Page 1 of 5 April 19, 2004 FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL ( SAP) OPEN MEETING MAY 4 6, 2004 FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http:// www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ sap/ OPP Docket Telephone: ( 703) 305 5805 Docket Number: OPP 2004 0099 CONSULTATION ON DERMAL SENSITIZATION ISSUES FOR EXPOSURES TO PESTICIDES CHARGE/ QUESTIONS TO THE PANEL Dermal sensitization, also known as allergic contact dermatitis ( ACD) is typically characterized by two phases, termed induction and elicitation. In the induction phase, the allergen is transported to regional draining lymph nodes where clonal expansion of allergen specific T lymphocytes results. The elicitation phase results from a subsequent exposure to the allergen, in which the allergen specific T lymphocytes provoke a cutaneous immune response. Although several approaches have been proposed to assess threshold concentrations for induction and elicitation of ACD and risk determination for these concentrations, there is no established scientific approach within the Agency to do a quantitative risk assessment associated with ACD.

There are several accepted methods for hazard identification of dermal sensitization, including the Buehler occluded patch test, the guinea pig maximization test, and the murine local lymph node assay ( LLNA). The guinea pig maximization test as well as the Buehler test, while providing reliable information on skin sensitization, are best suited for hazard identification. Several proposals have been published regarding quantitative determination of sensitization induction and elicitation thresholds.

ISSUE 1: Quantitative Risk Assessment for the Induction Phase of ACD The Mouse Local Lymph Node Assay ( LLNA) is a test method for assessing the allergic contact dermatitis ( skin sensitization) potential of chemicals, specifically the induction phase of sensitization. Using the incorporation of radiolabeled thymidine or iododeoxyuridine into DNA, the LLNA measures lymphocyte proliferation in the draining lymph nodes of mice topically exposed to the test article. The stimulation index ( ratio of lymphocyte proliferation in treated mice compared to controls) is used as the indicator of potential sensitization. In 1998, following review by the FIFRA SAP, the LLNA was incorporated as a screening test in OPPTS Test Guideline 870.2600 Skin Sensitization. In 1999, the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods ( ICCVAM) Immunotoxicity Working Group ( IWG) endorsed the LLNA as an acceptable alternative to currently accepted guinea pig test methods for hazard Page 2 of 5 identification of chemicals with potential to produce contact hypersensitivity. Following additional studies to validate the method, the LLNA was endorsed by the SAP in December 2001 as a full stand alone assay. The OPPTS guideline 870.2600 ( Skin Sensitization) has been revised to include the LLNA as a stand alone assay for appropriate applications. The OPPTS guideline has also been harmonized with OECD's Guideline 429 for LLNA, which was adopted in April 2002. Although the LLNA has not been validated for determination of sensitization potency, approaches for determination of quantitative assessment of sensitization induction thresholds have been proposed in the scientific literature ( Gerberick 2000, 2001; Griem et al., 2003).

Gerberick ( 2000, 2001) proposed a methodology for determination of a ` sensitization reference dose' for sensitizers in consumer products. The lower boundary of the potency category for a sensitizing chemical is used as the starting point, with application of uncertainty factors for interindividual variability, product matrix effects, and use pattern. This approach was applied to the fragrance component cinnamic aldehyde and the preservative methylchloroisothiazolinone/ methylisothiazolinone for which both LLNA and human sensitization potency were available ( Griem et al., 2003).

Griem et al ( 2003) proposed a quantitative approach in which identification of known human sensitizing chemicals used both an EC3 value ( defined as the concentration of a sensitizer required to generate a threefold stimulation of proliferation in draining lymph nodes) from an LLNA test and a NOAEL or LOAEL from human repeat insult patch tests ( HRIPT) or human maximization tests ( HMT). The reported concentrations were converted into specific and molar area doses. Comparison of the area doses of the LLNA and human test results indicated that sensitization thresholds were similar in mice and humans despite the fact that the area doses for different chemicals ranged over several orders of magnitude ( Griem et al., 2003). It was concluded from this analysis that the LLNA EC3 value is a useful measure of sensitizing potency in humans, and that the EC3 value can be used as a surrogate value for the human NOAEL that can be used as a starting point in quantitative risk assessment.

Uncertainty factors to account for interspecies variation, intraspecies variation, product matrix effects, and conditions of exposure ( including repeated exposures) have been proposed for use in conduct of dermal risk assessments. Griem et al. ( 2003) have discussed the application and magnitude of all of these uncertainty factors with respect to establishment of safe area doses for both induction and elicitation, while Felter et al ( 2003) have proposed the use of only the intraspecies variation factor, product matrix factor, and exposure conditions factor for determination of safe area doses for induction. The interspecies uncertainty factor is intended to account for differences in response between tests in animals and results in humans, although it has been reported ( Griem et al, 2003) that sensitizing area doses are very similar between murine and human data, thus supporting a potentially reduced uncertainty factor for this area. The intraspecies uncertainty factor is used to account for inherent variability in the human population based on age, sex, genetic makeup, or health status, and is generally agreed that a factor of 10 is appropriate for this uncertainty. An uncertainty factor may also be included for vehicle matrix effects, as the matrix in which an allergen is presented to the skin may have an influence on the potential for induction of ACD. Most experimental data are generated using simple vehicles, while Page 3 of 5 actual exposures are usually to more complex formulations that may contain irritants or penetration enhancers. A factor of 10 may considered in such a case, while a reduced factor may be considered for mild formulations. Finally, an uncertainty factor may be applied to account for exposure variables that may influence the potential for induction of ACD, including the site of the body exposed, the integrity of the skin, and the potential for multiple exposures. Using the above approaches, a maximum uncertainty factor of 1000 or 3000 could be derived depending on the criteria used. By contrast, a minimum uncertainty factor of 10 could be derived if results from human studies are used.

