[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 168 (Tuesday, August 30, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59634-59635]
[FR Doc No: 2016-20763]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2016-N-0001]

Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee;
Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announces a forthcoming
public advisory committee meeting of the Vaccines and Related

Biological Products Advisory Committee. The general function of the
committee is to provide advice and recommendations to the Agency on
FDA's regulatory issues. The meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on November 16, 2016, from 8:30 a.m. to
2:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31
Conference Center, the Great Room (Rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD, 20993-
0002. Answers to commonly asked questions including information
regarding special accommodations due to a disability, visitor parking,
and transportation may be accessed at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm408555.htm. For those
unable to attend in person, the meeting will also be Webcast and will
be available at the following link: https://collaboration.fda.gov/vrbac1116/.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sujata Vijh or Rosanna Harvey, Center
for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 6128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002, at<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>and<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line,
1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area). A notice in
the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a
previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be
published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Agenda: On November 16, 2016, the committee will meet in open
session to discuss and make recommendations on the safety and efficacy
of a Hepatitis B Vaccine manufactured by Dynavax.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
November 1, 2016. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 12:15 p.m. to 1:15 p.m. Those individuals
interested in making formal oral presentations should notify the
contact person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of
the evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses
of proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time
requested to make their presentation on or before October 24, 2016.
Time allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of
registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably
accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may
conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open
public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested
persons regarding their request to speak by October 25, 2016.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
disabilities. If you require accommodations due to a disability, please
contact Sujata Vijh at least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: August 23, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-20763 Filed 8-29-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: October 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 207)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63339-63349]
[DOCID:fr24oc08-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Parts 23, 25, 33, and 35

[Docket No.: FAA-2007-27310; Amendment Nos. 23-59, 25-126, 33-28, and
35-5]
RIN 2120-AI95

Airworthiness Standards; Propellers

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA amends the airworthiness standards for issuance of
original and amended type certificates for airplane propellers. The
previous propeller requirements did not adequately address the
technological advances of the past twenty years. The new standards
address these advances in technology and harmonize FAA and European
Aviation Safety Agency propeller certification requirements, thereby
simplifying airworthiness approvals for imports and exports.

DATES: These amendments become effective December 23, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions concerning this final
rule contact Jay Turnberg, Engine and Propeller Directorate Standards
Staff, ANE-110, Federal Aviation Administration, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803-5299; telephone (781)
238-7116; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules on 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 III, section 44701, ''General
requirements.'' Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce, including minimum safety
standards for aircraft propellers. This final rule is within the scope
of that authority because it updates existing regulations for airplane
propellers.

Background

    Over the past decade, advances in technology have required repeated
application of special conditions or special tests for many propeller
certification programs. In addition, the need to demonstrate compliance
with both FAA and European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) requirements
placed additional burdens on propeller manufacturers who required
foreign certification. Therefore, we concluded that part 35 should be
substantially revised. This action harmonizes FAA part 35 propeller
certification requirements with most of EASA's Certification
Specifications for Propellers (CS-P).

Summary of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    On April 11, 2007 (72 FR 18136), the FAA proposed changes to
propeller requirements in Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
parts 23, 25, 33, and 35. We proposed to amend the airworthiness
standards for issuance of original and amended type certificates for
aircraft propellers to address advances in technology and harmonize FAA
requirements with EASA's CS-P. The comment period closed on June 11,
2007. We reopened the comment period on June 20, 2007 (72 FR 33925) for
an additional 45 days in response to requests from propeller
manufacturers for more time to comment. The comment period closed again
on August 6, 2007.

Summary of the Final Rule

    This final rule on propeller requirements contains no significant
changes from the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published on
April 11, 2007. We made minor changes to several sections to ensure
clarity and more consistency with EASA regulations in response to the
comments we received. This rule harmonizes FAA and EASA regulations for
most of part 35, updates Sec. Sec.  23.907 and 25.907 and links part 35
to Sec. Sec.  23.905, 25.901, 25.905, and 33.19.

Summary of Comments

    Six commenters made approximately 50 comments on the proposed rule.
The commenters included two industry associations, two propeller
manufacturers, a foreign aviation regulatory authority, and an
individual. Five commenters support the rule and only requested changes
that clarify specific rule language. For example, the Aircraft Owners
and Pilots Association (AOPA) agreed the proposed rule would clarify
what is expected from the FAA for propeller certification. AOPA is
concerned, however, about the effect of the proposed rule on the owners
of older general aviation aircraft that were type certified with
propellers that are no longer being manufactured. EASA agreed in
principle with the rule, but noted that it is not harmonized with the
latest amendment to its Certification Specifications for Propellers.
    The General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) commented
that FAA's effort to harmonize airworthiness standards for propellers
will help ensure that a streamlined certification process achieves the
highest level of safety. Only one commenter, MT-Propeller, a German
propeller manufacturer, objected to the rule, suggesting the rule is
not compatible with the needs of a modular propeller system in which
different propellers are manufactured for a variety of airplanes.

