[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 41 (Thursday, March 2, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13139-13140]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04292]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4683-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

California; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of California (FEMA-4683-DR), dated January 14,
2023, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued January 14, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated January 14, 2023, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in the State of California
resulting from severe winter storms, flooding, landslides, and
mudslides beginning on December 27, 2022, and continuing, is of
sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of California.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance and
assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures
(Categories A and B), including direct Federal assistance, under the
Public Assistance program in the designated areas, Hazard Mitigation
throughout the State, and any other forms of assistance under the
Stafford Act that you deem appropriate subject to completion of
Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs).
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and Other Needs Assistance
under section 408 will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible cost.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Andrew F. Grant, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of California have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Merced, Sacramento, and Santa Cruz Counties for Individual
Assistance.
    Merced, Sacramento, and Santa Cruz Counties for debris removal
and emergency protective measures (Categories A and B), including
direct federal assistance under the Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of California are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance

(Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation
Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-04292 Filed 3-1-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 17, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16850-16851]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07997]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: ER13-1485-009; ER10-1992-018; ER10-3230-009; ER10-
3232-008; ER10-3237-009; ER10-3239-009; ER10-3240-009; ER10-3251-011;
ER10-3253-009; ER13-1586-012; ER14-1777-008; ER14-2382-011; ER14-2871-
011; ER15-110-010; ER15-2722-005; ER15-463-010; ER15-621-010; ER15-622-
010; ER16-1129-004; ER16-1130-004; ER16-1131-004; ER16-1132-004; ER16-
182-006; ER16-72-006; ER16-902-002; ER17-1574-001; ER17-1785-001; ER17-
47-003; ER17-48-003; ER18-47-001
    Applicants: Wheelabrator Baltimore, L.P., Wheelabrator Bridgeport,
L.P., Wheelabrator Falls Inc., Wheelabrator Frackville Energy Company
Inc., Wheelabrator North Andover Inc., Wheelabrator Portsmouth Inc.,
Wheelabrator Saugus Inc., Wheelabrator Shasta Energy Company Inc.,
Wheelabrator Westchester, L.P., Cameron Ridge, LLC, Cameron Ridge II,
LLC, Coachella Wind, LLC, DifWind Farms Limited I, DifWind Farms
Limited II, DifWind Farms Limited V, DifWind Farms LTD VI, EUI
Affiliate LLC, Oak Creek Wind Power, LLC, ON Wind Energy LLC, Pacific
Crest Power, LLC, Ridgetop Energy, LLC, San Gorgonio Westwinds II, LLC,
San Gorgonio Westwinds II--Windustries, LLC, Terra-Gen Energy Services,
LLC, Terra-Gen Mojave Windfarms, LLC, TGP Energy Management, LLC,
Victory Garden Phase IV, LLC, Voyager Wind I, LLC, Voyager Wind II,
LLC, VPI Enterprises, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the ECP MBR Sellers.
    Filed Date: 4/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180409-5338.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-1619-004.
    Applicants: Cottonwood Energy Company LP.
    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filing Regarding
Upstream Change in Control to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 4/11/18.
    Accession Number: 20180411-5076.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER14-2080-001.
    Applicants: Louisiana Generating LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filings Regarding
Upstream Change in Control to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 4/11/18.
    Accession Number: 20180411-5075.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-502-002.
    Applicants: Bayou Cove Peaking Power, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filings Regarding
Upstream Change in Control to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 4/11/18.
    Accession Number: 20180411-5073.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-1136-002.
    Applicants: Big Cajun I Peaking Power LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Informational Filings Regarding
Upstream Change in Control to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 4/11/18.
    Accession Number: 20180411-5074.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1337-000.
    Applicants: Interstate Power and Light Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: IPL & MGE (Saratoga)--LBA
Agreement to be effective 6/11/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20180410-5232.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/1/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1338-000.
    Applicants: Interstate Power and Light Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: IPL & Turtle Creek--LBA
Agreement to be effective 6/11/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/11/18.
    Accession Number: 20180411-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1339-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2018-04-10 Petition for Limited
Tariff Waiver & Expedited Consideration Request to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 4/11/18.
    Accession Number: 20180411-5002.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1340-000.
    Applicants: South Carolina Electric & Gas Company.
    Description: Contribution in Aid of Construction Agreement of South
Carolina Electric & Gas Company.
    Filed Date: 4/9/18.
    Accession Number: 20180409-5339.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/30/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1341-000.
    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: VEPCO submits revisions to
OATT, Attachment H-16C re: OPEB expense for 2017 to be effective 6/15/
2018.
    Filed Date: 4/11/18.
    Accession Number: 20180411-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1343-000.
    Applicants: Carolina Solar Power, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application and MBR Tariff to
be effective 6/11/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/11/18.
    Accession Number: 20180411-5129.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/2/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following PURPA
210(m)(3) filings:

    Docket Numbers: QM18-11-000.
    Applicants: Cloverland Electric Cooperative.
    Description: Application of Cloverland Electric Cooperative To
Terminate Mandatory PURPA Purchase Obligation.
    Filed Date: 4/10/18.
    Accession Number: 20180410-5245.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 5/8/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 11, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-07997 Filed 4-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


"King, Heidi R."<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 04/25/2008 05:24 PM

To

Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Steve Page/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Robert Meyers/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Don Zinger/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Deirdre Murphy/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Zachary Pekar/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, David Orlin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, John Hannon/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Charlotte Bertrand/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mike Clark/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Alexander Cristofaro/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Erika Sasser/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RE: Updated version of lead NAAQS NPR

Thank you, Lydia.

I will send out invites to the Monday working meetings shortly.

Also - forgive my delay, I have not yet sent the faxes I promised - but

I will get them off to you this evening.

Best,

heidi

-----Original Message-----

From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 5:21 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> <EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Subject: Updated version of lead NAAQS NPR

Heidi,

Attached are updated clean and redline versions of the draft lead NAAQS

NPR.   This is our second informal submission to you.   As we discussed,

this redline does not address all the comments you have faxed to me.

We have addressed some of them and intend to address others as we

continue to revise the package.  To the extent there are major

substantive comments which we feel we cannot address in the manner

suggested by the commenter, we will plan to discuss those with you next

week.   In addition, while we have made changes to the section on the

Administrator's provisional conclusions on level, including deleting

most of the discussion of the adapted 1978 framework, we have not yet

made comparable changes throughout other sections of the preamble.