Thresholds for induction of ACD can occur following a single exposure of sufficient magnitude, after contact with a large area of skin, or as a consequence of repeated skin applications ( Marzulli and Maibach). Griem et al. ( 2003) suggested a possible higher sensitizing potency of a chemical upon repeated exposures. This would make sense in the case of hexavalent chromium, as the significant irritancy of the chemical could lend itself to an increased sensitizing potency by allowing more chemical to penetrate the stratum corneum.

QUESTION 1: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed quantitative approach for determination of induction thresholds to dermal sensitizing chemicals? What other approaches does the Panel recommend EPA consider? Which uncertainty factors does the Panel feel are the most appropriate for application to quantitative methods of induction threshold determination? What factors should be included in the determination of the magnitude of each uncertainty factor?

ISSUE 2: Quantitative Risk Assessment for the Elicitation Phase of ACD Several proposals have been published regarding determination of elicitation thresholds in sensitized populations. The Minimum Elicitation Threshold ( MET) concept has been discussed in previous publications ( Nethercott et al., 1994; Zewdie, 1998; NJDEP, 1998; Basketter et al., 2003) specifically with respect to hexavalent chromium. The concept behind the MET is that there is an ` elicitation threshold' below which no sensitization reaction is expected; thus, the MET is analogous to an RfD ( Horowitz and Finley, 1994). The setting of an MET is usually performed as a result of tests in previously sensitized individuals; thus, the MET is considered protective of elicitation reactions. However, there has not been an extensive discussion of the criteria for employing this concept for purposes of risk assessment.

QUESTION 2: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed quantitative approaches for determination of elicitation thresholds to dermal sensitizing chemicals? What other approaches does the Panel recommend that EPA consider? Which uncertainty factors does the Panel feel are the most Page 4 of 5 appropriate for application to quantitative methods of elicitation threshold determination? What factors should be included in the determination of the magnitude of each uncertainty factor?

ISSUE 3: Children Sensitivity Paustenbach et al. ( 1992) and Felter et al. ( 2002) have discussed the issue of whether children are more or less at risk for development of ACD. Paustenbach et al. addressed this issue specifically for hexavalent chromium, and this paper concluded that risk to children ages 3 to 8 is not likely to be greater than adults as there is no evidence that repeated exposures to hexavalent chromium places a person at greater risk of sensitization. Felter et al. suggested that infants and children may actually be at lower risk for development of ACD based on data gathered from dinitrochlorobenzene and pentadecylcatechol ( poison ivy allergen). However, it is also understood that young children may not have been exposed to different allergens as compared to adults. In addition, increased frequency of exposure in children may increase the chance of induction to different allergens.

QUESTION 3: Does the Panel agree that the available scientific data suggest no significant difference in the relative sensitivity of children vs. adults to the induction and/ or elicitation of ACD? If so, please provide scientific justification for this position. If the Panel disagrees, please provide scientific justification, including supporting data and/ or uncertainties in the explanation.

ISSUE 4: Case Example  Cr( VI) in treated wood Data from murine LLNA tests as well as from human patch testing studies using hexavalent chromium are available in the scientific literature. Results of LLNA testing show EC3 values that indicate area doses that result in the induction of sensitization in the mouse, while the results of patch test studies in humans show area doses that result in elicitation of sensitization in already sensitized individuals. In the Agency's initial assessment seeking to assess dermal sensitization risk from hexavalent chromium, the lowest dose tested ( 0.018 ug/ cm2) from the human patch test study of Nethercott et al ( 1994) was selected for determination of dermal risk from hexavalent chromium. A 10x uncertainty factor ( 3x for use of the lowest dose tested [ LOAEL] in this study, and 3x to account for the small size of the study population in the Nethercott study) was applied, resulting in a ` safe area' dose of 0.0018 ug/ cm2. Use of the test data of Basketter et al. ( 2001) and Hansen et. al ( 2003) also result in derivation of similar ` safe' area doses of 0.001 and 0.003

g/ cm2 respectively. Use of the murine LLNA test data and application of an uncertainty factor of either 1000 or 3000 calculated ` safe' area doses of 0.01 or 0.003

g/ cm2 respectively.

QUESTION 4: Please comment on the methods used for derivation of ` safe' area doses using the Page 5 of 5 available LLNA data and the human patch test data, including the magnitude of the applied uncertainty factors, and include a scientific rationale in support of your position. Please comment on whether it is scientifically supportable to derive separate ` safe' area doses for protection against induction of dermal sensitization as well as elicitation in sensitized individuals by hexavalent chromium?


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 108 (Monday, June 6, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34261-34262]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12051]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 6951-018]

