[Federal Register: October 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 199)]
[Notices]
[Page 63536-63540]
[DOCID:fr15oc10-159]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0328]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption from the diabetes mellitus
standard; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 27 individuals
for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 15, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0328 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time 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. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the FDMS published in
the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or you may visit
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-785.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Mary D. Gunnels, Director, Medical
Programs,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W64-224, Washington,
DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to
renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year

period. The 27 individuals listed in this notice have recently
requested such an exemption from the diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR
391.41(b) (3), which applies to drivers of CMVs in interstate commerce.
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by the statutes.

Qualifications of Applicants

Juan C. Araoz Cespedes

    Mr. Araoz Cespedes, age 50, has had ITDM since 2008. His
endocrinologist examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no
severe hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness,
requiring the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired
cognitive function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months
and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5
years; understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable
control of his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV
safely. Mr. Araoz Cespedes meets the requirements of the vision
standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in
2010 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic
retinopathy. He holds an operator's license from Virginia.

William V. Barbrie

    Mr. Barbrie, 52, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Barbrie meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified
that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class 10
operator's license from Rhode Island, which allows him to operate any
motor vehicle except a motorcycle and a vehicle that weighs more than
26,000 pounds, carries 16 or more passengers or transports placarded
amounts of hazardous materials.

Kerry W. Blackwell

    Mr. Blackwell, 40, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Blackwell meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that
he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A Commercial
Driver's License (CDL) from Texas.

Mark S. Braddom

    Mr. Braddom, 57, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Braddom meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that
he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C CDL from
Tennessee.

Mike G. Brambila

    Mr. Brambila, 55, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Brambila meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that
he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Arizona.

Matthew T. Brown

    Mr. Brown, 31, has had ITDM since age 1991. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Brown meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that
he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from
Florida.

Richard G. Bruehl

    Mr. Bruehl, 64, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Bruehl meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified
that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C
operator's license from Pennsylvania.

John P. Catalano

    Mr. Catalano, 44, has had ITDM since 1975. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Catalano currently has a federal exemption to the vision standard, 49
CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified
that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D
operator's license from New Jersey.

Travis A. Chandler

    Mr. Chandler, 23, has had ITDM since 1999. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the

assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Chandler meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that
he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's
license from Georgia.

Christopher G. Chegas

    Mr. Chegas, 28, has had ITDM since 1994. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Chegas meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified
that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a
Class C operator's license from Pennsylvania.

Gary J. Dionne

    Mr. Dionne, 42, has had ITDM since 2003. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Dionne meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified
that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a
Class A CDL from Idaho.

Thomas C. Donahue

    Mr. Donahue, 58, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Donahue meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified
that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from
Massachusetts.

Joseph G. Greatens

    Mr. Greatens, 63, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Greatens meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified
that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D
operator's license from Wisconsin.

Marlin K. Johnson

    Mr. Johnson, 70, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Johnson meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that
he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Minnesota.

George Long, Jr.

    Mr. Long, 71, has had ITDM since 1995. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years; understands
diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of his diabetes
using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Long meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified that he has stable
nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from New
Mexico.

Cary C. McAlister

    Mr. McAlister, 39, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
McAlister meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified
that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C CDL from
Tennessee.

Dennis P. Miller

    Mr. Miller, 53, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Miller meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified
that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a
Class A CDL from Wisconsin.

Robert F. Minacapelli

    Mr. Minacapelli, 39, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more)

severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years; understands diabetes
management and monitoring; has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Minacapelli meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2009 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New York.

Joe E. L. Radabaugh

    Mr. Radabaugh, 51, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely.
    Mr. Radabaugh meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49
CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and
certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class
A CDL from Ohio.

Raul F. Sanchez

    Mr. Sanchez, 56, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Sanchez meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified
that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy. He holds a
Class A CDL from Texas.

Enrique E. Santiago

    Mr. Santiago, 51, has had ITDM since 2007. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Santiago meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified
that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Florida.

Thomas A. Schmitt

    Mr. Schmitt, 57, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Schmitt meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that
he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's
license from Iowa.

Leo A. Schmitz

    Mr. Schmitz, 67, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Schmitz meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified
that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Minnesota.

Ben D. Shelton, Jr.

    Mr. Shelton, 41, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Shelton meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2010 and certified
that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C
operator's license from Illinois.

Marlon J. Vanderheiden

    Mr. Vanderheiden, 31, has had ITDM since 1989. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Vanderheiden meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that
he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Iowa.

Nestor P. Vargas, Jr.

    Mr. Vargas, 43, has had ITDM since 1992. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Vargas meets the requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2010 and certified that
he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds an operator's license
from Washington.

Harold A. Wendt

    Mr. Wendt, 75, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2010 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years;
understands diabetes management and monitoring; has stable control of
his diabetes using insulin; and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr.
Wendt meets the requirements of the

vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined
him in 2010 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy.
He holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section
of the notice.
    FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible
and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires
the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on
September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441).\1\ The revision must provide for
individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be
consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 4129(a) refers to the 2003 notice as a ``final
rule.'' However, the 2003 notice did not issue a ``final rule'' but
did establish the procedures and standards for issuing exemptions
for drivers with ITDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for 3
years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin;
and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to
demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate
a CMV.
    In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the
diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice.
FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled
the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that
operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level
of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e).
    Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs
with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with
the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements
that are deemed medically necessary. The FMCSA concluded that all of
the operating, monitoring and medical requirements set out in the
September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified, were in compliance with
section 4129(d). Therefore, all of the requirements set out in the
September 3, 2003 notice, except as modified by the notice in the
Federal Register on November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777), remain in effect.