Similarly, although we have revised the section on air-to-blood ratios,

we have not yet made corresponding edits to the subsequent

evidence-based considerations sections where these ratios are mentioned.

We intend to work on these sections during the next couple of days.

Please call me if you have any questions.

Lydia

(See attached file: Pb-NPR-Apr25-clean.pdf)(See attached file:

Pb-NPR-April25-CompareWithApr14.pdf)


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 239 (Thursday, December 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59035-59036]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26910]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82239; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2017-127]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Exchange's Transaction Fees at Chapter XV, Section 2(1)

December 8, 2017.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on December 1, 2017, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction fees at
Chapter XV, Section 2(1), which governs the pricing for Nasdaq
Participants using the Nasdaq Options Market (``NOM''), Nasdaq's
facility for executing and routing standardized equity and index
options.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction fees at
Chapter XV, Section 2(1) to introduce a new NOM Market Maker \3\ Rebate
to Add Liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options. Today, the Exchange
charges Participants a $0.35 per contract NOM Market Maker Fee for
Adding Liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options.\4\ To incentivize
Participants to add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot
Options, the Exchange offers Participants an opportunity to reduce this
$0.35 per contract fee to $0.00 per contract, provided the Participant
adds NOM Market Maker liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options of 7,500 or
more ADV contracts per day in a month.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``NOM Market Maker'' or (``M'') is a Participant
that has registered as a Market Maker on NOM pursuant to Chapter
VII, Section 2, and must also remain in good standing pursuant to
Chapter VII, Section 4. In order to receive NOM Market Maker pricing
in all securities, the Participant must be registered as a NOM
Market Maker in at least one security. See Chapter XV.
    \4\ See Chapter XV, Section 2(1).
    \5\ Id. at note 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to further incentivize NOM Market Makers to transact in
Non-Penny Pilot Options on NOM, the Exchange proposes to introduce a
new NOM Market Maker Rebate to Add Liquidity in Non Penny-Pilot
Options, provided the Participant adds NOM Market Maker liquidity in
Non-Penny Pilot Options of 10,000 or more ADV contracts per day in a
month. The Participant would receive a $0.30 per contract Rebate to Add
Liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options as a NOM Market Maker.
Participants that qualify for this proposed rebate would not be charged
the NOM Market Maker Fee for Adding Liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot
Options by virtue of already having qualified for the discounted fee of
$0.00 in note 5 (i.e., by meeting the lower NOM Market Maker Non-Penny
volume threshold of 7,500 or more ADV contracts per day).
    In essence, the Exchange is creating a new volume threshold that is
higher than the existing threshold with this proposal. As such, there
will be two NOM Market Maker volume-based tiers for adding liquidity in
Non-Penny Pilot Options, the lower of which would provide a discounted
fee of $0.00 from $0.35 for the qualifying Participant, while the
higher would provide a rebate of $0.30 for the qualifying Participant
in lieu of the $0.35 fee. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to amend
the existing volume requirement for the discounted fee in note 5 to
state that Participants that add NOM Market Maker liquidity in Non-
Penny Pilot Options of 7,500 to 9,999 ADV contracts per day in a month
will be assessed a $0.00 per contract Non-Penny Options Fee for Adding
Liquidity in that month. Participants that add Non-Penny NOM Market
Maker liquidity of 10,000 or more ADV contracts per day in a month will
not be charged a Non-Penny Options Fee for Adding Liquidity and will
instead receive the proposed $0.30 per contract Non-Penny Rebate to Add
Liquidity. Finally, the Exchange proposes to clarify in note 5 that the
$0.35 fee for adding liquidity will apply unless Participants meet the
proposed volume thresholds, as described above.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\6\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Sections
6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\ in particular, in that it provides
for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges
among members and issuers and other persons using any facility, and is
not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change to offer Participants that send NOM Market
Maker order flow the opportunity to receive a $0.30 per contract Non-
Penny Rebate to Add Liquidity, provided the Participant adds NOM Market
Maker liquidity in Non-Penny Pilot Options of 10,000 or more ADV
contracts per day in a month, is reasonable because the Exchange seeks
to further incentivize Participants to add NOM Market Maker liquidity
in Non-Penny Pilot Options to obtain the rebate. The Exchange believes
that its proposal will encourage Participants to select NOM as a venue
and in turn benefit other market participants with the opportunity to
interact with such liquidity. Other options exchanges also offer
volume-based rebates to market makers for adding liquidity.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See MIAX Pearl Fee Schedule, Section 1)a) for the non-penny
maker rebates offered to MIAX Pearl market makers. See also Nasdaq
GEMX Schedule of Fees, Section I for the non-penny maker rebates
offered to GEMX market makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed NOM Market Maker Non-

Penny Rebate to Add Liquidity is equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because all NOM Market Makers can qualify for the rebate
by meeting the volume requirements described above. Furthermore, NOM
Market Makers, unlike other market participants, add value through
continuous quoting \9\ and the commitment of capital. In addition,
encouraging NOM Market Makers to add greater liquidity benefits all
market participants in the quality of order interaction. As such, the
Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to
offer only NOM Market Makers the opportunity to earn the proposed
rebate because of the obligations borne by these market participants,
as noted herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Pursuant to Chapter VII (Market Participants), Section 5
(Obligations of Market Makers), in registering as a market maker, an
Options Participant commits himself to various obligations.
Transactions of a Market Maker in its market making capacity must
constitute a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute
to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and Market Makers
should not make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are
inconsistent with such course of dealings. Further, all Market
Makers are designated as specialists on NOM for all purposes under
the Act or rules thereunder. See Chapter VII, Section 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also believes that the proposed change to amend the
existing NOM Market Maker Non-Penny volume threshold from ``7,500 or
more ADV contracts'' to ``7,500 to 9,999 ADV contracts'' is reasonable
because the Exchange is essentially adding a higher volume-based tier
with this proposal. The Exchange believes that the proposed change
would clarify how the two NOM Market Maker Non-Penny tiers are
applied--meeting the volume threshold in the lower tier would qualify
the Participant for a discounted fee, and meeting the volume threshold
in the higher tier would qualify the Participant for a rebate in lieu
of the fee, as described above. In the same vein, the proposed change
to clarify in note 5 that the $0.35 fee for adding liquidity will apply
unless Participants meet these volume thresholds is reasonable because
it will clarify how the fee and rebate program proposed herein will
apply.
    The Exchange further believes that these clarifying changes to
amend the existing NOM Market Maker Non-Penny volume threshold and
describe how the $0.35 fee will apply are equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because the changes will apply to all qualifying
Participants.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rebate and
corresponding changes to the volume-based thresholds described above
are all designed to increase competition by encouraging NOM Maker
Makers to provide greater liquidity and maintain tight markets in Non-
Penny Pilot Options. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues
if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or
rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In
such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to
remain competitive. Because competitors are free to modify their own
fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust
their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to
which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition
is extremely limited.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-127 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-127. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-127 and should be submitted
on or before January 4, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-26910 Filed 12-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 9, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13568-13569]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04832]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2021-0176]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number 1625-0034