Tallassee Shoals, LLC; Notice Soliciting Scoping Comments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New License.
    b. Project No.: 6951-018.
    c. Date Filed: September 15, 2021.
    d. Applicant: Tallassee Shoals, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Tallassee Shoals Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Middle Oconee River, in
Athens-Clarke and Jackson Counties, Georgia. The project does not
occupy any federal land.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)--825 (r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Walter Puryear, Tallassee Shoals, LLC., 2399
Tallassee Road, Athens, Georgia 30607; Phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
email at [email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Michael Spencer at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
[email protected].
    j. Deadline for filing scoping comments: June 30, 2022.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
scoping comments using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy via
U.S. Postal Service to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent
via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852. All filings must clearly identify the
project name and docket number on the first page: Tallassee Shoals
Hydroelectric Project, P-6951-018.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    k. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    l. The Tallassee Shoals Project consists of the following existing
facilities: (1) a 365-foot-long, 25-foot-high concrete dam; (2) a 100-
kilowatt fixed Kaplan unit within the dam; (3) a 1,400-foot-long
headrace canal from the dam to the powerhouse; (4) an 80-foot-long, 11-
foot-diameter penstock; (5) a powerhouse containing a single 2.2
megawatt (MW) adjustable Kaplan unit; (6) a 75-foot-long tailrace; and
(7) a 100-foot-long, 42-kilovolt transmission line. The project creates
a 2,100-foot-long bypassed reach of the Middle Oconee River. The
project's total capacity is 2.3 MW, and its average annual generation
is approximately 6,100 megawatt-hours.
    Tallassee Shoals, LLC. proposes to continue run-of-river operation
of the project with the required minimum flow of 70 cfs or inflow,
whichever is less, into the project's bypassed reach, yearound.
Tallassee Shoals, LLC. proposes to discontinue the minimum flow of 138
cfs, or inflow, whichever is less, provided currently in the month of
May.
    m. In addition to publishing the full text of this notice in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this notice, as well
as other documents in the proceeding (e.g., scoping document) via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last
three digits, in the docket number field to access the document (P-
6951). For assistance, contact FERC at [email protected] or
call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    n. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    o. Scoping Process.

    Commission staff will prepare either an Environmental Assessment
(EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that describes and
evaluates the probable effects, if any, of the licensee's proposed
action and alternatives. The EA or EIS will consider environmental
impacts and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. The
Commission's scoping process will help determine the required level of
analysis and satisfy the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
scoping requirements, irrespective of whether the Commission prepares
an EA or an EIS. At this time, we do not anticipate holding on-site
scoping meetings. Instead, we are soliciting written comments and
suggestions on the preliminary list of issues and alternatives to be
addressed in the NEPA document, as described in scoping document 1
(SD1), issued May 31, 2022.
    Copies of SD1 outlining the subject areas to be addressed in the
NEPA document were distributed to the parties on the Commission's
mailing list and the applicant's distribution list. Copies of SD1 may
be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call 1-866-
208-3676 or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 31, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-12051 Filed 6-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 10598]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4195]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

BIOTECH Holdings Ltd., California Oil & Gas Corp., Central Minera
Corp., Chemokine Therapeutics Corp., and Global Precision Medical Inc.;
Order of Suspension of Trading

February 17, 2012.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
BIOTECH Holdings Ltd. because it has not filed any annual reports since
the period ended March 31, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
California Oil & Gas Corp. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended August 31, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Central Minera Corp. because it has not filed any annual reports since
the period ended June 30, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Chemokine Therapeutics Corp. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended September 30, 2008.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Global Precision Medical Inc. because it has not filed any periodic
reports since the period ended March 31, 2007.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed companies. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed companies is suspended
for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST on February 17, 2012, through 11:59
p.m. EST on March 2, 2012.

    By the Commission.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4195 Filed 2-17-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 176 (Thursday, September 10, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 55802]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18777]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 300

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-5553]
RIN 0910-AI36

Annual Summary Reporting Requirements Under the Right To Try Act;
Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is
correcting a proposed rule that published in the Federal Register of
July 24, 2020. That proposed rule proposes to establish requirements
for the deadline and contents of submission in an annual summary. We
are placing a corrected copy of the proposed rule in the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Davies, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, Rm. 3121, Silver
Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of July 24, 2020,
(85 FR 44803), FDA published the proposed rule ``Annual Summary
Reporting Requirements Under the Right to Try Act'' with several
errors.
    In the Federal Register of July 24, 2020, FR Doc. 2020-16016, the
following corrections are made:
    On page 44804, in the third column, in section ``D. Costs and
Benefits'' the first paragraph, the fourth and fifth sentences are
corrected as follows: ``The total estimated present value of this
rule's costs is $39,991 at a seven percent discount rate and $49,345 at
a three percent discount rate (in 2018 dollars). The annualized cost of
this rule over 10 years is $5,694 at a seven percent discount rate and
$5,785 at a three percent discount rate.'' On page 44808, in table 1,
in column 2 (``Primary estimate'') rows 4 and 5 (``Costs'' category)
are corrected as follows: ``$5,694'' and $5,785'', respectively, and
the ``7'' in column 4 (``High estimate'') is removed. On pages 44808
and 44809, in column 6 (``Discount Rate (10%)'') is corrected to read
as follows:

                                   Table 1--Summary of Benefits and Costs in 2018 Dollars Over a 10-Year Time Horizon
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Units
                                        Primary                                    ------------------------------------------------
             Category                  estimate      Low estimate    High estimate                   Discount rate                          Notes
                                                                                Year dollars         (%)       Period covered
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits:
    Annualized Monetized $/year...  ..............  ..............  ..............            2018               7              10
                                                                                2018               3              10
    Annualized Quantified.........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............               7
                                                                                3
    Qualitative...................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  Disclosure of
                                                                                serious adverse
                                                                                events and outcomes
                                                                                related to
                                                                                investigational new
                                                                                drug treatments.
Costs:
    Annualized Monetized $/year...          $5,694  ..............  ..............            2018               7              10
                                            $5,785                                            2018               3              10
    Annualized Quantified.........  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............               7
                                                                                3
    Qualitative
Transfers:
    Federal Annualized Monetized $/ ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............               7
     year.                                                                                3
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From/To.......................  From:
                                    To:
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Other Annualized Monetized $/   ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............               7
     year.                                                                                3
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From/To.......................  From:
                                    To:
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effects:..........................  State, Local or Tribal Government:
                                    Small Business:
                                    Wages:
                                    Growth:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: August 20, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-18777 Filed 9-9-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: September 3, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 171)]
[Notices]
[Page 54193-54194]
[DOCID:fr03se10-105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 0-2; SEC File No. 270-572; OMB Control No. 3235-0636.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget a request for extension of the previously approved collection of
information discussed below.
    Several sections of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'' or
``Investment Company Act'') \1\ give the Commission the authority to
issue orders granting exemptions from the Act's provisions. The section
that grants broadest authority is section 6(c), which provides the
Commission with authority to conditionally or unconditionally exempt
persons, securities or transactions from any provision of the
Investment Company Act, or the rules or regulations, if and to the
extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the public
interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-6(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 0-2 under the Investment Company Act,\3\ entitled ``General
Requirements of Papers and Applications,'' prescribes general
instructions for filing an application seeking excemptive relief with
the Commission for which a form is not specifically prescribed. Rule 0-
2 requires that each application filed with the commission have (a) a
statement of authorization to file and sign the application on behalf
of the applicant, (b) a verification of application and statements of
fact, (c) a brief statement of the grounds for application, and (d) the
name and address of each applicant and of any person to whom questions
should be directed. The Commission uses the information required by
rule 0-

2 to decide whether the applicant should be deemed to be entitled to
the action requested by the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 270.0-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applicants for orders can include registered investment companies,
affiliated persons of registered investment companies, and issuers
seeking to avoid investment company status, among other entities.
Commission staff estimates that it receives approximately 125
applications per year under the Act. Although each application
typically is submitted on behalf of multiple entities, the entities in
the vast majority of cases are related companies and are treated as a
single respondent for purposes of this analysis.
    The time to prepare an application depends on the complexity and/or
novelty of the issues covered by the application. We estimate that the
Commission receives 20 of the most time-consuming applications
annually, 80 applications of medium difficulty, and 25 of the least
difficult applications. Based on conversations with applicants, we
estimate that in-house counsel would spend from ten to fifty hours
helping to draft and review an application. We estimate a total annual
hour burden to all respondents of 3,650 hours [(50 hours x 20
applications) + (30 hours x 80 applications) + (10 hours x 25
applications)].
    Much of the work of preparing an application is performed by
outside counsel. The cost outside counsel charges applicants depends on
the complexity of the issues covered by the application and the time
required for preparation. Based on conversations with attorneys who
serve as outside counsel, the cost ranges from approximately $10,000
for preparing a well-precedented, routine application to approximately
$150,000 to prepare a complex and/or novel application. This
distribution gives a total estimated annual cost burden to applicants
of filing all applications of $9,650,000 [(20 x $150,000) + (80 x
$80,000) + (25 x $10,000)].
    These estimates of average costs are made solely for the purposes
of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived from a
comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of
Commission rules.
    This collection of information is necessary to obtain a benefit and
will not be kept confidential. An agency may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct general comments regarding the above information to
the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive
Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or e-mail to: Shagufta Ahmed at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Charles Boucher, Director/CIO,
Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General
Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an e-mail to: PRA_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of
this notice.

    Dated: August 30, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-22025 Filed 9-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: October 27, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 207)]
[Notices]
[Page 66075-66076]
[DOCID:fr27oc10-42]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

October 20, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1756-001.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits tariff filing per 35: 2010-10-12 Non Generator Resource
Compliance Filing to be effective 9/10/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/12/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101012-5018.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 02, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1830-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2010-10-19 CAISO Generator
Interconnection Procedures Amendment to be effective 12/19/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/19/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101019-5133.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 09, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1831-000.
    Applicants: Columbus Southern Power Company.
    Description: Columbus Southern Power Company submits tariff filing
per 35.12: Baseline MBR Concurrence to be effective 10/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/19/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101019-5152.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 09, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1832-000.
    Applicants: Nevada Power Company.
    Description: Nevada Power Company submits tariff filing per 35:
Cost-Based Rate Schedule No. 114--Compliance Filing to be effective 10/
1/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/19/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101019-5153.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 09, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1833-000.
    Applicants: Indiana Michigan Power Company.
    Description: Indiana Michigan Power Company submits tariff filing
per 35.12: Baseline MBR Concurrence to be effective 10/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/19/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101019-5155.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 09, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1834-000.
    Applicants: Kentucky Power Company.
    Description: Kentucky Power Company submits tariff filing per
35.12: Baseline MBR Concurrence to be effective 10/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/19/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101019-5156.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 09, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1835-000.
    Applicants: Kingsport Power Company.
    Description: Kingsport Power Company submits tariff filing per
35.12: Baseline MBR Concurrence to be effective 10/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/19/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101019-5157.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 09, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1836-000.
    Applicants: Sierra Pacific Power Company.
    Description: Sierra Pacific Power Company submits tariff filing per
35: Cost-Based Rate Schedule No. 57--Compliance Filing to be effective
10/1/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/19/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101019-5159.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 09, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1837-000.
    Applicants: Ohio Power Company.
    Description: Ohio Power Company submits tariff filing per 35.12:
Baseline MBR Concurrence to be effective 10/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/19/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101019-5163.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 09, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1838-000.
    Applicants: Wheeling Power Company.
    Description: Wheeling Power Company submits tariff filing per
35.12: Baseline MBR Concurrence to be effective 10/8/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/19/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101019-5168.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, November 09, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1839-000.
    Applicants: Avista Corporation.
    Description: Avista Corporation submits their Compliance Filing of
its Open Access Transmission Tariff to remove the price cap regarding
the assignment of Avista transmission pursuant to Order 739, to be
effective 10/20/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/20/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101020-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 10, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-1840-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Arizona Public Service Company submits tariff filing
per 35: Compliance filing pursuant to Order No. 739 to be effective 9/
24/2010.
    Filed Date: 10/20/2010.
    Accession Number: 20101020-5039.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, November 10, 2010.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of

Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m.
Eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to
separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance
filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to
the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must
serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings
initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or
before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than
the Applicant.
    As it relates to any qualifying facility filings, the notices of
self-certification [or self-recertification] listed above, do not
institute a proceeding regarding qualifying facility status. A notice
of self-certification [or self-recertification] simply provides
notification that the entity making the filing has determined the
facility named in the notice meets the applicable criteria to be a
qualifying facility. Intervention and/or protest do not lie in dockets
that are qualifying facility self-certifications or self-
recertifications. Any person seeking to challenge such qualifying
facility status may do so by filing a motion pursuant to 18 CFR
292.207(d)(iii). Intervention and protests may be filed in response to
notices of qualifying facility dockets other than self-certifications
and self-recertifications.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27133 Filed 10-26-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2820-2821]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00814]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1333; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-24]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace; Athens/Ben Epps
Airport, Athens, GA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class D airspace, Class E surface airspace,
Class E airspace designated as an extension to a Class D surface area,
and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
at Athens/Ben Epps Airport, Athens, GA as a result of the biennial
airspace evaluation. This action eliminates the excess airspace
remaining after the decommissioning of the Bulldog Non-Directional
Beacon (NDB) and subsequent cancellation of the NDB Runway 27 approach
to Athens/Ben Epps Airport effective October 15, 2015, and updates the
geographic coordinates for the airport and the Point of Origin.
Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of
instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, April 20, 2023. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR
part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; Telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Ledford, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Ave., College Park, GA 30337; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue a rule regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority,
as it amends airspace for Athens/Ben Epps Airport, Athens, GA, to
support IFR operations in the area.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (87 FR 67584, November 9, 2022) for Docket No. FAA-2022-1333
to amend Class D airspace, Class E surface airspace, Class E airspace
designated as an extension to a Class D surface area, and Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Athens/Ben
Epps Airport, Athens, GA, as a result of the biennial airspace
evaluation.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in Paragraphs
5000, 6002, 6004, and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11G, dated
August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Differences From the NPRM

    Subsequent to the publication of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
the FAA found the distances on each side of the Athens Point of Origin
195[deg] bearing and the Athens Point of Origin 076[deg] bearing were
incorrect. The dimensions were correct in the Proposal section of the
Preamble but were mistakenly transposed in the airspace description.
This action corrects the error. Controlled airspace is necessary for
the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations
in the area.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15,
2022. FAA Order 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11G lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic routes, and reporting
points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 71 by extending the Class D
airspace for Athens/Ben Epps Airport from a 4-mile radius to a 4.6-mile
radius surrounding the airport and by updating the airport's geographic
coordinates to coincide with the FAA's database. Also, Class E surface
airspace, extension to Class D airspace, and transition airspace are
being amended for the above airport. Class E surface airspace for
Athens/Ben Epps Airport is being extended from a 4-mile radius to a
4.6-mile radius surrounding the airport. The Class E airspace used for
an extension to Class D is being reduced from 3 miles to 1.4 miles on
each side of the Athens Point of Origin 195[deg] bearing extending from
the 4.6-mile radius of the Athens/Ben Epps Airport to 7.6 miles south
of the Point of Origin and is being reduced from 3 miles to 2.4 miles
each side of the Athens Point of Origin 076[deg] bearing extending from
the 4.6-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles east of the Point of
Origin. The Class E5 transition airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface is being amended to within a 7.7-mile radius of
Athens/Ben Epps Airport (reduced from an 11.5-mile radius). This
eliminates the excess airspace that remained after the decommissioning
of the Bulldog (BJT) non-directional beacon (NDB) and subsequent
cancellation of the NDB Rwy 27 approach, effective October 15, 2015 (80
FR 61978). In addition, this action replaces the outdated terms
Airport/Facility Directory with Chart Supplement and Notice to Airmen
with the term Notice to Air Missions in the airspace descriptions. This
action also replaces the VORTAC used for airspace definition with a
point-of-origin.
    Subsequent to the publication of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
the FAA found the distances on each side of the Athens Point of Origin
195[deg] bearing and the Athens Point of Origin 076[deg] bearing were
incorrect. The dimensions were correct in the Proposal section of the
Preamble but were mistakenly transposed in the airspace

description. This action corrects the error. Controlled airspace is
necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules
(IFR) operations in the area.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only
affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that
this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraphs 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances warrant the preparation of an environmental
assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11G,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and
effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO GA D Athens, GA [Amended]

Athens/Ben Epps Airport, Athens, GA
    (Lat. 33[deg]56'55'' N, long. 83[deg]19'33'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,300 feet MSL within a 4.6-mile radius of the Athens/Ben Epps
Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the
specified dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Air
Missions. The effective date and time will be continuously published
in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO GA E2 Athens, GA [Amended]

Athens/Ben Epps Airport, Athens, GA
    (Lat. 33[deg]56'55'' N, long. 83[deg]19'33'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 4.6-
mile radius of the Athens/Ben Epps Airport. This Class E airspace
area is effective during the specific dates and times established in
advance by a Notice to Air Missions. The effective date and time
will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to Class
D Surface Area.

