" HARADA, HIDEMI" < hi harada@ mail. nissan. co. jp> Transmission Date: 03/ 31/ 2005 07: 49: 20 PM To: Alan Stout/ AA/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Subject: RE: Nissan) Request of solution on gasoline fuel cap " Requirement Conflict".

Dear Mr. Alan Stout, EPA Thank you very much for the prompt reply on this matter. We agree with your indication to solve the problem. We would investigate more and propose the limit.

Best Regards,

H. Harada Unit Planning Section Engineering Department Industrial Machinery Division Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TEL : + 81 46 252 3243 FAX : + 81 46 252 3313 E mail : hi harada@ mail. nissan. co. jp " HARADA, HIDEMI" < hiharada mail. nissan. co. jp> Received Date: 03/ 29/ 2005 03: 26: 40 AM Transmission Date: 03/ 29/ 2005 03: 26: 40 AM To: Alan Stout/ AA/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Subject: Nissan Request of solution on gasoline fuel cap " Requirement Conflict".

Dear Mr. Alan Stout, EPA We would like to inform the " Requirement Conflict" on gasoline fuel cap spec. what we encounter.

We received UL's reply on venting requirement UL558 section 26( Fill and Vent Fittings Self Closing Type) as attached because the paper language is hard to understand for us.

As a result, UL says " Some venting is necessary between 0 and  1.5 psi to prevent buildup of negative pressure in the tank in excess of  1.5 psi". On the other hand, EPA require " No venting between 0 and  1.5 psi". This means there is " Requirement Conflict" between UL and EPA for the negative pressure area.

We summarized the venting requirement on excel file" SummaryOfVentingSpec 050329". We would like to raise the problem that we need the realistic solution like Idea 1, 2 or 3 to meet both EPA and UL requirement. We need some range of venting pressure to consider the fluctuation to set the relief pressure technically. We think this is not one company's problem. This is the problem of Standards Building.

So, would you please show us the solution on this issue?

Best Regards,

H. Harada Unit Planning Section Engineering Department Industrial Machinery Division Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

TEL : + 81 46 252 3243 FAX : + 81 46 252 3313 E mail : hi harada@ mail. nissan. co. jp  Original Message From: Robert. E. Pence@ us. ul. com [ mailto: Robert. E. Pence@ us. ul. com] Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 2: 38 AM To: HARADA, HIDEMI Cc: Christopher. James@ us. ul. com; UL/ MrFrederickFiedler ( E mail); HIRATO, HIROYUKI; SUZUKI, HIROSHI Subject: Re: FW: FW: Nissan) Request of UL558 section26, venting requirement of gasoline fuel cap Dear Harada san,

The Standard does not prohibit the the cap from allowing air to enter the tank as a vacuum or negative pressure develops. It appears that this must be allowed between 0 psi and  1.5psi in order to prevent negative pressure in the tank from exceeding  1.5psi. I am not sure how this relates to the EPA requirements, but our validation of the cap operation is done by test.

My understanding of the UL 558 tests: Venting is required above 5 psi Venting must be observed between 3.5 and 5.0 psi Venting is allowed above 1.5 psi No Venting should occur between 0 and 1.5psi Some venting is necessary between 0 and  1.5 psi to prevent buildup of negative pressure in the tank in excess of  1.5 psi.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Thanks Robert E. Pence, PE Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. ( 847) 272 8800 ext. 42711 or ( 847) 664  2711 Fax: ( 847) 509 6298


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D. C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES MEMORANDUM DATE: March 29, 2006 DP Barcode: 327264 PC Code: 128821 SUBJECT: EFED responses to Imazapyr Phase 3 Comments FROM: Stephen Carey, Biologist Lucy Shanaman, Chemist Pamela Hurley, Toxicologist Environmental Fate and Effects Division Environmental Risk Branch III ( 7507C)

THRU: Daniel Rieder, Branch Chief Environmental Fate and Effects Division Environmental Risk Branch III ( 7507C)

TO: Eric Olson, Team Reviewer Special Review Registration Division The Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( EFED) has completed its review of the Imazapyr Phase 3 Comments. In this document, EFED provides its response to comments from BASF, California Indian Basketweavers Association, & Nebraska Department of Agriculture.