    Issued on: October 8, 2010.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-26056 Filed 10-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


P-18-0302 Sanitized Support Documents Index:
 P-18-0302 Sanitized Determination Document (linked)
 P-18-0302 Sanitized CHEM Report (attached)
 P-18-0302 Sanitized ECO Report (attached)
 P-18-0302 Sanitized ENG Report (attached)
 P-18-0302 Sanitized EXP Report (attached)
 P-18-0302 Sanitized Fate Report (attached)
 P-18-0302 Sanitized HLTH Report_POST-FOCUS FINAL (attached)


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 227 (Monday, November 26, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 60347]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25584]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 35

[Docket Nos. RM16-5-000; RM16-5-001; RM16-23-000; AD16-20-000]

Non-Discriminatory Open Access Transmission Tariff; Corrections

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Department of Energy.

ACTION: Correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects one section of the regulations of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, as published in the Federal
Register on March 6, 2018. This correction restores regulatory text
that was inadvertently replaced with other regulatory text adopted in
another, later final rule.

DATES: Effective November 26, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne Marie Hirschberger, Office of the
General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    1. On November 17, 2016, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) issued Order No. 831 concerning offer caps in Regional
Transmission Organization (RTO) and Independent System Operator (ISO)
markets,\1\ which was published in the Federal Register on December 5,
2016. Order No. 831 amended 18 CFR 35.28 by adding new paragraph
(g)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Offer Caps in Markets Operated by Regional Transmission
Organizations and Independent System Operators, Order No. 831, FERC
Stats. & Regs. ] 31,387 (2016) (cross-referenced at 157 FERC ]
61,115), order on reh'g and clarification, Order No. 831-A, 82 FR
53403 (Nov. 16, 2017), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,394 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. On November 9, 2017, the Commission issued Order No. 831-A,\2\
which was published in the Federal Register on November 16, 2017. Order
No. 831-A further revised 18 CFR 35.28(g)(9) regarding offer caps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Order No. 831-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,394.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. On February 15, 2018, the Commission issued Order No. 841
concerning electric storage participation in RTO/ISO markets,\3\ which
was published in the Federal Register on March 6, 2018. Order No. 841
amended 18 CFR 35.28(g) by adding a further new paragraph, which was
also numbered (g)(9).\4\ As a result, the regulatory text adopted in
Order No. 841 incorrectly replaced--rather than added to--the
regulatory text adopted in Order Nos. 831 and 831-A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Electric Storage Participation in Markets Operated by
Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System
Operators, Order No. 841, 83 FR 9580 (Mar. 6, 2018), FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,398 (2018) (cross-referenced at 162 FERC ] 61,127).
    \4\ On February 28, 2018, the Commission issued an Errata Notice
for Order No. 841. Electric Storage Participation in Markets
Operated by Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent
System Operators, Errata Notice, Docket Nos. RM16-23-000, AD16-20-
000 (Feb. 28, 2018). Among other things, the Errata Notice revised
18 CFR 35.28(g)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. In this Correcting Amendment, 18 CFR 35.28(g) is corrected by
restoring the regulatory text from Order Nos. 831 and 831-A as new
paragraph 18 CFR 35.28(g)(11). Nothing in this Correcting Amendment is
intended to alter any previous compliance requirements or effective
dates established under Order Nos. 831, 831-A, or 841, nor does this
Correcting Amendment affect any tariff changes previously accepted by
the Commission in compliance with these orders.

List of Subjects in 18 CFR Part 35

    Electric power rates, Electric utilities, Non-discriminatory open
access transmission tariffs.

    By the Commission. Commissioner McIntyre is not voting on this
order.

    Issued: November 16, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.

    In consideration of the foregoing, 18 CFR part 35 is corrected by
making the following correcting amendments:

PART 35--FILING OF RATE SCHEDULES AND TARIFFS

0
1. The authority citation for part 35 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r, 2601-2645; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 42
U.S.C. 7101-7352.

0
2. Amend Sec.  35.28 by adding a new paragraph (g)(11) to read as
follows:

Sec.  35.28  Non-discriminatory open access transmission tariff.

* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (11) A resource's incremental energy offer must be capped at the
higher of $1,000/MWh or that resource's cost-based incremental energy
offer. For the purpose of calculating Locational Marginal Prices,
Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators
must cap cost-based incremental energy offers at $2,000/MWh. The actual
or expected costs underlying a resource's cost-based incremental energy
offer above $1,000/MWh must be verified before that offer can be used
for purposes of calculating Locational Marginal Prices. If a resource
submits an incremental energy offer above $1,000/MWh and the actual or
expected costs underlying that offer cannot be verified before the
market clearing process begins, that offer may not be used to calculate
Locational Marginal Prices and the resource would be eligible for a
make-whole payment if that resource is dispatched and the resource's
actual costs are verified after-the-fact. A resource would also be
eligible for a make-whole payment if it is dispatched and its verified
cost-based incremental energy offer exceeds $2,000/MWh. All resources,
regardless of type, are eligible to submit cost-based incremental
energy offers in excess of $1,000/MWh.

[FR Doc. 2018-25584 Filed 11-23-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: September 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 171)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 45769-45770]
[DOCID:fr04se09-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 239 and 258

[EPA-R07-RCRA-2009-0646; FRL-8953-3]

Adequacy of Kansas Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permit Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action approves Kansas' Research, Development and
Demonstration (RD&D) permit program and updates to the approved
Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Permit (MSWLP) program. On March 22,
2004, the EPA issued final regulations allowing RD&D permits to be
issued to certain municipal solid waste landfills by approved States.
On December 11, 2008, Kansas submitted an application to the EPA
seeking Federal approval of its RD&D requirements and to update Federal
approval of its MSWLP program.

