Highway, La
                                          Center, WA 98629.
City of Vancouver......................  City Hall, 415 West 6th Street,
                                          Second Floor, Vancouver, WA
                                          98660.
Town of Yacolt.........................  Town Hall, 202 West Cushman
                                          Street, Yacolt, WA 98675.
Unincorporated Areas of Clark County...  Clark County Public Service
                                          Center, 1300 Franklin Street,
                                          Vancouver, WA 98660.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-23750 Filed 10-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1674-1676]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00449]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0143; Notice 2]

General Motors LLC (GM), Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Grant of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: General Motors LLC (GM) has determined that certain model year
(MY) 2010-2014 Cadillac SRX multipurpose passenger vehicles (MPVs) do
not fully comply with paragraphs S4.4.1(a) and S4.4.2(a) of Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire selection and rims
and motor home/recreation vehicle trailer load carrying capacity
information for motor vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000
pounds) or less. GM filed a report dated November 27, 2013 pursuant to
49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
GM then petitioned NHTSA in accordance with 49 CFR part 556 requesting
a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Amina
Fisher, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile
(202) 366-5930.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. GM's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and
the rule implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, GM submitted
a petition dated December 5, 2013, for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    Notice of receipt of GM's petition was published, with a 30-Day
public comment period, on June 6, 2014 in the Federal Register (79 FR
32813). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2013-0143.''
    II. Vehicles Involved: Affected are approximately 51,704 MY 2010-
2014 GM Cadillac SRX MPVs manufactured between June 18, 2009, and
October 31, 2013.
    III. Noncompliance: GM explains that the affected vehicles were
offered for sale with spare tires whose rims were marked with a ``T''
to indicate the source of the rim's published nominal dimensions as the
Tire and Rim Association, rather than the correct ``E'' to indicate the
European Tyre and Rim Technical Organization (ETRTO). Additionally, the
ETRTO does not identify the 18 inch rim utilized as a suitable match
for the T135/70R18 spare tire. Since all vehicles sold in the U.S. must
be marked with a reference designation that indicates the source of the
rim's published nominal dimensions, and the indicated source must list
suitable rim sizes for each tire size listed, these vehicles fail to
fully meet the requirements set forth in paragraph S4.4.1(a) and
S4.4.2(a) of FMVSS No. 110.
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.4 of FMVSS No. 110 requires in
pertinent part:

    . . .
    S4.4.1 Requirements. Each rim shall:
    (a) Be constructed to the dimensions of a rim that is listed by
the manufacturer of the tires as suitable for use with those tires,
in accordance with S4 of Sec.  571.139.
    . . .
    S4.4.2 Rim markings for vehicles other than passenger cars. Each
rim or, at the option of the manufacturer in the case of a single-
piece wheel, each wheel dish shall be marked with the information
listed in S4.4.2 (a) through (e) . . .
    (a) A designation that indicates the source of the rim's
published nominal dimensions, as follows:
    (1) ``T'' indicates The Tire and Rim Association.
    (2) ``E'' indicates The European Tyre and Rim Technical
Organization.

    . . .

    V. Summary of GM's Analyses: GM stated its belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the
following reasons:
    1. The tire and rim of the affected spare wheels are properly
matched and are appropriate for the load-carrying characteristics of
the subject vehicles.
    2. The incorrect reference document marking has no effect on the
performance of the tire/rim combination.
    3. The subject tire/rim assembly meets the S4.4.1(b) rapid air loss
requirement for FMVSS No. 110. The subject vehicles also meet GM's
internal ride and handling guidelines with the subject spare tire/rim
assembly installed.
    4. All other rim marking information required by S4.4.2 of FMVSS
No. 110 on

the subject rims is correct. The rims are marked with the rim size
designation as required by S4.4.2(b); the DOT symbol as required by
S4.4.2(c); manufacturer identification as required by S4.4.2(d); and
the month and year of manufacture as required by S4.4.2(e).
    5. The rim is marked correctly with the size designation of 18 x
4.5B, the correct tire size information is listed on the Tire and
Loading Information placard, and the tire size (T135/70R18) is marked
on the tire sidewall. The vehicles' Certification label also contains
the correct tire and rim sizes. There is little likelihood of a tire
and rim mismatch as a result of the incorrect marking of the source of
the published rim dimensions.
    6. Very few of these spare wheels will ever need to be replaced
over the lifetime of the vehicle. If a spare wheel needs to be
replaced, however, there is a section of the owner's manual provided on
``Wheel Replacement.'' It is stated here that ``Your dealer will know
the kind of wheel that is needed. Each new wheel should have the same
load-carrying capacity, diameter, width, offset, and be mounted the
same way as the one it replaces.''
    7. If a spare wheel needs to be replaced, it is likely that the
customer would go to a GM dealer or a tire/wheel retailer. These
facilities would know to look at the original spare wheel, the tire,
the Tire and Loading Information placard, or the Certification label to
determine the correct spare wheel size for the replacement.
    8. NHTSA has previously granted several inconsequential petitions
with similar FMVSS No. 110 rim noncompliances.
    9. GM is not aware of any crashes, injuries or customer complaints
associated with this condition.
    GM has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future production of the subject vehicles
will comply with all applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 110.
    In summation, GM believes that the described noncompliance of the
subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition, to exempt from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.