* * * * *

ASO GA E4 Athens, GA [Amended]

Athens/Ben Epps Airport, Athens, GA
    (Lat. 33[deg]56'55'' N, long. 83[deg]19'33'' W)
Athens Point of Origin
    (Lat. 33[deg]56'51'' N, long 83[deg]19'29'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 1.4 miles
on each side of the Athens Point of Origin 195[deg] bearing
extending from the 4.6-mile radius of the Athens/Ben Epps Airport to
7.6 miles south of the Point of Origin and within 2.4 miles each
side of the Athens Point of Origin 076[deg] bearing extending from
the 4.6-mile radius of the airport to 7 miles east of the Point of
Origin. This Class E airspace area is effective during the specific
dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Air Missions.
The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASO GA E5 Athens, GA [Amended]

Athens/Ben Epps Airport, GA
    (Lat. 33[deg]56'55'' N, long. 83[deg]19'33'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.7-mile radius of Athens/Ben Epps Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on January 11, 2023.
Andreese C. Davis,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2023-00814 Filed 1-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15428-15429]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6240]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-66562; File No. SR-FINRA-2012-019]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Amend FINRA Rule 9313 to Conform to FINRA Rule
9136 Regarding the Authority of Counsel to the National Adjudicatory
Council

March 9, 2012.
    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 February 29, 2012, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has designated
the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-controversial'' rule
change under paragraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 under the Act,\3\ which
renders the proposal effective upon receipt of this filing by the
Commission. 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.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 9313 to conform to FINRA
Rule 9136 regarding the authority of counsel to the National
Adjudicatory Council.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, at the principal office of FINRA 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, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    On January 4, 2012, the SEC approved a proposed rule change to
FINRA's Code of Procedure.\4\ As part of the proposed rule change,
FINRA amended FINRA Rule 9313 to give counsel to the National
Adjudicatory Council (``NAC'') the authority to establish the number of
copies of all papers that shall be filed with the Adjudicator and
specifications of such papers under FINRA Rule 9136. While FINRA Rule
9313 gives counsel to the NAC authority to establish the specifications
of papers that shall be filed with the Adjudicator under FINRA Rule
9136, FINRA Rule 9136 does not provide discretion regarding the
specifications for such papers. The proposed rule change amends FINRA
Rule 9313(a)(8) to conform to FINRA Rule 9136 and removes counsel to
the NAC's authority to establish the specifications of papers that are
filed with the NAC. Nevertheless, counsel to the NAC will continue to
have the authority to take the actions specified in the other
subsections of FINRA Rule 9313(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 66096 (January 4,
2012), 77 FR 1524 (January 10, 2012) (Order Approving File No. SR-
FINRA-2011-044).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. The implementation date for the proposed rule change
will be the effective date of SR-FINRA-2011-044.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FINRA will announce the effective date of SR-FINRA-2011-044
in a Regulatory Notice to be published no later than March 4, 2012.
The effective date will be no later than 30 days following
publication of the Regulatory Notice. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\6\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that the proposed rule change will
provide greater clarity to members and the public regarding FINRA's
rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the self-regulatory organization to submit to the
Commission written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule
change, along with a brief description and text of the proposed rule
change, at least five business days prior to the date of filing of
the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the
Commission. FINRA has satisfied this requirement.

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

    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 necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2012-019 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2012-019. 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 Web site (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 Web site 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
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of FINRA. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2012-019 and should be
submitted on or before April 5, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-6240 Filed 3-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9133-9134]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03439]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2010-1055; FRL-9906-64-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Mexico; Transportation Conformity and General Conformity
Requirements for Bernalillo County

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the New Mexico State Implementation Plan (SIP) at
New Mexico Administrative Code 20.11.3 and 20.11.4, concerning
transportation conformity and general conformity rules for Bernalillo
County, New Mexico. The plan revision is intended to ensure consistency
with amendments to the federal Transportation Conformity Rule and the
federal General Conformity Rule. These plan revisions meet statutory
and regulatory requirements, and are consistent with EPA's guidance.

DATES: Written comments should be received on or before March 20, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Please see the related direct final rule, which is located
in the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register, for
detailed instructions on how to submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Peace, Facility Assessment
Section (6PD-A), Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas
75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Why is EPA issuing this proposed rule?

    This document proposes to take action on SIP revisions submitted by
the Governor of New Mexico on behalf of the Albuquerque Bernalillo
County Air Quality, Environmental Health Department on November 18,
2010, May 24, 2011, and October 11, 2012. We have published a direct
final rule approving the State's SIP revisions in the ``Rules and
Regulations'' section of this Federal Register because we view this as
a noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have
explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct
final rule.
    If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action
on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw
the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all
public comments in any subsequent final rule based upon this proposed
rule.
    We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
For further information, please see the information provided in the
ADDRESSES section of this document.

    Dated: January 28, 2014.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2014-03439 Filed 2-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 220 (Thursday, November 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64591-64593]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0131]

Entry-Level Driver Training: Application for Exemption; Ohio
Department of Education

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

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that the Ohio Department of Education (ODE)
has requested an exemption from the Entry-Level Driver Training (ELDT)
requirements that will be implemented in February 2022. The exemption
request applies to drivers, trained through ODE's ``Pre-Service School
Bus Driver Training'' curriculum, who are seeking to obtain their Class
B Commercial Driver's License (CDL) with school bus (S) and passenger
(P) endorsements, and to current Class B CDL holders wishing to add the
P and S endorsements. The ODE believes the Ohio theory (i.e.,
classroom) curriculum

and behind-the-wheel (BTW) instruction meet or exceeds all the new ELDT
requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 20, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System Number FMCSA-2021-0131 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. See the
Public Participation and Request for Comments section below for further
information.
     Mail: Docket Operations, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this notice (FMCSA-2021-0131). Note that DOT posts all comments
received without change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting
Docket Operations.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and
Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards;<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected]. If you have questions
on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2021-0131), indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for
suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov and put
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2021-0131'' in the ``Search'' box, and click
``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Documents'' button,
then click the ``Comment'' button associated with the latest notice
posted. Another screen will appear, insert the required information.
Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual, an
organization, or anonymous. Click ``Submit Comment.''
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments
and materials received during the comment period.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA
must publish a notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register
(49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an opportunity
to inspect the information relevant to the application, including any
safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must also provide
an opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period (up to 5
years) and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Background