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0034,
Ships' Stores Certification for Hazardous Materials Aboard Ships;
without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect
from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is
inviting comments as described below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 10, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2021-0176] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://

www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-6P), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop 7710, Washington, DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy
Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions
on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology.
    In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not
to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider
all comments and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2021-0176], and
must be received by May 10, 2021.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that website's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Ships' Stores Certification for Hazardous Materials Aboard
Ships.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0034.
    Summary: The information is used by the Coast Guard to ensure that
personnel aboard ships are made aware of the proper usage and stowage
instructions for certain hazardous materials. Provisions are made for
waivers of products in special Department of Transportation (DOT)
hazard classes.
    Need: Title 46 U.S.C. 3306 authorizes the Coast Guard to prescribe
regulations for the transportation, stowage, and use of ships' stores
and supplies of a dangerous nature. Part 147 of 46 CFR prescribes the
regulations for hazardous ships' stores.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of ships, and suppliers and
manufacturers of hazardous materials used on ships.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains 4 hours a year.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, as amended.

    Dated: March 3, 2021.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2021-04832 Filed 3-8-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


  MacroButton macIb01 i

EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: PV Shah,<PHONE_NUMBER>

TEMPLATE:

Huntsman Corporation

IN-10684

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (IN-10684) from Huntsman
Corporation, 8600 Gosling Road, The Woodlands, TX, 77381 requesting,
pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180 to establish an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for Ethanesulfonic acid,
2-hydroxy-(CAS #107-36-8), and the corresponding ammonium (CAS
#57267-78-4), sodium (CAS # 1562-00-1), potassium (CAS # 1561-99-5),
calcium (10550-47-7), magnesium (17345-56-1), zinc (CAS # 129756-32-7),
salts in or on all raw agricultural commodities under 40 CFR 180.910 and
180.930 .  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or
information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of
FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the
submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the
petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the
petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. NA-Remove

	2. Analytical method. NA-Remove

	3. Magnitude of residues. Residues are expected to be low based on the
ready biodegradability of ethanesulfonic acid, 2-hydroxy-monoammonium
salt and the estimated ready biodegradability of the other isethionate
salts.  Residues are also expected to be low based on the low proposed
application concentration of approximately 2%.

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  Isethionic acid and the corresponding salts are low
in acute oral and dermal toxicity.  Sodium isethionate has reported oral
and dermal LD50 values> 5,000 mg/kg.  Ammonium isethionate has acute
oral and dermal LD50 values >1,000 mg/kg, the highest doses tested.  The
salts of isethionic acid did not cause dermal irritation and minimal to
no ocular irritation.  Ammonium isethionate and sodium isethionate have
both been shown to be non-sensitizing in dermal sensitization studies.

	2. Genotoxicty. Ammonium isethionate was negative in the bacterial
reverse mutation assay with and without S9 activation.  Strains tested
were Salmonella typhimurium TA98, TA100, TA1535, and TA1537, and E. coli
strain WP2 uvrA.  Sodium isethionate was negative in an in vitro
mammalian cell gene mutation test with mouse lymphoma cells.  Sodium
isethionate did not induce micronuclei in human lymphocytes in the in
vitro mammalian cell micronucleus test.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. The developmental and
reproductive effects of exposure to ammonium isethionate were evaluated
in a screening level combination repeated dose study.  There were no
significant effects on reproduction, including no effect on fertility,
or pre-implantation loss compared to controls.  There were no clinical
signs of toxicity in the offspring from birth to postnatal day 4, and no
effects on average pup weight.  Necropsy of the pups did not reveal any
findings.  The no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) was the high
dose tested for the study, 500 mg/kg/day.

	4. Subchronic toxicity. A 90-day oral dose toxicity study was conducted
on rats that received sodium isethionate at doses of 50, 200 or 1000
mg/kg body weight/day via gavage.  A decrease in mean hemoglobin
concentration and an increase in reticulocyte counts were reported in
the 1000 mg/kg/day group.  Gross pathology findings included increased
spleen weights and macroscopic changes in the liver in rats at 1000
mg/kg/day.  Histopathology findings in the 1000 mg/kg/day group included
microscopic changes in the liver, bile duct, and spleen.  Effects showed
complete reversal after exposure was discontinued.   The NOAEL for
sodium isethionate was identified in this study as 200 mg/kg body
weight/day.

	5. Chronic toxicity. No chronic exposure studies are available for
isethionic acid and its corresponding salts.  Structure-activity
modeling using Oncologic™ indicates that there is a low concern for
potential carcinogenicity from chronic exposure to isethionic acid.
Isethionic acid does not contain structural alerts of potential concern
for carcinogenicity.  Based on the lack of genotoxicity in bacterial and
mammalian cell assays, there is a low concern for isethionic acid and
corresponding salts as potential carcinogens.

	6. Animal metabolism. There are no data available that describe the
metabolic pathways of isethionic acid in mammals.  There are reports in
the literature that a portion of ingested taurine may be metabolized to
isethionic acid and eliminated in the urine.

	7. Metabolite toxicology.  NA-Remove

	8. Endocrine disruption. There is no evidence of endocrine disruptor
effects in the available toxicity studies on isethionate and its salts.
Toxicity related to endocrine disruption was not observed in the
ammonium isethionate repeated dose reproduction / developmental toxicity
study in rats.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. The estimated dietary exposure to isethionate and
its salts was determined using methods to estimate chronic dietary
exposure for a generic inert ingredient in the DEEM model.  This
assessment considers drinking water and crop-specific residues from
preharvest applications of agricultural insecticides, herbicides and
fungicides, assuming the highest established tolerance level residue for
each commodity.  The assessment assumes that the inert ingredient is
used on all crops, and that 100% of all crops are treated with the
inert.  The inert ingredient is assumed to be present in all commodities
treated with 57 of the most significant active ingredients at the
maximum tolerance level as identified by the U.S. EPA for the default
assessment.   The estimated chronic exposure for the total US population
is 0.189 mg/kg/day, or 9.5% of the chronic population adjusted dose
(cPAD) for sodium isethionate.  Children age 1 to 2 years old have the
highest estimated exposure of 0.706 mg/kg/day at 35.3% of the cPAD.

	i. Food.  The estimated dietary exposures for all sub populations are
below any level of potential concern.

	ii. Drinking water. Drinking water is assumed to contain 100 ppb of
isethionate salt for the dietary exposure assessment.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. Dermal exposure is expected to occur from the
use of personal care products including soaps and other similar products
that contain sodium isethionate.  The concentration of isethionate salts
in these products is generally well below the level identified as
acceptable by industry experts.  Use of these products is not expected
to result in significant systemic exposure to isethionate salts.