DATES: This direct final determination is effective November 3, 2009,
without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comments by October
5, 2009. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely
response or withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will or will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
RCRA-2009-0646, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Send written comments to Nicole Cruise, EPA Region 7,
Solid Waste/Pollution Prevention Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas
City, Kansas 66101.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier: Deliver your comments to Nicole
Cruise, EPA Region 7, Solid waste/Pollution Prevention Branch, 901
North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-RCRA-
2009-0646. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Solid Waste/Pollution Prevention Branch, 901 North 5th Street,
Kansas City, Kansas 66101. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30, excluding Federal
holidays. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents
should make at appointment with the office at least 24 hours in
advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Cruise at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

    On March 22, 2004, the EPA issued final regulations allowing RD&D
permits to be issued at certain municipal solid waste landfills (69 FR
13242). This new provision may only be implemented by an approved
State. While States are not required to seek approval for this new
provision, those States that are interested in providing RD&D permits
to municipal solid waste landfills must seek approval from EPA before
issuing such permits. Kansas received final approval for 40 CFR part
258 provisions on June 24, 1996 (61 FR 32434). This request
incorporates the November 27, 1996, final rule (61 FR 60328) for
financial assurance mechanisms for local governments; the July 29,
1997, final rule (62 FR 40708) for revisions to criteria for small
municipal solid waste landfills; and the April 10, 1998, final rule (63
FR 17706) for financial test and corporate guarantee to financial
assurance mechanisms. Approval procedures for new provisions of 40 CFR
part 258 are outlined in 40 CFR 239.12. On December 11, 2008, Kansas
submitted an application for approval of its RD&D permit provisions and
update of the approved MSWLP program.

B. Decision

    After a thorough review, EPA determined that Kansas' RD&D permit
provisions and its updated rules for its Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
Permit Program, as defined under Kansas Statutes Annotated (KSA)
Chapter 65--Public Health, Article 34--Solid Waste, Kansas
Administrative Regulations (KAR), Agency 28--Kansas Department of
Health and Environment, Article 29--Solid Waste Management are adequate
to ensure compliance with the Federal criteria as defined at 40 CFR
258.4.

C. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action approves State solid waste requirements pursuant to
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Section 4005 and imposes
no Federal requirements. Therefore, this rule complies with applicable
executive orders and statutory provisions as follows:
    1. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning Review--The Office of
Management and Budget has exempted this action from its review under
Executive Order (EO) 12866;
    2. Paperwork Reduction Act: This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act;
    3. Regulatory Flexibility Act: After considering the economic
impacts of today's action on small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities;

    4. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act: Because this action approves pre-
existing requirements under State law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, this
action does not contain any unfunded mandate, or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Act;
    5. Executive Order 13132: Federalism--EO 13132 does not apply to
this action because this action will not have federalism implications
(i.e., there are no substantial direct effects on States, on the
relationship between the national government and States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between Federal and State
governments);
    6. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments--EO 13175 does not apply to this action because it
will not have Tribal implications (i.e., there are no substantial
direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian Tribes);
    7. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health and Safety Risks--This action is not subject to EO 13045 because
it is not economically significant and is not based on health or safety
risks;
    8. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use--This action is not subject to EO 13211
because it is not a significant regulatory action as defined in EO
12866;
    9. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act: This provision
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impracticable. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards and bodies. EPA approves State programs
so long as the State programs meet the criteria delineated in 40 CFR
part 258. It would be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, in its
review of a State program, to require the use of any particular
voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard that meets 40
CFR part 258 requirements. Thus, the National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act does not apply to this action;
    10. Congressional Review Act: EPA will submit a report containing
this action and other information required by the Congressional Review
Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 239

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Intergovernmental relations, Waste treatment and disposal.

40 CFR Part 258

    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment disposal,
Water pollution control.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of sections
2002, 4005 and 4010(c) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 6912, 6945 and 6949(a).

    Dated: August 27, 2009.
William W. Rice,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. E9-21403 Filed 9-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 179 (Thursday, September 15, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57008-57012]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23673]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

14 CFR Part 252

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2011-0044]
RIN 2105-AE06

Smoking of Electronic Cigarettes on Aircraft

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary (OST), Department of Transportation
(DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is proposing to amend its
existing airline smoking rule to explicitly ban the use of electronic
cigarettes on all aircraft in scheduled passenger interstate,
intrastate and foreign air transportation. The Department is taking
this action because of the increased promotion of electronic cigarettes
and the potential health and passenger comfort concerns that they pose
in an aircraft. The Department is also considering whether to extend
the ban on smoking (including electronic cigarettes) to charter flights
of air carriers (i.e. U.S. carriers) and foreign air carriers with
aircraft that have a designed seating capacity of 19 or more passenger
seats.

DATES: Comments should be filed by November 14, 2011. Late-filed
comments will be considered to the extent possible.