1) Response to BASF comments BASF is concerned about the procedures that EPA has used in performing the assessment for nontarget terrestrial and semi aquatic plants. Specifically, EPA has used BANKS ( 1988) MRID No. 40811801 for the effects endpoints. EPA considers the study supplemental or invalid ( Table IIIC 14, p. 56). Elsewhere in the text ( p. 10) , EPA refers to the study as supplemental and highlights that the plants were stressed and that wet weight was measured instead of dry weight.

EPA response: The study was categorized as supplemental due to stress and EPA test guidelines require dry weight and height measurements. However, the results were considered useful for risk assessment despite the deficiencies.

BASF comment: There are several other points that should be mentioned regarding the study. First, the study was done with technical a. i. diluted in acetone. EPA typically requires that nontarget plant tests be done with a representative formulation. BASF points out the Feutz and Canez study ( MRID No. 43889101) was done with the 2ASU formulation.

EPA response: The Agency determined that the Banks study ( MRID 40811801) was tested with TEP, which included a surfactant, Tween 20, and the Feutz and Canez study ( MRID 43889101) was tested without any surfactant( s). The Banks study was tested with an adjuvant thus making it more representative of a TEP than the Feutz and Canez study with salt alone. Another reason the Agency did not use the Feutz and Canez study was that it was only conducted with 3 species as opposed to the required 10 species.

BASF comment: Second, the report calculates EC25 and EC50 values using simple linear regression. It appears that EPA has calculated the EC05 values used in the assessment. However, there are no details provided as to the model used or the fit of that model to the data. BASF is unaware of a DER for the Banks study.

EPA response: Based on the October 21, 1994 memorandum; the lack of a No Observed Adverse Effect Concentration ( NOAEC) will not invalidate a terrestrial plant study as long as the slope is adequate for calculation of valid EC50, EC25, and EC05 values from the most sensitive endpoints. Studies that lack a NOAEC but meet the above criteria will be classified supplemental.

However, most of the invalid NOAECs were calculated to be above the EC25, the EC05 was obtained from the Bruce and Versteeg method. Therefore, the Agency calculated EC05s with which to assess potential effects to endangered species.

Statistical Method: Data for plant length, and shoot weight for the seedling emergence and vegetative vigor tests were analyzed to determine the NOAEC, EC05, EC25, and slope values. Continuous data ( height and weight) were assessed for normality and homogeneity of variance prior to all analyses. Treatment effects were assessed using Williams' tests. The ECx estimates were done using the Bruce and Versteeg method via Nuthatch software. The Seedling Emergence and Vegetative Vigor DERs for the Banks and Feutz/ Canez studies are attached 2) Response to comments on Imazapyr from the California Indian Basketweavers Association Issue 1 pertained to tolerance setting, EFED is only responding to issues 2 7.

Response to Issue 2: The information available to the Agency on usage of imazapyr on forests indicated it would only be applied 1 2 times in multiple years, ie 10 years, or 20 30 years. However, our exposure and risk modeling is not affected ( reduced) by that assumption. We modeled a single application and drew conclusions of risk based on that application. For risk to terrestrial plants, repeat applications in different parts of a watershed would not result in higher, local exposure or risk because the terrestrial plant scenario is at the field level. Other treatments in other fields, whether in the same watershed or not, would still be represented at the field level by the model. For aquatic risk, a single application resulted in a conclusion of significant risk for plants. The scenario modeled was actually a pond, with no inflow or outflow, so it would not take into account the dilution that would occur in a watershed stream. The scenario modeled also assumed the entire watershed was treated at one time. So the multiple applications that might be possible in different areas of a given watershed would be unlikely to result in higher exposures than calculated using the tier one surface exposure model GENEEC2.

Response to Issue 2 cont'd: The application rates were those available to Agency based on label analysis. Applications at rates higher than the label were not assessed. The model used by the Agency at this screening level is not capable of modeling multiple applications to different parts of a given watershed. See the comment above discussing the nature of the scenario modeled by the Agency that assumes 100% of a watershed is treated simultaneously. The EECs presented are considered to be representative of the exposure from forestry use under conditions that maximize exposure. Response to Issue 3: The Agency risk assessment did not model the exposure from forestry use or any other use pattern in any way assuming setbacks or buffers from waterbodies. Our model assumed treatment occurred adjacent to the waterbody in which EECs were estimated.