D. Cumulative Effects

	To our knowledge there are no available data or other reliable
information that suggests that any toxic effects produced by isethionate
and its salts would be cumulative with those of any other chemical
compounds.  EPA has not made a common mechanism of toxicity finding as
to isethionate and its salts and other compounds.  Isethionate and its
salts do not appear to produce toxic metabolites in common with other
substances.  For the purpose of the tolerance exemption actions
proposed, it is assumed that isethionate and its salts do not share a
common mechanism of toxicity with other substances.

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. The estimated dietary and nondietary exposure of
the general population to isethionic acid and its corresponding salts is
expected to be below any level of potential concern from the proposed
use as a conditioning agent, chelator, or sequestrant in pesticide
formulations.

	2. Infants and children. The estimated dietary and nondietary exposure
of infants and children to isethionic acid and its corresponding salts
is expected to be below any level of potential concern from the proposed
use as a conditioning agent, chelator, or sequestrant in pesticide
formulations.

F. International Tolerances

	NA-Remove

 PAGE

 PAGE   4


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

General Comment: Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I have been off tobacco cigarettes for 5 years now and in all honesty I enjoy e-cigarettes as a healthier alternative to smoking.  I have not been sick once since switching from tobacco cigarettes to e-cigarettes.  Before switching I had chronic Bronchitis and Sinusitis on a regular basis, all that has disappeared once I stopped smoking tobacco cigarettes and switched to e-cigarettes.  Tobacco cigarettes are the dangerous products and killers, not e-cigarettes!  As far as e-cigarettes being attractive to children because of the flavors that are available, don't you honestly think that there are hundreds of thousands of children now that are smoking real tobacco cigarettes without their parents knowledge?  That blame lies in parenting and should not be placed on the adult consumer.  I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 164 (Friday, August 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40640-40643]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17998]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0042; Notice 1]

BMW of North America, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: BMW of North America, LLC (BMW), a subsidiary of BMW AG,
Munich, Germany, has determined that certain model year (MY) 2018 BMW
M4 Coupe and BMW M4 convertible motor vehicles do not fully comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection
and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation Vehicle Trailer Load Carrying
Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms
(10,000 pounds) or Less. BMW filed a noncompliance report dated April
26, 2017. BMW also petitioned NHTSA on May 19, 2017, for a decision
that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is September 25,
2017.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the Internet at
https://

www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for accessing
the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown in the
heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: BMW of North America, LLC (BMW), a subsidiary of BMW
AG, Munich, Germany, has determined that certain model year (MY) 2018
BMW M4 Coupe and BMW M4 convertible motor vehicles do not fully comply
with one or more of the following paragraphs: S4.3(a), S4.3(c) and
S4.3(d) of FMVSS No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims and Motor Home/
Recreation Vehicle Trailer Load Carrying Capacity Information for Motor
Vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms (10,000 pounds) or Less. BMW
filed a noncompliance report dated April 26, 2017, pursuant to 49 CFR
part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. BMW also
petitioned NHTSA on May 19, 2017, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for an exemption from the notification
and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of BMW's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 93 MY 2018 BMW M4 Coupe and
BMW M4 convertible motor vehicles, manufactured between February 28,
2017, and March 24, 2017, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: BMW describes three noncompliances of the
affected vehicles equipped with a Tire Information Placard that may not
fully conform to FMVSS No. 110. Although the affected vehicles were
properly equipped with 20-inch tires, the FMVSS No. 110 Tire
Information Placard states that the vehicles were equipped with 18-inch
tires. Additionally, the placard for the BMW M4 Coupe states a vehicle
capacity weight of 390kg although it should state a vehicle capacity
weight of 381kg. Furthermore, the placard for the BMW M4 Convertible
states a manufacturer's recommended cold tire inflation pressure of
32psi when it should state a tire inflation pressure of 33psi.
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110 states in pertinent
part:

    S4.3 Placard. Each vehicle, except for a trailer or incomplete
vehicle, shall show the information specified in S4.3(a) through
(g), and may show at the manufacturer's option, the information
specified in S4.3 (h) and (i), on a placard permanently affixed to
the driver's side B-pillar . . .
    (a) Vehicle capacity weight expressed as ``The combined weight
of occupants and cargo should never exceed XXX kilograms or XXX
pounds . . .
    (c) Vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold tire inflation
pressure for front, rear and spare tires, subject to the limitations
of S4.3.4. For full size spare tires, the statement ``see above''
may, at the manufacturer's option replace manufacturer's recommended
cold tire inflation pressure. If no spare tire is provided, the word
``none'' must replace the manufacturer's recommended cold tire
inflation pressure.
    (d) Tire size designation indicated by the headings ``size'' or
``original tire size'' or ``original size,'' and ``spare tire'' or
``spare,'' for the tires installed at the time of the first purchase
for purposes other than resale. For full size spare tires, the
statement ``see above'' may, at the manufacturer's option replace
the tire size designation. If no spare tire is provided, the word
``none'' must replace the tire size designation; . . .