ADDRESSES: You may file comments identified by the docket number DOT-
OST-2011-0044 by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Room W12-140, Washington, DC
20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. E.T.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: You must include the agency name and docket number
DOT-OST-2010-XXXX or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) for the
rulemaking at the beginning of your comment. All comments will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received in any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment if submitted on behalf
of an association, a business, or labor union, etc.). You may review
DOT's complete Privacy Act statement in the Federal Register published
on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura E. Jennings, Trial Attorney,
Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and
Proceedings, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave.,
SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER> (phone),<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax),
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may also contact Blane A. Workie, Deputy
Assistant General Counsel, Office of the Assistant General Counsel for
Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590, 202-
366-

9342 (phone),<PHONE_NUMBER> (fax<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Throughout this proposed rule, we use the terms ``air carrier'' and
``foreign air carrier'' as defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102, in which ``air
carrier'' is a citizen of the United States undertaking to provide air
transportation, and a ``foreign air carrier'' is a person, not a
citizen of the United States, undertaking to provide foreign air
transportation.
    The current statutory ban on smoking in scheduled interstate,
intrastate, and foreign air transportation derives from the Wendell H.
Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century or ``AIR-
21'' (Pub. L. 106-181), which was signed into law on April 5, 2000. It
included section 708, ``Prohibitions Against Smoking on Scheduled
Flights,'' and was codified as 49 U.S.C. 41706. Section 41706 states:

    (a) Smoking prohibition in intrastate and interstate air
transportation.--An individual may not smoke in an aircraft in
scheduled passenger interstate air transportation or scheduled
passenger intrastate air transportation.
    (b) Smoking prohibition in foreign air transportation.--The
Secretary of Transportation shall require all air carriers and
foreign air carriers to prohibit smoking in any aircraft in
scheduled passenger foreign air transportation.
    (c) Limitation on applicability.--
    (1) In general.--If a foreign government objects to the
application of subsection (b) on the basis that subsection (b)
provides for an extraterritorial application of the laws of the
United States, the Secretary shall waive the application of
subsection (b) to a foreign air carrier licensed by that foreign
government at such time as an alternative prohibition negotiated
under paragraph (2) becomes effective and is enforced by the
Secretary.
    (2) Alternative prohibition.--If, pursuant to paragraph (1), a
foreign government objects to the prohibition under subsection (b),
the Secretary shall enter into bilateral negotiations with the
objecting foreign government to provide for an alternative smoking
prohibition.
    (d) Regulations.--The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations
as are necessary to carry out this section.

    On June 9, 2000, the Department amended 14 CFR part 252, titled
Smoking Aboard Aircraft, to implement section 41706. See 65 FR 36772.
As a result, part 252 today bans the smoking of tobacco products on all
scheduled passenger flights of air carriers, and on all scheduled
passenger flight segments of foreign air carriers between points in the
U.S. and between the U.S. and foreign points. Foreign air carriers may
request and obtain a waiver from this requirement provided that an
alternative smoking prohibition resulting from bilateral negotiations
is in effect. Part 252 also addresses smoking on charter flights. It
permits carriers operating single entity charters to allow smoking
throughout the aircraft but requires a no-smoking section for each
class of service on other charter flights where smoking is not banned.
    Electronic cigarettes were introduced into the market in recent
years. Because of the increasing promotion and availability of
electronic cigarettes the issue has been raised as to whether the
statutory ban on smoking in section 41706 and existing regulatory
prohibition on the smoking of tobacco products in part 252 apply to
electronic cigarettes. The Department views the statutory and
regulatory ban on smoking to be sufficiently broad to include the use
of electronic cigarettes. While we view the statutory ban on smoking in
section 41706 to cover electronic cigarettes as the statutory authority
for this NPRM, we are, nonetheless, not solely relying on section
41706, which prohibits smoking aboard aircraft, but also another
statute, as was true when we amended Part 252 to implement section
41706. This statute, 49 U.S.C. 41702, mandates that an air carrier
shall provide safe and adequate interstate air transportation. We
invite all interested persons to comment.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    This NPRM proposes to amend part 252 to define smoking as the
smoking of tobacco products or use of electronic cigarettes that are
designed to deliver nicotine or other substances to a user in the form
of a vapor. The Department does not intend for the definition to
include the use of a device such as a nebulizer that delivers a
medically beneficial substance to a user in the form of a vapor.
Typically electronic cigarettes, also called ``e-cigarettes,'' are
designed to look like traditional cigarettes. E-cigarettes are
sometimes also made to look like cigars and pipes, and even everyday
products such as pens.
    Studies show thousands of people use electronic cigarettes daily,
and the products generate an estimated $100 million annually in sales.
Some are marketed as being permissible in places where cigarette use is
prohibited. Through Congressional correspondence, anecdotal evidence,
and online sources, including blogs, the Department has been made aware
that some airline passengers have used or have attempted to use
electronic cigarettes on board commercial flights. This NPRM proposes
an explicit ban on the use of electronic cigarettes that would apply to
all forms of the products, including but not limited to: Electronic
cigars, pipes, and devices designed to look like everyday products such
as pens and USB memory sticks.
    The Department views its current regulatory ban on smoking of
tobacco products on passenger flights to be sufficiently broad to
include the use of electronic cigarettes. The recent decision by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, Sottera, Inc. v. Food & Drug
Administration, 627 F.3d 891 (D.C. Cir. 2010), supports the
Department's view that electronic cigarettes are often tobacco
products. In that decision, the Court held that e-cigarettes and other
products made or derived from tobacco can be regulated as ``tobacco
products'' under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
of 2009 (Tobacco Control Act). The Tobacco Control Act broadly defines
tobacco products as extending to ``any product made or derived from
tobacco.'' However, if the products are marketed for therapeutic
purposes, the court determined that they will then be regulated as
drugs and/or devices under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
    The Department is proposing in this NPRM to explicitly ban the use
of electronic cigarettes on aircraft as there has been some confusion
over whether the Department's ban on smoking of tobacco products
includes a ban on use of electronic cigarettes. We see no reason to
treat electronic cigarettes any differently than traditional
cigarettes. The purpose behind the statutory ban on smoking aboard
aircraft and the regulatory ban in part 252 on smoking tobacco products
was to improve air quality within the aircraft, reduce the risk of
adverse health effects on passengers and crewmembers, and enhance
aviation safety and passenger comfort. Electronic cigarettes are
generally designed to look like and to be used in the same manner as
conventional cigarettes. Although a vapor, rather than smoke, is
produced, the products require an inhalation and exhalation similar to
smoking cigarettes. We are unaware of sufficient studies on the health
impact on third parties from these vapors to conclude that they would
not negatively impact the air quality within the aircraft and/or
increase the risk of adverse health effects on passengers and
crewmembers.
    Each e-cigarette consists of three parts: The replaceable
cartridge, which most often contains liquid nicotine but may contain
other chemicals, the atomizer or heating element, and the battery and
electronics. See Sottera Inc. v. Food & Drug Administration, 627 F.3d
891, 893 (D.C. Cir 2010). The