Response to Issue 3 cont'd: In response to the concern for downstream indirect effects, this is taken into account in the Agency risk assessment where it discusses indirect affects, it mentions effects due to loss of habitat. The outcome from loss of habitat would be potential loss of vegetation and possibly increased sedimentation. At this stage of the Agency's assessment for endangered species, the specific possible impacts from indirect effects have not been fully explored, and remain a possibility.

Response to Issue 3 cont'd: The degree to which the 100 yard buffer would reduce risk is uncertain in that exposure is expected to occur both from drift and runoff. Buffers that are effective to reduce spray drift may not be effective to reduce runoff. However, it is assumed, as a general principle, that any setback from water bodies would reduce the probability and possibly the level of exposure in that waterbody.

As noted in the science chapter discussion of this incident, because of the mode of action of imazapyr, and the way it affects the ALS enzyme, which is only found in plants, it is considered unlikely that imazapyr itself directly killed birds and fish. It is likely this incident reflects consequences of exposure to other pesticides also applied. However, this does not diminish the possibility of adverse effects to plant communities that might adversely affect animals living in, or depending on these plants. Response to Issue 4: This comment is reflected in the science chapter's risk conclusions. The Agency is not aware that imazapyr is used in the practice of converting native forest to tree farms. However, labeled uses were modeled, and the exposure from such a treatment would not be different than what was modeled in the Agency's risk assessment assuming it is used according to the label.

Response to Issue 5: The information obtained by the Agency either indicated single applications of imazapyr, or did not specify the number of applications. Since even with a single application, risk was concluded for aquatic plants from the roadside or rights of way use. If multiple applications were permitted, the risk numbers might be higher, but the pattern of LOC exceedances would not change. Multiple applications may also extend the duration of risk; however, the model would not show the effect of this increased duration. It is also important to note that the modeling used to assess the roadside use pattern assumed a large contiguous treated area that would take into account repeated sequential applications.

Response to Issue 6: As indicated earlier, assessing risk to terrestrial organisms from multiple applications in different parts of a watershed would not result in higher exposure to local habitats since exposure to terrestrial plants is not linked to a watershed scenario. As for assessing risk to plants from formulations, currently the Agency assesses risk based on toxicity from formulations or of mixtures of ai with adjuvants to account for the influence of the formulations. So the potential effects of formulations in the environment is accounted for in the toxicity data. Exposure to plants is expressed in ai or ae, but is estimated assuming a formulation was applied. As for assessing risk from mixtures, the Agency does not currently have a process to assess risk from and regulate based on mixtures.

Response to Issue 7: The comment presents statements from the Agency risk assessment. It should be clarified that the phrase " It is accepted" does not connotate that the risk represented by the toxicity is " accepted" from a regulatory standpoint. The phrase means the information is " accepted" from a scientific standpoint.

3) Comments from Pesticide Program, Nebraska Dept of Agriculture The Agency acknowledges this error, and has modified the endangered species list, Appendix H. 4) EFED deferred response to error only comments concerning aquatic exposure estimations ( pp. 4 6)

BASF responded that the Agency chose to use GENEEC as the aquatic exposure estimation model when a suitable Forestry/ Non crop Tier II scenario and a corn scenarios exists, and then requested that a Tier II exposure assessment be conducted.

EFED Response: The corn scenario used by BASF is only one of 10 standard scenarios available for Tier II aquatic modeling, and would not be representative of all use sites nationally. Additionally, the application rate for use of Imazapyr on corn is much lower than labeled use rates for non food uses that there is little benefit in investing the degree of effort necessary to conduct a Tier II evaluation for corn.

The forestry scenario cited by BASF as a suitable non crop scenario was developed for the OP cumulative assessment, and was not intended to be representative enough of typical use sites to be used in a national assessment. An informal range finding experiment was conducted by running the Agency Oregon Christmas tree scenario using weather data files for other geographic locations. Varying only the meteorological data resulted in a great deal of variation in estimated concentrations. These results indicated that a suitable Forestry/ Non crop scenario is not currently available, and new scenarios would need to be developed in order to conduct a Tier II aquatic assessment for Imazapyr.

BASF then requested that a " correction factor" be applied to the estimated concentrations, and cited an article by Jackon et al as justification for applying the factor.

EFED Response: In a prepublication peer review for the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Elizabeth Behl and Nelson Thurman submitted comments reflecting Agency analysis of an article titled Comparison of Regulatory Method Estimated Drinking Water Exposure Concentrations with Monitoring Results from Surface Water Supplies written by Scott Jackson, BASF Corporation et al. A summary of those comments, outlining Agency concerns about suggestions regarding the application of a correction factor for modeled estimated surface water concentrations proposed in that article appears below.