    V. Summary of BMW's Petition: BMW described the subject
noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, BMW submitted the following reasoning:
    1. BMW M4 Coupe--Although affected vehicles were properly equipped
with 20-inch tires, the FMVSS No. 110 Tire Information Placard
incorrectly states that the vehicles are equipped with 18-inch tires.
It also incorrectly states a vehicle capacity weight of 390kg. The
placard should state that the vehicles are equipped with 20-inch tires
and have a vehicle capacity weight of 381kg.
    The vehicle capacity weight of 390kg will not result in a vehicle
overload condition as explained in further detail below.
    a. Assessment of Additional Vehicle Capacity Weight--An analysis
was performed regarding the potential adverse effect of the additional
9kg on vehicle braking, steering, and stability. Vehicle components and
system including brakes, steering, and suspension were evaluated. It
was determined that there would not be any adverse impact on these
vehicle systems due to robustness in vehicle design. In other words,
the vehicle was designed to account for a larger vehicle capacity
weight than the weight stated on the tire information placard.
    b. Part 567 Certification Label--Affected vehicles are equipped
with a Part 567 Certification Label which states accurate information
for the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). Therefore, a vehicle
operator who uses this information would be able to determine the
correct maximum vehicle weight.
    2. BMW M4 Convertible--Although affected vehicles were properly
equipped with 20-inch tires, the FMVSS No. 110 Tire Information Placard
incorrectly states that the vehicles were equipped with 18-inch tires,
and incorrectly states a manufacturer's recommended cold tire inflation
pressure of 32psi. The placard should state that the vehicles are
equipped with 20-inch tires and have a manufacturer's recommended cold
tire inflation pressure of 33psi.
    The manufacturer's recommended cold tire inflation pressure of
32psi will not result in a vehicle overload condition as explained in
further detail below.
    a. Using Tire Information Placard to Set Tire Pressure
    i. Assessment Using Tire Pressure Information--(Front Tires)--The
FMVSS No. 110 Tire Information Placard identifies a front tire size of
``255/40 R 18'' with a recommended cold tire inflation pressure of
32psi (220kPa). The load rating from the European Tire and Rim
Technical Organization (ETRTO) table at 32psi (220kPa) is 605kg for a
tire with a load index of 94. Note that the equipped tires are Extra
Load (XL) tires, and that the ETRTO standards require the use of the
Standard Load table for tire pressures up to 250kPa (36psi). The sum of
the load ratings for the front tires is 1,210kg. As noted, the GAWR
(front) is 1,050kg. Therefore, the 20-inch front tires, inflated to
32psi, are sufficient to support vehicle loading.
    (Rear Tires)--The FMVSS No. 110 Tire Information Placard identifies
a rear tire size of ``275/40 R 18'' with a recommended cold tire
inflation pressure of 32psi (220kPa). The load rating from the European
Tire and Rim Technical Organization (ETRTO) table at 32psi (220kPa) is
700kg for a tire with a load index of 99. It should be noted that the
equipped tires are Extra Load (XL) tires, and also that the ETRTO
standards state to use the Standard Load table for tire pressures up to
250kPa (36psi). The sum of the load ratings for the rear tires is
1,400kg. As noted, the GAWR (rear) is 1,250kg. Therefore, the 20-inch
rear tires, inflated to 32psi, are sufficient to support vehicle
loading.
    ii. Assessment Using Tire Load Limits--FMVSS No. 110 Section 4.2.1
(Tire Load Limits for Passenger Cars) states, in subsection <IP_ADDRESS>:

    ``The vehicle normal load on the tire shall not be greater than
94 percent of the load rating at the vehicle manufacturer's
recommended cold inflation pressure for that tire.''

    The BMW M4 Convertible has a curb weight of 1,841kg (manual
transmission) and 1,866kg (automatic transmission) and a seating
capacity of 4 occupants.
    In order to determine the vehicle normal load per tire, the
automatic transmission weight is used as ``worst case scenario'' as it
is larger than the manual transmission weight. The vehicle normal load
per tire is calculated, per ETRTO standards, by distributing 2
occupants (for a 4 occupant vehicle), at the front axle.
    Using the required weight of 68kg per occupant results in a vehicle
normal load per front tire of 534kg and a normal load per rear tire of
466kg.
    (Front Tires)--As noted above, the load rating for the front tires
is 605kg.
    According to FMVSS No. 110 Section <IP_ADDRESS>, ``[T]he vehicle normal
load on the tire shall not be greater than 94 percent of the load
rating at the vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold inflation
pressure for that tire.'' Using the load rating of 605kg results in a
``94% load rating'' of 568kg. As noted above, the vehicle normal load
per front tire is 534kg and therefore is within the limit required by
Section <IP_ADDRESS>.
    (Rear Tires)--As noted above, the load rating for the rear tires is
700kg.
    According to FMVSS No. 110 Section <IP_ADDRESS>, ``[T]he vehicle normal
load on the tire shall not be greater than 94 percent of the load
rating at the vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold inflation
pressure for that tire.'' Using the load rating of 700kg results in a
``94% load rating'' of 658kg. As noted above, the vehicle normal load
per rear tire is 466kg and therefore is within the limit required by
Section <IP_ADDRESS>.
    b. Using Other Information Source To Set Tire Pressure--If a
vehicle operator notices that the tires identified on the tire
information placard do not correspond to the tires equipped on the
vehicle, there are a number of information sources and services
available that can be used to identify the correct tire pressure and,
therefore, achieve the proper inflation level for the tires equipped on
the vehicle.
    i. Sources That Point to the Vehicle Owner's Manual--

--FMVSS No. 110 Section 4.3(f) requires that the tire information
placard contain the following statement: ``See Owner's Manual for
Additional Information.'' Therefore, the tire information placard will
help point the vehicle operator to the Owner's Manual in order to
identify the correct tire inflation pressures for use on the vehicle.
--FMVSS No. 138 Section 4.5(a) requires that the Owner's Manual contain
the following text: ``Each tire, including the spare (if provided),
should be checked monthly when cold and inflated to the inflation
pressure recommended by the vehicle manufacturer on the vehicle placard
or tire inflation pressure label. (If your vehicle has tires of a
different size than the size indicated on the vehicle placard or tire
inflation pressure label, you should determine the proper tire
inflation pressure for those tires.)'' (Emphasis added.)