atomizer or heating element vaporizes the liquid inside the cartridge,
and the battery and electronics power the atomizer and monitor air
flow. Id. When the user inhales, the electronics detect the air flow
and activate the atomizer, the liquid nicotine is vaporized, and the
user inhales the vapor. Id.
    Some electronic cigarette companies have claimed that their
products are safe because they reportedly do not contain carcinogens or
tar or produce second-hand smoke, as there is no combustion in their
use. According to these arguments, while the vapor looks and feels, and
may taste, like smoke produced by burning traditional tobacco products,
its chemistry differs from the smoke produced from burning conventional
tobacco products. The principal liquid ingredient is propylene glycol,
which is widely used as a moistening food additive and an aid to
vaporization. However, some research, conducted on non-asthmatic
people, has shown that exposure to propylene glycol mist from
artificial smoke generators may cause acute ocular and upper airway
irritation, and in a few cases people reacted with cough and slight
airway obstruction. See G Wieslander, D Norb[auml]ck, and T Lindgren,
``Experimental exposure to propylene glycol mist in aviation emergency
training: Acute ocular and respiratory effects,'' Occupational and
Environmental Medicine 2001; 58:649-655. Further, in a recent New
England Journal of Medicine article, ``E-Cigarette or Drug-Delivery
Device? Regulating Novel Nicotine Products,'' it was noted that the
safety of inhaling propylene glycol has not been studied in humans.
365;3: 193-95.
    Researchers at the University of California, Riverside, published a
study on December 7, 2010, in which they evaluated five electronic
cigarette brands. See Anna Trtchounian & Prue Talbot, ``Electronic
nicotine delivery systems: Is there a need for regulation?'' Tobacco
Control, December 7, 2010. The study found design flaws, lack of
adequate labeling, and concerns over quality control and health issues
with respect to the products. One primary observation was that
electronic cigarette cartridges leak, which could expose nicotine to
children, adults, and the environment. The study concluded that
electronic cigarettes are potentially harmful and should be removed
from the market until their safety can be adequately evaluated.
Moreover, the New England Journal of Medicine article discussed above
echoed some of these concerns, noting that testing of cartridges
revealed poor quality control, marked variability in nicotine content,
as well as significant deviations from the content claimed on the
label. 365;3: 194-95.
    Numerous public health experts also have voiced concerns over
electronic cigarettes. Reacting to the University of California,
Riverside, study, a research administrator from the University of
California Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program stated, ``More
research on e-cigarettes is crucially needed to protect the health of
e-cigarette users and even those who do not use e-cigarettes. Contrary
to the claims of the manufacturers and marketers of e-cigarettes being
`safe,' in fact nothing is known about the toxicity of the vapors
generated by these e-cigarettes.'' See ScienceDaily.com, ``Electronic
Cigarettes are Unsafe and Pose Health Risks, Study Finds, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101203141932.htm (last visited
Mar. 8, 2011). The American Legacy Foundation issued a statement in May
2009 stating, ``We do not yet know all of the ingredients in these
products and, accordingly, the impact of those ingredients on the
health of people who `smoke' e-cigarettes or the people around them.''
A December 2010 editorial in the American Journal of Public Health
called for removal of e-cigarettes from the market, pending rigorous
safety testing.
    We note that Amtrak has banned the use of electronic smoking
devices on trains and in any area where smoking is prohibited, the Air
Force Surgeon General issued a memorandum highlighting the safety
concerns regarding electronic cigarettes and placed them in the same
category as tobacco products, and the U.S. Navy has banned them below
decks in submarines. Moreover, several states have taken steps to ban
either the sale or use of electronic cigarettes, in the absence of
federal regulation.
    The purpose behind the statutory ban on smoking aboard aircraft and
the regulatory ban in Part 252 on smoking tobacco products was to
improve air quality within the aircraft, reduce the risk of adverse
health effects on passengers and crewmembers, and enhance aviation
safety and passenger comfort. The object of the proposed rule is to
prevent introduction of a new potential source of contamination to the
cabin environment that could potentially endanger the welfare of
nonsmokers who are now protected from all such exposure. Consistent
with this underlying purpose, we are proposing this NPRM. There is a
lack of scientific data and knowledge with respect to the ingredients
in electronic cigarettes. The quantity and toxicity of exhaled vapors
have not been studied. Releasing a vapor that may contain harmful
substances or respiratory irritants in a confined space, especially to
those who are at a higher risk, is contrary to the purpose and intent
of the statutory and regulatory ban on smoking aboard aircraft.
    In light of the unknown health risks with the use of electronic
cigarettes by individuals who ``smoke'' them or the people around them
and the growing availability and use of electronic cigarettes, the
Department is proposing this amendment to Part 252 to explicitly ban
the use of electronic cigarettes aboard aircraft. The Department seeks
comments on the following: (1) Whether the definition of ``smoking'' in
the proposed rule text is too broad in that it may unintentionally
include otherwise permissible medical devices that produce a vapor; (2)
concerns over, and benefits of, the proposal to clarify the prohibition
in Part 252 to explicitly cover electronic cigarettes; and (3) any
other information or data that are relevant to the Department's
decision.
    The Department is also considering whether to extend the ban on
smoking (including electronic cigarettes) to charter flights of air
carriers and foreign air carriers between points in the U.S. and
between the U.S. and any foreign point with aircraft that have a
designed seating capacity of 19 or more passenger seats. Under the
current part 252, air carriers operating single-entity charters may
permit smoking throughout the aircraft (i.e., they are not required to
have a no-smoking section) if such a request is made by the charterer,
provided that each passenger on such flights is given notice of the
smoking procedures for the flight at the time he or she first makes
arrangements to take the flight. See 14 CFR 252.19. Part 252 permits
air carriers to allow smoking on other types of charter flights as long
as the following is provided: (1) A no-smoking section for each class
of service, (2) a sufficient number of seats in each no-smoking section
to accommodate all persons in that class of service who desire to be
seated in that section, (3) expansion of no-smoking sections to meet
passenger demand, and (4) special provisions to ensure that if a no-
smoking section is placed between smoking sections, the nonsmoking
passengers are not unreasonably burdened. See 14 CFR 252.7. The
Department is considering banning smoking on charter flights with 19 or
more passenger seats in part out of concern about the health effects of
second hand smoke on flight attendants aboard such flights. For
aircraft with fewer than 19 passenger seats, no flight