Current Regulation(s) Requirements

    FMCSA's entry-level driver training (ELDT) regulations set forth
minimum training standards for certain individuals applying for a Class
A or Class B CDL for the first time; an upgrade of their CDL (e.g., a
Class B CDL holder seeking a Class A CDL); or a hazardous materials
(H), passenger (P), or school bus (S) endorsement for the first time
(49 CFR part 380, subpart F). These individuals are subject to the ELDT
requirements and must complete a prescribed program of instruction
provided by an entity that is listed on FMCSA's Training Provider
Registry (TPR). The training requirements do not mandate a minimum
number of theory or behind-the-wheel (BTW) hours for the completion of
the Class A and B CDL or the S, P, or H endorsement curricula. FMCSA
will submit driver-specific training certification information to State
driver licensing agencies, which can administer CDL skills tests to
applicants for the Class A and B CDL, and/or the P or S endorsements,
or knowledge test for the H endorsement, only after verifying the
driver completed the required training. The compliance date for the
ELDT regulations is February 7, 2022.

Applicant's Request

    The ODE requests an exemption from the ELDT requirements as set
forth in 49 CFR part 380.\1\ The exemption request applies to drivers,
trained through ODE's ``Pre-Service School Bus Driver Training''
curriculum, who are seeking to obtain their Class B Commercial Driver's
License (CDL) with school bus (S), passenger (P), and air brake
endorsements and to current Class B CDL holders wishing to add the P
and

S endorsements. If granted the exemption, ODE requests it remain in
effect as long as the Ohio Pre-Service theory and BTW curricula meet or
exceed all of the Federal training standards. The ODE states that the
Ohio Pre-Service School Bus Driver Training program was established in
1978, and periodic review and upgrades to the program are continuous.
With more than 25,000 school buses operated in Ohio, safety is of
greatest importance for the ODE's Office of Pupil Transportation, and
thousands of drivers are trained through the Department's program each
year, including new and ``existing'' drivers seeking their initial CDL
and applicable P and S endorsements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ODE did not specify which subparts within 49 CFR part 380
are included within the scope of its application for exemption.
However, based on the application's reference to ``the new Entry
Level Driver Training regulations,'' FMCSA interprets that ODE is
requesting exemption from 49 CFR part 380, subpart F, which includes
the ELDT requirements for drivers as set forth in Sec.  380.609.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ODE's application explains that all drivers who operate school
buses in Ohio must be listed in the ODE's School Foundation Payment
System (SFPS) portal which tracks driver license information and
assures drivers complete the necessary training requirements to
transport students in Ohio. The SFPS verifies that drivers participated
in both theory and BTW instruction, and also completes daily checks of
driver certificates to ensure certificates are not expired. All drivers
are required to attend theory training and have skill evaluations at
least every 6 years. Most drivers are evaluated annually by their
supervisors and/or on-the-bus instructors.
    The ODE contends that without this requested exemption, ``Ohio
school bus drivers would be required to have more training than anyone
in the industry.'' School bus drivers who complete the Ohio Pre-Service
School Bus Driver Training meet all the criteria to operate any Group-B
commercial motor vehicle (CMV). This training program enables a driver
to obtain a Class B CDL and provides the training to obtain either the
P, S, or air brake endorsements, which allow for the driver to operate
multiple Group B-regulated CMVs.

IV. Equivalent Level of Safety

    The ODE believes the current State revised and administrative codes
that requires new Ohio school bus drivers to successfully complete 15
hours of theory instruction and a minimum of 12 hours of BTW
instruction and the training instructors' credentials, exceeds the
requirements set forth in the ELDT regulations. The ODE's application
also references the Ohio law requiring ``existing'' drivers to
successfully complete 9 hours of theory instruction once every six
years after initial certification, and requiring school bus drivers to
complete a minimum of 4 hours of annual in-service training specific to
the operation of a school bus, as additional elements that exceed the
level of safety of the ELDT regulations.

V. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), FMCSA requests public
comment from all interested persons on the ODE's application for an
exemption from the Federal ELDT regulations in 49 CFR part 380 subpart
F for drivers trained through its Pre-Service School Bus Driver
Training curriculum. All comments received before the close of business
on the comment closing date indicated at the beginning of this notice
will be considered and will be available for examination in the docket
at the location listed under the Addresses section of this notice.
Comments received after the comment closing date will be filed in the
public docket and will be considered to the extent practicable.
    In addition to late comments, FMCSA will also continue to file, in
the public docket, relevant information that becomes available after
the comment closing date. Interested persons should continue to examine
the public docket for new material.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-25118 Filed 11-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 14, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2366-2368]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31447]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0635; Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-081-AD;
Amendment 39-17720; AD 2013-26-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Eurocopter France Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Eurocopter France (Eurocopter) Model EC225LP helicopters. This AD
requires inspecting the swashplates for corrosion or a crack, and
making the appropriate repairs or replacement of parts. This AD was
prompted by the discovery of corrosion on the swashplates when the main
rotor hub (MRH) assemblies were reconditioned. The actions of this AD
are intended to detect corrosion or a crack in the swashplates, which
could lead to failure of the swashplates and subsequent loss of
helicopter control.