    Vehicle operators who attempt to check the vehicle's tire pressure
on a routine schedule (e.g. monthly, as noted above), or when
necessary, would be pointed to the Owner's Manual for additional
clarifying information. Therefore, after reviewing this information, it
is likely that they would inflate the tires to the recommended cold
tire inflation pressure.
    A vehicle operator could check the specific tires installed on the
vehicle which, in this case, are 20-inch tires. The information that is
stamped onto the sidewall of the tires identifies the tire size.
Subsequent to checking and identifying the installed tires, the vehicle
operator could consult the vehicle Owner's Manual, or contact BMW
Roadside AssistanceTM, BMW AssistTM, or BMW
Customer Relations, for further information in order to set the correct
tire pressure.
    ii. Owner's Manual--The vehicle Owner's Manual contains information
pertaining to the various tire sizes and tire pressures available for
use on the affected vehicles.
    Affected vehicles contain a tire information placard identifying
that the vehicles as being equipped with 18-inch tires even though they
are equipped with 20-inch tires. Therefore, a vehicle operator would be
able to check the Owner's Manual, identify the correct tires equipped
on the vehicle, and then set the tire inflation pressures to the
correct levels.
    Additionally, affected vehicles are also equipped with an in-
vehicle electronic Owner's Manual accessed through the
iDriveTM controller containing the same information as in
the hardcopy Owner's Manual.
    Furthermore, the electronic Owner's Manual also contains contact
information for BMW Roadside AssistanceTM, and if so
equipped, also with BMW AssistTM, and BMW Customer
Relations. Vehicle operators can use these additional information
sources and services to identify the correct tires equipped on the
vehicle, and then set the tire inflation pressures to the correct
levels.
    iii. BMW Roadside AssistanceTM--BMW Roadside
AssistanceTM (available 24 hours/day) representatives have
information available indicating by vehicle model and model year, all
of the available tire sizes and specifications for the affected
vehicles. All affected vehicles contain a reference to, and
instructions for contacting, BMW Roadside AssistanceTM in
the vehicle Owner's Manual. Therefore, if contacted, BMW Roadside
AssistanceTM would be able to help the vehicle operator
determine the correct tire pressures for use on the vehicle.
    Vehicle operators are able to contact BMW Roadside
AssistanceTM using the toll-free telephone number located:

--On the BMW Roadside AssistanceTM Card included in the
vehicle's portfolio
--On one or more BMW Roadside AssistanceTM Labels in the
vehicle
--Within the vehicle's Quick Reference Guide
--Within the vehicle's Service Warranty Book

    Vehicle operators are also able to contact BMW Roadside
AssistanceTM using the:

--In-vehicle iDriveTM controller and menu option for BMW
Roadside AssistanceTM
--In-vehicle emergency call button on the overhead console

    iv. BMW AssistTM--BMW AssistTM (available 24
hours/day) representatives have information available indicating, by
vehicle model and model year, all of the available tire sizes and
specifications for the affected vehicles. All affected vehicles contain
a reference to, and instructions for, contacting BMW
AssistTM in the vehicle Owner's Manual. Therefore, if
contacted, BMW AssistTM would be able to help the vehicle
operator determine the correct tire pressures for use on the vehicle.
    Vehicle operators are able to contact BMW AssistTM by
using the:

--In-vehicle iDriveTM controller and menu option for BMW
AssistTM
--In-vehicle emergency call button on the overhead console

    Vehicles with BMW AssistTM contain a BMW
AssistTM Book located in the vehicle's portfolio with
contact information for BMW AssistTM, BMW Roadside
AssistanceTM, and BMW Customer Relations.
    v. BMW Customer Relations--If a vehicle operator contacts BMW
Customer Relations, and provides the

Vehicle Identification Number, a Customer Relations representative will
be able to inform the vehicle operator of the specific vehicle
configuration. Therefore, if contacted, BMW Customer Relations would be
able to help the vehicle operator determine the correct tire pressures
for use on the vehicle.
    Vehicle operators are able to contact BMW Customer Relations by:

--Using the toll-free telephone number identified in the vehicle
Owner's Manual and the Service and Warranty Book
--Using the in-vehicle iDriveTM controller and menu option
for BMW Customer Relations
--Contacting BMW AssistTM which can, if necessary, transfer
the vehicle operator to BMW Customer Relations

    3. Field Experience--Owner Contacts to BMW Customer Relations--BMW
Customer Relations has not received any contacts from vehicle owners
regarding these issues. Therefore, BMW is unaware that any vehicle
owner has encountered these issues.
    Accidents/Injuries--BMW is unaware of any accidents or injuries
that have occurred as a result of these issues.
    4. Prior NHTSA Grants to Manufacturer Petitions--NHTSA has
previously granted petitions for Inconsequential Noncompliance
regarding FMVSS No. 110 involving vehicles for which the tire
information placard contained tire size and tire pressure information
which did not match the tires equipped on the vehicle. In some of these
instances, even though the tire information placard identified a
manufacturer's recommended cold tire inflation pressure that was less
than the value required for the tires equipped on the vehicle, the load
carrying capacity of the equipped tires, at this lower tire pressure,
was still sufficient and would not lead to a vehicle overload
condition.
    5. Vehicle Production--Vehicle production has been corrected to
conform to FMVSS No. 110 Section 4.3(a), 4.3(C) and 4.3(d).
    BMW concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliances are inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle
safety, and that its petition to be exempted from providing
notification of the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and
a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should
be granted.
    To view BMW's petition analyses and any supplemental information in
its entirety you can visit https://www.regulations.gov by following the
online instructions for accessing the dockets and by using the docket
ID number for this petition shown in the heading of this notice.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that BMW no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after BMW
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017-17998 Filed 8-24-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


Disulfoton Reader’s Guide - Docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0054

Publication Date:  March 18, 2009

The Environmental Protection Agency is providing this “Reader’s
Guide” to allow the reader to more easily access and navigate the
various documents contained in the Disulfoton electronic docket.  The
documents are posted in Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)
electronic docket in   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
www.regulations.gov  under EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0054.  Each item contains the
title of the document, the date of the document, its author(s) when
applicable, and a brief description of its purpose.

EPA is committed to involving stakeholders and the public in its
development of pesticide reregistration and tolerance reassessment
decisions. The Agency's public participation process provides a dynamic
framework for public involvement and consultation during the conduct of
these programs.

Docket Item 1. 	Federal Register Notice:  Registration Review; Pesticide
Dockets Opened for Review and Comment; March 18, 2009;

This document formally and publicly announces the establishment of,
inter alia, the Disulfoton Registration Review Docket is available for
review on the Federal Docket Management System’s (FDMS’s) internet
site or at the EPA’s Office of Pesticides Programs’ (paper copy)
Public Docket.  It solicits comments on disulfoton and provides
timeframes and locations for submitting comments.

Docket Item 2. 	Reader’s Guide to docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0054; Mar
12, 2009

The function of this document is to describe the purpose of each
document in the docket.

Docket Item 3.	Disulfoton Summary Document; March 16, 2009; Keigwin

Document summarizes what EPA currently knows about the Disulfoton
pesticide case and a preliminary work plan for anticipated data and
assessment needs.