NHTSA's Decision

    NHTSA's Analysis: GM stated its belief that the combination of the
subject spare tire and rim is a proper match and appropriate for the
load-carrying characteristics of the subject vehicles. GM also stated
its belief that the incorrect marking of the nominal rim dimension
source designation on the rim has no effect on the performance of the
tire/rim combination. In addition, GM mentioned that the subject
vehicles meet the S4.4.1(b) rapid air loss requirement for FMVSS No.
110.
    The agency agrees with GM that the subject vehicles are equipped
with an appropriately matched spare tire and rim combination that when
properly mounted on the subject vehicles would allow the vehicles to be
operated safely within the manufacturer's specified performance and
loading limits. We note that the main purpose of FMVSS No. 110 is to
require vehicles be equipped with tires and rims appropriate for the
safe operation and loading of applicable vehicles. It appears the spare
tire and rim combination provided with the subject vehicles will meet
all applicable FMVSS No. 110 performance requirements.
    GM also explained its belief that all other markings required by
paragraph S4.4.2 of FMVSS No. 110 are on the subject rims and meet the
applicable requirements of the standard. Those markings include; the
rim size designation required by S4.4.2(b); the DOT symbol as required
by S4.4.2(c); the manufacturer identification as required by S4.4.2(d);
and the month and year of manufacture as required by S4.4.2(e). GM also
stated that the correct tire size information is listed on the
Certification label as well as the Tire and Loading Information placard
affixed to each vehicle, and that the tire sizes are marked on the
sidewalls of the tires.
    While NHTSA requires manufacturers to include the reference
document designation symbol to be marked on the rim, its mislabeling in
this case does not prevent the proper matching of tires and rims. We
agree with GM that sufficient information about rim size is available
from other markings on the rims as well as information available from
the Certification label required by 49 CFR part 567, and the Tire and
Loading Information placard required by FMVSS No. 110. In addition, the
mislabeling does not affect the ability to identify the rims in the
event of recall. NHTSA believes that due to the convenient availability
of tire and rim size designation information there is little likelihood
of a tire and rim mismatch as a result of the subject rim marking
noncompliance.
    GM stated its belief that very few spare wheels need to be replaced
during the life of the vehicle. If, however, wheel replacement is
required, there is a section of the owner's manual provided with each
vehicle titled ``Wheel Replacement.'' This section of the owner's
manual states, ``Your dealer will know the kind of wheel that is
needed. Each new wheel should have the same load-carrying capacity,
diameter, width, offset, and be mounted the same way as the one it
replaces.'' In addition, it is likely that the customer would go to a
GM dealer or a tire/wheel retailer to obtain a replacement.
    NHTSA agrees with GM that if a vehicle owner or operator must
replace one of the subject rims that they would most likely go to a GM
dealer or a tire/wheel retailer. As professionals, technicians at
either type of facility would know to look at the original spare wheel,
the tire, the Tire and Loading Information placard, or the
Certification label to determine the correct spare wheel size for the
replacement.
    GM cited five petitions that the agency granted regarding wheels
that omit the designation symbol that indicates the source of the rim's
published nominal dimensions. All five cited petitions were granted
because the agency determined that there was no consequence to motor
vehicle safety due to the omission of the designation symbol required
by either FMVSS No. 110 S4.4.2(a) or FMVSS No. 120 S5.2. As in the case
of the subject spare tire and rim combinations, sufficient information
about rim size was available from other markings on the rims as well as
the information from the Certification label and Tire and Loading
Information placards present on the affected vehicles.
    NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that GM has met its burden of persuasion that the subject
noncompliances with paragraph S4.4 FMVSS No. 110 are inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, GM's petition is hereby granted and
GM is exempted from the obligation of providing notification of, and a
remedy for, that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the subject noncompliant vehicles that GM no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, the granting of this

petition does not relieve vehicle distributors and dealers of the
prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery
for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant vehicles
under their control after GM notified them that the subject
noncompliance existed.

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

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2016-00449 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 242 (Tuesday, December 17, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69018-69019]
[FR Doc No: 2019-27071]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2019-0100]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    Under part 235 of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
and 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that
by a document dated November 20, 2019, CSX Transportation (CSXT)
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval
to discontinue or modify a signal system. FRA assigned the petition
Docket Number FRA-2019-0100.
    Applicant: CSX Transportation, Mr. Carl A. Walker, Chief Engineer
Communications & Signals, 500 Water Street, Speed Code J-350,
Jacksonville, FL 32202.
    Specifically, CSXT requests approval to modify the Edgeton
automatic railroad crossing-at-grade, at milepost S-154.73, Aberdeen
Subdivision, Raleigh, NC. The modification will consist of the removal
of existing relay logic interlocking and the installation of
microprocessor-based equipment to control the interlocking with the
removal of the numbers 1 and 3 power-operated split point derails.
    CSXT explains the installation of microprocessor interlocking
control and upgrades to track circuits and wayside devices and the
retirement of split point derails will allow for safer operational
movements through the interlocking.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is
open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire

an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should
notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by January 31, 2020 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). In
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public
to better inform its processes. 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. See also
http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice of
regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2019-27071 Filed 12-16-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P