attendant is required. See 14 CFR 121.391, 14 CFR 125.269, and 14 CFR
135.107. The Department seeks comment on the benefits and drawbacks of
extending the smoking ban to charter flights of U.S. and foreign
carriers between the U.S. and any foreign point with aircraft that have
a seating capacity of 19 or more. We invite all interested persons to
comment on the issues raised in this notice.
    We note that we are not addressing in this rulemaking any other
safety-related issues that may exist with the use of electronic
cigarettes aboard aircraft (e.g., possible interference with the
navigation or communication systems of the aircraft or potential
hazards associated with the batteries that power electronic
cigarettes). In addition to the Office of the Secretary, the Federal
Aviation Administration regulates smoking aboard aircraft. The FAA,
under its safety mandate, has rules to address the safety problems that
can develop when people on board aircraft violate the statutory ban on
smoking and try to conceal their smoking. The FAA rules also address
passenger information signs and passenger briefings used to inform
passengers of the smoking prohibition. See 14 CFR 121.317, 14 CFR
129.29, and 14 CFR 135.127. Our final action will be based on the
comments and supporting evidence filed in this docket and on our own
analysis.

Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This action has been determined to be significant under Executive
Order 12866 and the Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies
and Procedures. It has been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget under that Order. We find that the benefits of the proposal
exceed its costs.
    In 2009, there were a total of 73 U.S. carriers and 101 foreign air
carriers providing service covered by the present rule. In total, these
carriers operated 782 million passenger departures. These passengers
and carriers and their employees have all benefited from protection by
the existing rule against the injurious effects of secondhand smoke.
They have also benefited from inclusion of e-cigarettes in the smoking
prohibition to the extent that exhaled vapors may be harmful (whether
or not including components of nicotine). The proposed rule would offer
incremental benefits in limiting potential pollution resulting from the
mistaken supposition that e-cigarettes are not covered by the current
no-smoking rules. As the market for these devices expands, the number
of misinformed passengers and the difficulty of reducing confusion over
the use of these devices would likely grow without this rulemaking.
    Costs of enforcement should be negligible at this time. By making
the prohibition explicit and public, the Department will relieve
carriers of much of the burden of policing violations and explaining
the rule to passengers who mistakenly believe that use of e-cigarettes
is allowed. The present system for notifying passengers of the
prohibition should need little modification, although notice that e-
cigarettes are not exempt might be appropriate at certain times, either
orally or otherwise. While a small fraction of passengers may suffer
from nicotine withdrawal, they would still have access to alternative
methods of nicotine replacement such as gum or patches that do not
release contaminants into the environment.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Pursuant to section 605 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5
U.S.C. 605(b), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
and Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), DOT certifies that this rulemaking
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The NPRM would impose no new duties or obligations on
small entities.

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This action 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, and therefore will not have federalism
implications.

D. Executive Order 13084

    This notice has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13084 (``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments''). Because the provision
on which we are seeking comment would not significantly or uniquely
affect the communities of the Indian tribal governments or impose
substantial direct compliance costs on them, the funding and
consultation requirements of Executive Order 13084 do not apply.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
requires that DOT consider the impact of paperwork and other
information collection burdens imposed on the public and, under the
provisions of PRA section 3507(d), obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information it
conducts, sponsors, or requires through regulations. DOT has determined
that there are no information collection requirements associated with
this NPRM.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Department has determined that the requirements of Title II of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this
rulemaking.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 252

    Air carriers, Aircraft, Consumer protection, Foreign air carriers,
smoking.

    Issued this 2nd day of September 2011, in Washington, DC.
Susan L. Kurland,
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department proposes
to amend 14 CFR part 252 as follows:

PART 252--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 252 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: Pub. L. 101-164; 49 U.S.C. 40102, 40109, 40113,
41701, 41702, 41706, as amended by section 708 of Pub. L 106-181,
41711, and 46301.

    2. Section 252.1 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  252.1  Purpose.

    This part implements a ban on smoking on air carrier and foreign
air carrier flights in scheduled intrastate, interstate and foreign air
transportation. It also addresses smoking on charter flights. Nothing
in this part shall be deemed to require air carriers or foreign air
carriers to permit smoking aboard aircraft.
    3. Section 252.3 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  252.3  Definitions.