The basis of the comparison made in this article is fundamentally flawed. The endpoints derived from Agency modeling and the reported monitoring results are wholly different. For the conclusions presented in this article to be valid, the authors would have needed to demonstrate that the monitoring data used for the comparisons represented the full range of use conditions for each of the pesticides used in the comparison. The paper did not provide adequate detail about ( 1) the differences in the endpoints for modeling and monitoring, ( 2) the assumptions and inputs used in modeling, or ( 3) the design of the monitoring study. It did not describe the nature of the EPA models, or how these models are used. These details are important in interpretation of results, in supporting both the author's recommendations to develop adjustment factors, and the author's judgment on the validity of the conceptual model. Additionally, the author's description of how EPA's endpoints are derived was inadequate. Application rates, application frequencies, and percentage cropped area adjustment factors used in modeling should have closely represented actual pesticide use and usage in each of the 12 watersheds monitored. This could not be determined because the authors had not provided the information necessary to interpret monitoring study results. The study authors failed to compare a representative monitoring dataset to the screening model estimates, did not design the monitoring to capture a maximum concentration from a large rainfall event, and did not provide details of pesticide usage in the watershed. As a result, statistical analysis of the data cannot provide meaningful results. Given the flaws in the overall methodology used for comparison, the adjustment factor development has no basis, and conclusions about the adequacy of EPA's conceptual model for water modeling is not supported by the published analysis.

In summary, the authors of the report merely ran the Agency aquatic screening models for every chemical included on USGS's analytical list, whether the pesticides were actually used in any of the watersheds or not. Then they compared those screening level estimates, which are intended to represent a 1 in 10 year concentration in an intensive use area, to whatever concentrations where reported in an 18 month study covering 12 reservoirs. These 12 reservoirs weren't necessarily representative of high pesticide use areas ( it definitely underrepresented midwestern reservoirs, which are generally more vulnerable because of the intensity of agriculture), and were certainly not representative of particularly runoff prone rainfall years. Indeed, many of the reservoirs were sampled during drought periods ( from the USGS report). From that analysis, they derived a " correction" factor that, at best, is only applicable to those 12 reservoirs during lower than normal rainfall years. That's not particularly conducive to leading to a reasonable certainty of no harm.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 13, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58682-58683]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26874]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0181]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and
Seizure Disorders

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt five individuals from
the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have
``no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or
any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or
any loss of ability to control a CMV.'' The exemptions enable these
individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-
seizure medication to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on November 14, 2017. The
exemptions expire on November 14, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], 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.,
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

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

II. Background

    On October 11, 2017, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of
applications from five individuals requesting an exemption from the
epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) and
requested comments from the public (82 FR 47299). The public comment
period ended on November 13, 2017, and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that granting exemptions to these individuals would achieve
a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level that would be
achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which
is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to
control a CMV.
    In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory
criteria \1\ to assist medical examiners in determining whether drivers
with certain medical conditions are qualified to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce. [49 CFR part 391, APPENDIX A TO PART 391--MEDICAL
ADVISORY CRITERIA, section H. Epilepsy: Sec.  391.41(b)(8), paragraphs
3, 4, and 5.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=e47b48a9ea42dd67d999246e23d97970&mc=true&node=pt49.5.391&rgn=div5#ap49.5.391_171.a and https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2015-title49-vol5/pdf/CFR-2015-title49-vol5-part391-appA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the epilepsy and seizure disorder prohibition in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8) if the exemption is likely to achieve an equivalent or
greater level of safety than would be achieved without the exemption.
The exemption allows the applicants to operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.
    In reaching the decision to grant these exemption requests, FMCSA
considered the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert
Panel (MEP). The January 15, 2013, Federal Register notice (78 FR 3069)
provides the current MEP recommendations which is the criteria the
Agency uses to grant seizure exemptions.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on an individualized assessment of each applicant's medical
information, including the root cause of the respective seizure(s) and
medical information about the applicant's seizure history, the length
of time that has elapsed since the individual's last seizure, the
stability of each individual's treatment regimen and the duration of
time on or off of anti-seizure medication. In addition, the Agency
reviewed the treating clinician's medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV with a history of seizure
and each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial Driver's
License Information System (CDLIS) for commercial driver's license
(CDL) holders, and interstate and