Docket Item 4.	Appendix A; July 23, 2008; Biological and Economic
Analysis Division

This report presents EPA’s understanding of the current use and usage
patterns of disulfoton including any limitations or restrictions.

Docket Item 5.	Registration Review – Preliminary problem formulation
for the Ecological Risk Assessment of Disulfoton; March 11, 2009;
Environmental Fate and Effects Division

Also included as part of the Summary Document, this document summarizes
what EPA currently knows about the environmental fate and effects of the
disulfoton pesticide case and includes a preliminary work plan for
anticipated data and assessment needs.

Docket Item 6.	Disulfoton:  Revised Registration Review Scoping Document
for Human Health Assessments; March 12, 2009; Health Effects Division

Also included as part of the Summary Document, this document summarizes
what EPA currently knows about the human health effects of the
disulfoton pesticide case and includes a preliminary work plan for
anticipated data and assessment needs.

 PAGE  1


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 174 (Thursday, September 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55735-55736]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22643]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0130]

Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.
    This document describes one collection of information for which
NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 7, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the docket number in
the heading of this document, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on
the electronic docket site by clicking on ``Help'' or ``FAQ.''
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document.
    You may call the Docket Management Facility at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the rulemaking process, see the Public
Participation heading of the Supplementary Information section of this
document. Note that all comments received 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 into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). 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://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Joyce, Marketing Specialist,
Office of Communications and Consumer Information (NPO-520), National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE., W52-
238, Washington, DC 20590. Mike Joyce's phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>
and his e-mail address is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected;
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following proposed collection of information for which
the agency is seeking approval from

OMB

    Title: Monroney Label Consumer Research.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from approval
date.
    Abstract: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) was established by the Highway Safety Act of 1970 (23 U.S.C.
101) to carry out a Congressional mandate to reduce the mounting number
of deaths, injuries, and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle
crashes on the Nation's highways. In support of this mission, NHTSA
proposes to conduct a limited number of focus group sessions with
members of the general public to help inform future revisions to the
Monroney label and guide the development of a consumer education
program.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: In this collection of
information, NHTSA is requesting to explore how consumers evaluate the
Monroney label, and comprehension of the 5-Star Safety Ratings and
understand the potential tradeoffs consumers make among the items
included on the Monroney label. The research will also consider the
location and size of the safety rating label and compare with other
areas of the Monroney label and explore adding the advanced crash
avoidance safety information to the safety rating label. Additional
areas of exploration will be evaluated, including:

    (i) Vehicle purchase decision-making criteria;
    (ii) Sources of vehicle safety information;
    (iii) Monroney label content, comprehension and potential
tradeoffs; and,
    (iv) New changes to the safety rating section of the Monroney label
to help inform future revisions.
    Description of the Need for the Information and the Proposed Use of
the Information: NHTSA must explore how safety information impacts
vehicle purchase decisions, where consumers look for safety information
and how consumers use safety and other information located on the
Monroney label in their purchase decisions, which will help inform
future revisions to the Monroney label. Additionally, NHTSA will use
this research to discuss potential communication channels in order to
guide the development of a consumer education program.
    Affected Public: NHTSA will conduct two research phases. For the
first phase, which this notice addresses, NHTSA will conduct one type
of qualitative research. This research project will consist of two (2)
focus groups in five (5) cities for a maximum of ten (10) focus group
sessions, lasting 120 minutes and will be held with eight (8)
participants in each session. Participation by all respondents would be
voluntary, and respondents will receive $75 for their participation.
For recruiting of these participants, however, a total of 120 potential
participants (12 per group) will be recruited via telephone screening
calls, which are estimated to take 10 minutes per call. Based on
experience, it is prudent to recruit up to 12 people per group in order
to ensure at least 8 will actually appear at the focus group facility
at the appointed time. Thus, the total burden per person actually
participating in the group discussions is estimated to be 130 minutes
(10 minutes for the screening/recruiting telephone call plus 120
minutes in the focus group discussion session). Additionally, the total
burden per person recruited (but not participating in the discussions)
is 10 minutes.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 180 hours.
    Number of Respondents: 80.
    The results of this research phase will be used to finalize the
content of a second research phase NHTSA will conduct, which this
notice does not address.
    Comments are invited on: whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued on: August 23, 2011.
Gregory A. Walter,
Senior Associate Administrator, Policy and Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011-22643 Filed 9-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 215 (Monday, November 7, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68663-68665]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28678]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0755; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-12-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-Trent 800
Series Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for RR RB211-Trent 800 series turbofan engines. That NPRM proposed
to revise the Trent 800 Time Limits Manual (TLM) of the Trent 800
engine maintenance manuals (EMMs). That NPRM was prompted by RR
reducing the life limits of certain critical engine parts. This action
revises that NPRM by proposing to supersede an existing AD to prohibit
installation of one certain critical part and to increase the life of
another critical part whose lives were previously reduced by that
existing AD. We are proposing this supplemental NPRM to prevent the
failure of critical rotating parts, which could result in uncontained
failure of the engine and damage to the airplane. Because of the
extensive changes since the NPRM was issued, we are reopening the
comment period to allow the public the chance to comment on these
proposed changes.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 6, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Rolls-Royce
plc, Corporate Communications, P.O. Box 31, Derby, England, DE248BJ;
phone: 011-44-1332-242424; fax: 011-44-1332-245418 or email from http://www.rolls-royce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp, or download the
publication from https://www.aeromanager.com. You may review copies of
the referenced service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(781)-238-7125.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Strom, Aerospace Engineer, Engine

Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0755;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-12-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 to include an AD that
would apply to RR RB211-Trent 800 series turbofan engines. That NPRM
published in the Federal Register on August 3, 2010 (75 FR 45560). That
NPRM would have revised the TLM of the RB211-Trent 800 EMMs. That NPRM
was prompted by RR reducing the life limits of certain critical engine
parts. Revision of the critical part lives has been necessary due to
actual operational flight profiles not conforming to those assumed at
entry into service and is associated with a revised Flight Profile
Monitoring methodology introduced by RR. The methodology was originally
based on engine thrust rating but is now based on operating shaft
speeds.