DATES: This AD is effective February 18, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of February 18,
2014.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand Prairie, TX
75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or at http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub. You may review the referenced
service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel,
Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas
76137.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket Operations Office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the foreign authority's AD,
any incorporated-by-reference service information, the economic
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Roach, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Regulations and Policy Group, FAA, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth,
Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On July 23, 2013, at 78 FR 44043, the Federal Register published
our notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Eurocopter Model
EC225LP helicopters with an MRH assembly with a rotating swashplate,
part number (P/N) 332A31-3074-00 or 332A31-3076-00, and stationary
swashplate, P/N 332A31-3079-00 or 332A31-3079-01, installed. The NPRM
proposed to require inspecting the swashplates for corrosion or a
crack, and making the appropriate repairs or replacement of parts. The
proposed requirements were intended to prevent failure of the
swashplate and subsequent loss of helicopter control.
    The NPRM was prompted by AD No. 2012-0131, dated July 31, 2012,
issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, to correct
an unsafe condition for Eurocopter Model EC225LP helicopters. EASA
advises that corrosion has been reported on the rotating and stationary
swashplates of the MRH assembly of several helicopters. This condition
may cause cracks on the swashplates, which may cause failure of MRH
parts and loss of control of the helicopter. The EASA AD requires
repetitive inspections of the affected swashplates after two years and
replacing the MRH assembly if a crack is found.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD, but we received no comments on the NPRM (78 FR 44043, July 23,
2013).

FAA's Determination

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

Related Service Information

    We reviewed Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. EC225-05A030,
Revision 0, dated July 12, 2012 (ASB). The ASB states that while
reconditioning the main rotor mast (MRM) assemblies, Eurocopter found
corrosion on the rotating and stationary swashplates under the
retaining flanges of the swashplate sub-assembly bearing. Over time,
this corrosion could initiate a crack. The ASB specifies inspecting the
MRM assembly for corrosion or a crack and replacing the MRM assembly if
a crack or corrosion is found. The FAA and EASA use the term MRH
assembly, while Eurocopter uses MRM assembly to describe the same
section of the helicopter.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects three helicopters of U.S. Registry
and that labor costs average $85 per work-hour. Based on these
estimates, we expect the following costs:
     Inspecting the rotating and stationary swashplates for
corrosion or a crack requires 8 work-hours for a cost of $680 per
helicopter and $2,040 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle. Making
and installing the placard requires 0.5 work-hour, for a cost of $43
per helicopter. The labor cost of making changes to the flight manual
is negligible.
     Replacing the MRH assembly requires 24 work-hours and
parts cost $5,000, for a total cost of $7,040 per helicopter.

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 helicopters identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2013-26-11 Eurocopter France Helicopters (Eurocopter): Amendment 39-
17720; Docket No. FAA-2013-0635; Directorate Identifier 2012-SW-081-
AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Eurocopter Model EC225LP helicopters with a
main rotor hub (MRH) assembly with a rotating swashplate, part
number (P/N) 332A31-3074-00 or 332A31-3076-00, and stationary
swashplate, P/N 332A31-3079-00 or 332A31-3079-01, installed,
certificated in any category.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as corrosion or a crack in
the stationary or rotating swashplate of the MRH assembly, which
could lead to failure of the swashplate and subsequent loss of
helicopter control.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective February 18, 2014.

(d) Compliance

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

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 110 hours time-in-service (TIS) or before the MRH
assembly accumulates 1,320 hours TIS, whichever occurs later, and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 1,320 hours TIS, visually
inspect the rotating and stationary swashplates for corrosion or a
crack by following the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B.2
and Figures 1 through 3, of Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No.
EC225-05A030, Revision 0, dated July 12, 2012 (ASB).
    (2) If a crack exists in the rotating or stationary swashplates,
replace the MRH assembly with an airworthy MRH assembly.
    (3) If corrosion exists without any visual indication of
cracking, do the following:
    (i) Before further flight, install a placard stating ``NO FLIGHT
IN OAT BELOW -30 [deg]C'' in the full view of the pilots and add the
statement ``NO FLIGHT IN OAT BELOW -30 [deg]C'' to the Operating
Limitations Section of the helicopter's Rotorcraft Flight Manual
(RFM) by making pen and ink changes or by inserting a copy of this
AD in Section 2.3 Flight Envelope, Item 2 Temperature Limits.
    (ii) Within 150 hours TIS or 6 months after the inspection when
the corrosion was first detected, whichever occurs first, replace
the MRH assembly with an airworthy assembly. Remove any placard that
states ``NO FLIGHT IN OAT BELOW -30 [deg]C'' from the helicopter and
remove any related limitation from the RFM.
    (4) Replacement of an MRH assembly does not constitute
terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by
paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Safety Management Group, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Send your proposal to: Gary Roach, Aviation Safety
Engineer, Regulations and Policy Group, Rotorcraft Directorate, FAA,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone (817) 222-
5110; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, we suggest that you
notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office or
certificate holding district office, before operating any aircraft
complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA) You may view EASA AD No. 2012-0131, dated July 31,
2012 at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it
in Docket No. FAA-2013-0635.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6230, Main Rotor
Mast/Swashplate.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Eurocopter Alert Service Bulletin No. EC225-05A030, Revision
0, dated July 12, 2012.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Eurocopter service information identified in this AD,
contact American Eurocopter Corporation, 2701 N. Forum Drive, Grand
Prairie, TX 75052; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
(972) 641-3775; or at http://www.eurocopter.com/techpub.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663,
Fort Worth, Texas 76137. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 24, 2013.
Kim Smith,
Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-31447 Filed 1-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P