    As used in this part:
    Air carrier means a carrier that is a citizen of the United States
undertaking to provide air transportation as defined in 49 U.S.C.
40102.
    Foreign air carrier means a carrier that is not a citizen of the
United States undertaking to provide foreign air transportation as
defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102.
    No-smoking section and no-smoking area means an area where smoking
of tobacco products or use of electronic cigarettes and similar
products that are

designed to deliver nicotine or other substances to a user in the form
of a vapor is prohibited.
    Smoking means the smoking of tobacco products or use of electronic
cigarettes and similar products designed to deliver nicotine or other
substances to a user in the form of a vapor. It does not include the
use of a device such as a nebulizer that delivers a medically
beneficial substance to a user in the form of a vapor.
    4. Section 252.4 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  252.4  Smoking ban: air carriers.

    Air carriers shall prohibit smoking on all scheduled passenger
flights.
    5. Section 252.8 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  252.8  Extent of smoking restrictions.

    The restrictions on smoking described in Sec. Sec.  252.4 through
252.7 shall apply to all locations within the aircraft.

[FR Doc. 2011-23673 Filed 9-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register: July 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 142)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36925]
[DOCID:fr27jy09-1]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

========================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0219; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-46-AD;
Amendment 39-15806; AD 2009-03-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC) PW206A,
PW206B, PW206B2, PW206C, PW206E, PW207C, PW207D, and PW207E Turboshaft
Engines; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting airworthiness directive (AD) 2009-03-05.
That AD applies to PWC PW206 and PW207 series turboshaft engines. We
published that AD in the Federal Register on February 20, 2009 (74 FR
7794). Paragraph (d) in the regulatory text is incorrect. This document
corrects that paragraph. In all other respects, the original document
remains the same.

DATES: Effective Date: Effective July 27, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ian Dargin, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park; Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 20, 2009 (74 FR 7794), we
published a final rule AD, FR Doc E9-3046, in the Federal Register.
That AD applies to PWC PW206A, PW206B, PW206B2, PW206C, PW206E, PW207C,
PW207D, and PW207E turboshaft engines. We need to make the following
correction:

Sec.  39.13  [Corrected]

0
On page 7795, in the third column, in the regulatory text, in the 10th
paragraph, in the fourth line, delete ``Bell 429,''.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on July 20, 2009.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E9-17599 Filed 7-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 14 (Monday, January 22, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2896-2899]
[FR Doc No: 2018-00999]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0719; Product Identifier 2017-NE-22-AD; Amendment
39-19163; AD 2018-02-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Division Turbofan
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D,
PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 turbofan engines. This AD was prompted by
the discovery of multiple cracked outer diffuser cases. This AD
requires initial and repetitive inspections to detect cracks in the
outer diffuser case and removal from service of cases that fail
inspection. We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on
these products.

DATES: This AD is effective February 26, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of February 26,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Pratt & Whitney Division, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT
06118; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may view this
service information at the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch,
1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA. 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-2017-0719.

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-
0719; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Document Operations, 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: Jo-Ann Theriault, Aerospace Engineer,
ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:
781-238-7105; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

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 PW PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077,
PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 turbofan engines. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on August 25, 2017 (82 FR 40514). The
NPRM was prompted by the discovery of multiple cracked outer diffuser
cases. The NPRM proposed to require initial and repetitive inspections
to detect cracks in the outer diffuser case and removal from service of
cases that fail inspection. We are issuing this AD to correct the
unsafe condition on these products.

Comments

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

Request To Change Compliance

    PW requested that we change the effective date of the 1,000 cycle
drawdown to ``within 1,000 flight cycles from March 31, 2017'', to
coincide with PW Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) PW4G-112-A72-347, rather
than ``within 1,000 flight cycles from the effective date of this AD''.
PW stated that making the 1,000 cycle drawdown effective March 31,
2017, rather than the effective date of this AD, maintains the same
level of risk.
    We disagree with changing the effective date of the 1,000 cycle
drawdown to ``within 1,000 flight cycles from March 31, 2017'', to
coincide with PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-347 because we cannot force mandatory
action based on dates in the past. Mandatory action must be based on
the effective date of this AD. In addition, we determined that basing
the initial inspection and the inspection interval on the effective
date of this AD maintains an acceptable level of safety. We did not
change this AD.

Request To Add Credit for Previous Actions

    PW and United Airlines (UAL) requested that we add Credit for
Previous Actions to allow operators to take credit for inspections
performed per PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-347, dated March 31, 2017 prior to
the effective date of this AD.
    We disagree. Since use of PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-347, dated March 31,
2017, is required in the compliance section of this AD, we do not need
to reference this SB in the Credit for Previous Actions paragraph.
Inspections performed per PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-347 prior to the
effective date of this AD meet the criteria of ``unless already done''
in the compliance section of this AD.

Request To Change Definitions

    UAL requested that we define ``engine disassembly'' as ``when the M
flange is split''. UAL reasoned that this would clarify the compliance
requirements for operators and is consistent with PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-
347, dated March 31, 2017.
    We agree. Defining ``engine disassembly'' clarifies compliance
requirements for operators. We added a Definition paragraph to this AD.