Actions Since Previous NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the previous NPRM (75 FR 45560, August 3, 2010), RR
requested that we supersede existing AD 2003-16-18, Amendment 39-13271
(68 FR 49344, August 18, 2003). That AD currently requires a life limit
for intermediate-pressure (IP) turbine rotor disc, part number (P/N)
FK21117, that is lower than the life limit proposed by this
supplemental NPRM. Rolls-Royce plc substantiated their proposed
increased life of P/N FK21117 by rig test and analysis.
    AD 2003-16-18 (68 FR 49344, August 18, 2003) also reduced the life
limit for IP turbine rotor discs, P/N FK33083, and all P/N FK33083 IP
turbine rotor discs are no longer in service. RR has accordingly
reduced the life for P/N FK33083 discs to zero, effectively removing
them as a disc approved for installation in any engine. By revising the
previous NPRM (75 FR 45560, August 3, 2010) to supersede AD 2003-16-18,
as discussed previously, this proposed AD would make these changes to
the life of RR IP turbine rotor disc, P/N FK21117, and RR IP turbine
rotor disc, P/N FK33083, mandatory. We have also determined that it is
unnecessary to incorporate by reference the TLM of the Trent 800 engine
EMMs. We can address the unsafe condition identified in this
supplemental NPRM by mandating the reduced lives of the affected parts.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to comment on the previous NPRM
(75 FR 45560, August 3, 2010). We have considered the comments
received.

Request To Change Compliance Paragraph (e)(1)

    American Airlines and Delta Airlines asked us to change paragraph
(e)(1) in the proposed AD from ``(1) Revise the airworthiness
limitations section (ALS) * * * Time Limits manual (TLM) dated June 15,
2009'' to ``(1) Revise the airworthiness limitations section (ALS) * *
* Time Limits manual (TLM) dated no earlier than June 15, 2009.'' The
commenters do not want to be forced to use a TLM dated earlier than the
one currently in force.
    We partially agree. We agree that a more efficient method of
revising the life exists, so we changed this proposed AD to specify the
revised part lives in Table 1 in the Compliance section of this
proposed AD. We do not agree to the requested wording as it leaves
compliance with the AD open to future revisions that do not currently
exist. We did not change the proposed AD further as a result of this
comment.

Request To Withdraw the NPRM

    Delta Airlines asked us to withdraw the NPRM (75 FR 45560, August
3, 2010). Delta Airlines believed the NPRM is redundant because the
current TLM already requires using the proposed tasks and life limits.
    We do not agree. Although the new life limits are included in the
current TLM, the new life limits are reinforced when mandated by an AD.
We changed this proposed AD to specify the revised part lives in Table
1 in the Compliance section of this proposed AD.

Request To Supersede the Existing AD 2003-16-18 (68 FR 49344, August
18, 2003)

    Rolls-Royce plc asked us to change paragraph (b) of the proposed AD
from ``None'' to ``AD 2003-16-18 is superseded by the current AD.''
    We agree. We changed paragraph (b) of this proposed AD to state
that ``This AD supersedes AD 2003-16-18, Amendment 39-13271 (68 FR
49344, August 18, 2003)''.

Relevant Service Information

    Rolls-Royce plc has issued Alert Service Bulletin No. RB.211-72-
AE935, Revision 7, dated January 19, 2009. The actions described in
this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in this supplemental NPRM.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this supplemental NPRM because we evaluated all
the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same
type design. Certain changes described above expand the scope of the
previous NPRM (75 FR 45560, August 3, 2010). As a result, we have
determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide
additional opportunity for the public to comment on this supplemental
NPRM.

Proposed Requirements of the Supplemental NPRM

    This supplemental NPRM would reduce the life limits of certain
critical engine parts and would supersede AD 2003-16-18, Amendment 39-
13271 (68 FR 49344, August 18, 2003).

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 16 RB211-Trent 800 series turbofan engines of U.S.
registry. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour, but no labor
cost is associated with this proposed AD because discs are replaced at
scheduled maintenance intervals. Prorated cost of parts would cost
about $45,000 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost
of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $720,000.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more

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

Regulatory Findings

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive
(AD) 2003-16-18, Amendment 39-13271 (68 FR 49344, August 18, 2003), and
adding the following new AD:

Rolls-Royce plc: Docket No. FAA-2010-0755; Directorate Identifier
2010-NE-12-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by January 6, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2003-16-18, Amendment 39-13271 (68 FR
49344, August 18, 2003).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-Trent 895-17, 892-
17, 892B-17, 884-17, 884B-17, 877-17, and 875-17 turbofan engines.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by RR reporting changes to the lives of
certain life limited rotating parts. We are issuing this AD to
prevent the failure of critical rotating parts, which could result
in uncontained failure of the engine and damage to the airplane.

(e) Actions and Compliance

    Compliance is required within 30 days after the effective date
of this AD, unless already done.
    (1) After the effective date of this AD, remove from service the
parts listed in Table 1 of this AD before exceeding the new life
limit indicated:

                                           Table 1--Reduced Part Lives
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Life in cycles
                   Part nomenclature                     Part number (P/N)   Life in standard   using the HEAVY
                                                                               duty cycles          profile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Intermediate-pressure (IP) Compressor Rotor Shaft..            FK24100              8,140              8,140
(ii) IP Compressor Rotor Shaft.........................            FK24496              8,860              8,180
(iii) High-pressure (HP) Compressor Stage 1 to 4 Rotor             FK24009              4,560              4,460
 Discs Shaft...........................................
(iv) HP Compressor Stage 1 to 4 Rotor Discs Shaft......            FK26167              6,340              6,000
(v) HP Compressor Stage 1 to 4 Rotor Discs Shaft.......            FK32580              8,550              6,850
(vi) HP Compressor Stage 1 to 4 Rotor Discs Shaft......            FW11590              8,550              6,850
(vii) HP Compressor Stage 1 to 4 Rotor Discs Shaft.....            FW61622              8,550              6,850
(viii) HP Compressor Stage 5 and 6 Discs and Cone......            FK25230              5,000              5,000
(ix) HP Compressor Stage 5 and 6 Discs and Cone........            FK27899              5,000              5,000
(x) IP Turbine Rotor Disc..............................            FK21117             11,610             10,400
(xi) IP Turbine Rotor Disc.............................            FK33083                  0                  0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(f) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install any IP
turbine rotor discs, P/N FK33083, into any engine.

(g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
to this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.

(h) Related Information

    (1) You may find additional information on calculating Standard
Duty Cycles and or using HEAVY Profile Cycles, in RR TLM 05-00-01-
800-801, Recording and Control of the Lives of Parts.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Alan Strom,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2007-0003R1, dated January 15, 2009, and RR Alert Service
Bulletin No. RB.211-72-AE935, Revision 7, dated January 19, 2009,
for related information.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on October 31, 2011.
Peter A. White,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-28678 Filed 11-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P