intrastate inspections recorded in the Motor Carrier Management
Information System (MCMIS). For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviewed
the driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency (SDLA). A
summary of each applicant's seizure history was discussed in the
October 11, 2017 Federal Register notice (82 FR 47299) and will not be
repeated in this notice.
    These five applicants have been seizure-free over a range of 23
years while taking anti-seizure medication and maintained a stable
medication treatment regimen for the last two years. In each case, the
applicant's treating physician verified his or her seizure history and
supports the ability to drive commercially.
    The Agency acknowledges the potential consequences of a driver
experiencing a seizure while operating a CMV. However, the Agency
believes the drivers granted this exemption have demonstrated that they
are unlikely to have a seizure and their medical condition does not
pose a risk to public safety.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the epilepsy and seizure disorder prohibition in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(8) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to that
existing without the exemption.

IV. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must remain seizure-free and maintain a stable treatment
during the two-year exemption period; (2) each driver must submit
annual reports from their treating physicians attesting to the
stability of treatment and that the driver has remained seizure-free;
(3) each driver must undergo an annual medical examination by a
certified Medical Examiner, as defined by 49 CFR 390.5; and (4) each
driver must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the
employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a
copy of his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed.
The driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official.

V. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the five exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorder
prohibition, 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8), subject to the requirements cited
above:

Gary T. Clark (KY)
Gary J. Gress (PA)
Joseph R. Lamkin (KY)
Kenneth L. Lewis (NC)
Sean C. Moran (MA)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), each exemption will be
valid for two years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by
FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The
person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption;
(2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was
maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136 and 31315.

    Issued on: December 6, 2017.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-26874 Filed 12-12-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 115 (Tuesday, June 16, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34247-34249]
[FR Doc No: 2015-14415]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-2119; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-005-AD;
Amendment 39-18179; AD 2015-05-51]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Agusta S.p.A. (Agusta) Helicopters

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are publishing a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Agusta Model A109A and A109A II helicopters, which was sent previously
to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters. This AD
requires replacing a certain part-numbered blade with an approved part-
numbered blade. This AD is prompted by an error in the Illustrated
Parts Catalog (IPC) that incorrectly allows installation of a certain
part-numbered blade on the affected helicopters. These actions are
intended to prevent blade failure and subsequent loss of control of the
helicopter.

DATES: This AD becomes effective July 1, 2015 to all persons except
those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by Emergency AD
2015-05-51, issued on March 3, 2015, which contained the requirements
of this AD.
    We must receive comments on this AD by August 17, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Send comments to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to the ``Mail'' address between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) AD, any comments received, and other information. The
street address for the Docket Operations Office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact
AgustaWestland, Product Support Engineering, Via del Gregge, 100, 21015
Lonate Pozzolo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Maurizio D'Angelo; telephone 39-0331-
664757; fax 39-0331-664680; or at http://www.agustawestland.com/technical-bulletins. You may review the referenced service information
at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601
Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martin Crane, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth,
Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments prior to it becoming effective. However, we
invite you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. We also invite comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or federalism impacts that resulted
from adopting this AD. The most helpful comments reference a specific
portion of the AD, explain the reason for any recommended change, and
include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain
duplicate comments, commenters should send only one copy of written
comments, or if comments are filed electronically, commenters should
submit them only one time. We will file in the docket all comments that
we receive, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking during the
comment period. We will consider all the comments we receive and may
conduct additional rulemaking based on those comments.