Request To Change Compliance Time

    UAL requested that we add a third option for the initial inspection
so that it could be performed prior to accumulating 13,000 cycles since
new, or within 1,000 cycles from the effective date of this AD, or
within 2,000 cycles since the last outer diffuser case piece-part
fluorescent penetration inspection (FPI), whichever occurs later.
    We partially agree. We agree with giving operator's credit for
inspections done at piece-part exposure because if the outer diffuser
case was inspected at piece-part exposure and passed inspection, it
meets the initial inspection requirement mandated by this AD. We added
a ``Credit for Previous Actions'' paragraph to this AD. Therefore, we
disagree with adding the third option to the initial inspection
compliance time specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

Request To Change Compliance

    UAL requested that we identify the outer diffuser case piece-part
level FPI done in accordance with PW Cleaning, Inspection and Repair
(CIR) Manual 72-41-13, Inspection/Check-02, as an acceptable means of
compliance for the repetitive inspections. UAL reasoned that when the
outer diffuser case is at piece-part level, PW CIR Manual 72-41-13,
Inspection/Check-02, is performed. The piece-part level FPI is
equivalent to the high sensitivity module level inspection provided in
PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-347, dated March 31, 2017.
    We agree. Inspections performed at piece-part exposure maintain an
acceptable level of safety because the piece-part level FPI specified
in PW CIR Manual Part Number 51A750, section 72-41-13, Inspection/
Check-02 is equivalent to the inspection mandated by this AD. Since we
did not incorporate by reference a particular FPI process
specification, a high sensitivity FPI using the methods, techniques,
and practices equivalent to the current manufacturer's maintenance
manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness satisfy both the
initial and repetitive requirements of this AD. We did not change this
AD.

Request To Change Service Information

    PW requested that we change the service information reference from
PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-347, dated March 31, 2017, to PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-
347, Revision No. 1, dated October 26, 2017. PW stated that the SB has
been revised to provide inspection clarifications requested by
operators.
    We disagree. We did not include PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-347, Revision
No. 1, dated October 26, 2017, since the risk analysis was based on the
original ASB and we did not have the opportunity to give the public a
chance to comment on this revision. We did not change this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this final rule with the changes described previously. 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.
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-347, dated March 31, 2017. This PW
ASB provides guidance on performing outer diffuser case FPIs. 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.

Other Related Service Information

    We reviewed PW4000 Series (112 Inch) Engine CIR Manual, Part Number
51A750, Revision Number 74, section

72-41-13, Inspection/Check-02, dated July 15, 2017. This manual section
provides guidance on performing a high sensitivity FPI of the outer
diffuser case at piece-part exposure.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 121 engines installed on airplanes
of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tt3 boss inspection...................  3.5 work-hours x $85 per              $0         $297.50      $35,997.50
                                         hour = $297.50.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacements
that would be required based on the results of the proposed inspection.
We estimate six cases will need to be replaced in the domestic fleet.

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                 Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPI Inspection of outer diffuser case......  10 work-hours x $85 per hour = $850              $0            $850
Replacement of outer diffuser case.........  $0.................................         750,000         750,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    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 engines, propellers, and
associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

Regulatory Findings

    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 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 adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2018-02-10 Pratt & Whitney Division: Amendment 39-19163; Docket No.
FAA-2017-0719; Product Identifier 2017-NE-22-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective February 26, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) PW4074,
PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 turbofan
engines with outer diffuser case, part number (P/N) 50J775 or P/N
50J930, installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7240, Turbine Engine
Combustion Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by the discovery of multiple cracked outer
diffuser cases. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the
outer diffuser case. The unsafe condition, if not corrected, could
result in failure of the outer diffuser case, uncontained case
release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Perform an initial high sensitivity fluorescent penetrant
inspection (FPI) of the outer diffuser case T3 thermocouple probe
boss (Tt3 boss) prior to accumulating 13,000 cycles since new (CSN),
or within 1,000 flight cycles from the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later. If the case CSN is unknown, inspect within
1,000 flight cycles from the effective date of this AD.

    (2) Thereafter, repeat the high sensitivity FPI of the outer
diffuser case Tt3 boss within 2,000 flight cycles since the last
FPI.
    (3) If an indication is found during the inspections required by
paragraphs (g)(1) or (2) of this AD, re-inspect or remove the outer
diffuser case from service as follows:
    (i) For engines installed on-wing, re-inspect or remove in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, Part A, paragraph
1.G., of PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-347, dated March 31, 2017.
    (ii) For assembled engines not installed on-wing, re-inspect or
remove in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, Part B,
paragraph 1.C., of PW ASB PW4G-112-A72-347, dated March 31, 2017.
    (iii) For disassembled engines, if any cracks are found, remove
the outer diffuser case from service before further flight.
    (4) Within 30 days of the effective date of this AD, update the
mandatory inspections of the Airworthiness Limitations Section (ALS)
of your Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to include the
piece-part inspections of the diffuser case as defined in Figure 1
to paragraph (g) of this AD.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JA18.001

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    You may take credit for the high sensitivity FPI of the outer
diffuser case Tt3 boss that is required by paragraph (g)(1) of this
AD if you performed a high sensitivity FPI of the outer diffuser
case at piece-part exposure before the effective date of this AD,
using PW4000 Series (112 Inch) Engine CIR Manual, P/N 51A750,
section 72-41-13, Inspection/Check-02, dated July 15, 2017.

(i) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, an engine is considered disassembled
any time the ``M'' flange is separated.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO 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
ECO Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in
paragraph (k)(1) of this AD. You may email your request to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Jo-Ann
Theriault, Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District
Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 781-238-
7199; email: [email protected].
    (2) PW4000 Series (112 Inch) Engine CIR Manual, Part Number
51A750, Revision Number 74, section 72-41-13, Inspection/Check-02,
dated July 15, 2017, which is not incorporated by reference in this
AD, can be obtained from PW, using the contact information in
paragraph (l)(3) of this AD.

(l) 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Pratt & Whitney (PW) Alert Service Bulletin PW4G-112-A72-
347, dated March 31, 2017.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For PW service information identified in this AD, contact
Pratt & Whitney Division, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06118;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine and
Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) 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 Burlington, Massachusetts, on January 12, 2018.
Robert J. Ganley,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-00999 Filed 1-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P