Discussion

    On March 3, 2015, we issued Emergency AD 2015-05-51 to correct an
unsafe condition for Agusta Model A109A helicopters, serial numbers
7154 through 7255, and for all Model A109A II helicopters. Emergency AD
2015-05-51 requires replacing blade part number (P/N) 109-0103-01-7
with blade P/N 109-0103-01-9 or 109-0103-01-115. The emergency AD was
sent previously to all known U.S. owners and operators of these
helicopters. This action was prompted by an error in the IPC that
allows installing blade P/N 109-0103-01-7 on certain serial-numbered
Model A109A helicopters and on Model A109A II helicopters.
    Emergency AD 2015-05-51 was prompted by Emergency AD No. 2015-0025-
E, dated February 18, 2015, issued by EASA, which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe
condition for certain serial-numbered Agusta Model A109A and all Model
A109A II helicopters. EASA advises of the installation of blade P/N
109-0103-01-7 on Model A109A II helicopters. In a subsequent
investigation, it was determined that blade P/N 109-0103-01-7 is only
eligible for installation on Model A109A helicopters up to serial
number (S/N) 7153. EASA states that for Model A109A and A109A II
helicopters, the current IPC incorrectly allows installing blade P/N
109-0103-01-7 on all helicopters. The EASA AD requires identifying each
blade P/N 109-0103-01-7 and replacing it with P/N 109-0103-01-9 or P/N
109-0103-01-115. The EASA AD also prohibits installing blade P/N 109-
0103-01-7 on Model A109A helicopters from S/N 7154 through 7255
inclusive and on all Model A109A II helicopters.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of
Italy and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to
our bilateral agreement with Italy, EASA, its technical representative,
has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the EASA EAD. We
are issuing this AD because we evaluated all information provided by
EASA and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist
or develop on other helicopters of these same type designs.

Related Service Information

    AgustaWestland Alert Bollettino Tecnico No. 109-142, dated February
17, 2015, specifies determining whether the affected part-numbered
blade is installed and, if installed, replacing it with blade P/N 109-
0103-01-9 or P/N 109-0103-01-115. Also, the service information states
that AgustaWestland has updated the A109A/AII IPC to give the correct
information about the applicable configuration.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires, before further flight, replacing blade P/N 109-
0103-01-7 with blade P/N 109-0103-01-9 or 109-0103-01-115.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 34 helicopters of U.S.
Registry.
    We estimate that operators may incur the following costs in order
to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per hour. We
estimate 1 work hour to replace a blade and $143,000 for required
parts, for a total cost of $143,085 per blade.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adopting
these AD requirements would delay implementing the safety actions
needed to correct this known unsafe condition. Therefore, we found and
continue to find that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving
notice and comment prior to the adoption of this rule because the
previously described unsafe condition can adversely affect the
controllability of the helicopter and the required action must be
accomplished before further flight.
    Since an unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate
adoption of this AD, we determined that notice and opportunity for
public comment before issuing this AD are impracticable and contrary to
the public interest and that good cause existed for making the AD
effective immediately by Emergency AD 2015-05-51, issued on March 3,
2015, to all known U.S. owners and operators of these helicopters.
These conditions still exist and the AD is hereby published in the
Federal Register as an amendment to section 39.13 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 39.13) to make it effective to all
persons.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed, 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 to the extent that
it justifies making a regulatory distinction; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared an economic evaluation of the estimated costs to comply
with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

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):

2015-05-51 Agusta S.p.A.: Amendment 39-18179; Docket No. FAA-2015-
2119; Directorate Identifier 2015-SW-005-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Model A109A helicopters, serial numbers (S/N)
7154 through 7255, and all Model A109A II helicopters, with a main
rotor blade (blade) part number (P/N) 109-0103-01-7 installed,
certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as the installation of a
blade that does not meet type design. This condition could result in
blade failure and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective July 1, 2015 to all persons except
those persons to whom it was made immediately effective by EAD 2015-
05-51, issued on March 3, 2015, which contained the requirements of
this AD.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    Before further flight, replace each blade with blade P/N 109-
0103-01-9 or 109-0103-01-115.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Martin Crane, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    (1) AgustaWestland Alert Bollettino Tecnico No. 109-142, dated
February 17, 2015, which is not incorporated by reference, contains
additional information about the subject of this AD. For a copy of
the service information referenced in this AD, contact:
AgustaWestland, Product Support Engineering, Via del Gregge, 100,
21015 Lonate Pozzolo (VA) Italy, ATTN: Maurizio D'Angelo; telephone
39-0331-664757; fax 39-0331-664680; or at http://www.agustawestland.com/technical-bulletins. You may review the
referenced service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional
Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth,
Texas 76137.
    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA) Emergency AD No. 2015-0025-E, dated February
18, 2015. You may view the EASA AD on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2015-2119.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code: 6210 Main Rotor
Blades.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on June 2, 2015.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-14415 Filed 6-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 68265]
[DOCID:fr23de09-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-409-000]

Covanta Energy Marketing LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

December 16, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Covanta Energy Marketing LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is January 5, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-30462 Filed 12-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P