Discussion of the Final Rule

    Below is a more detailed discussion of the rule as it relates to
the comments we received.

Propeller Safety Analysis

    We revised the text and title of Sec.  35.15 to require applicants
to conduct a safety analysis of the propeller. The objective of the
safety analysis is to ensure the collective risk from all propeller
failure conditions is acceptably low. The safety analysis provides a
level of assurance that an acceptable total propeller design risk is
achievable through managing individual risks to acceptable levels. The
safety analysis emphasizes reducing the risk of an event proportionally
with the severity of the hazard it represents. Our revision adds
definitions in Sec.  35.15(g) for hazardous and major propeller effects
based on CS-P, historical JAR-P requirements, and the propeller special
conditions listed under ``Reference Material'' in the NPRM. We received
several comments on various aspects of the safety analysis of the
propeller.
    GAMA recommended the FAA consider removing two hazardous propeller
effects from those listed under proposed Sec.  35.15(g)(1). The two
effects are: ``(i) A significant overspeed of the propeller''; and
``(vi) the unintended movement of the propeller blades below the
established minimum in-flight low-pitch position.'' GAMA argued that a
significant propeller overspeed does not by itself create a hazardous
propeller effect, but rather, it may be a precursor to either excessive
propeller drag or release of a major portion of the propeller. GAMA
claimed that since both of these effects are already proposed as
hazardous propeller effects, the effect under proposed paragraph (i)
should be eliminated. GAMA also noted that the unintended movement of
the propeller blades below the established minimum in-flight low-pitch
position does not by itself create a hazardous propeller effect, but
rather, it may be a precursor to excessive drag. GAMA said that since
the effect of excessive drag is already proposed as a hazardous
propeller effect, the hazardous propeller effect under proposed
paragraph (vi) should be eliminated.
    EASA contended their definition of propeller hazardous effects does
not include ``A significant overspeed of the propeller'' or ``The
unintended movement of the propeller blades below the established
minimum in-flight low-pitch position'' because these events are not
hazardous propeller effects by themselves. EASA argued that these
events only become hazardous if they result in the development of
excessive drag or the release of a portion of the propeller, both of
which are already in the list of hazardous effects.
    We agree these two hazardous propeller effects, a significant
overspeed of the propeller and the unintended movement of the propeller
blades below the established minimum in-flight low-pitch position, are
precursors to the hazardous propeller effects of either excessive
propeller drag or release of a major portion of the propeller. We
revised the final rule to remove these hazardous propeller effects.
    GAMA and Hamilton Sundstrand requested clarification about use of
the term ``serviceability'' in Sec.  35.15(e)(1). In the proposed rule,
the sentence read: ``This includes the verification of the
serviceability of items that could fail in a latent manner.'' GAMA
noted the term has two common interpretations ``airworthiness'' and
``inspectability.''
    We agree the term ``serviceability'' may not be clear in this
usage. By ``serviceability,'' we mean the items are functioning
properly. We, therefore, removed the term ``serviceability'' from the
final rule and replaced it with the phrase ``are functioning properly''
in Sec.  35.15(e)(1).
    Hamilton Sundstrand also asked for clarification of the term
``appropriate procedures'' in Sec.  35.15(e)(1) in the sentence
``Additionally, if errors in maintenance of the propeller system could
lead to hazardous propeller effects, the appropriate maintenance
procedures must be included in the relevant propeller manuals.''
    In general, appropriate procedures are statements and warnings in
the propeller maintenance manual, overhaul manual, or other relevant
manuals. For example, if scheduled maintenance is required on a
critical part of both propellers on a twin engine airplane, a note
should be added that maintenance should be scheduled to be conducted at
different times so an error is not introduced on both propellers at the
same time. Another example of ``appropriate procedures'' is to require
an independent check during the installation of a critical part to
validate that it is installed correctly. Section 35.15(e)(1) is adopted
as proposed.
    Section 35.15(e)(3) lists ``The provision of specific
instrumentation not otherwise required'' as items that must be
identified and substantiated if the safety analysis depends on those
items. GAMA and Hamilton Sundstrand asked for clarification of the term
``provision.''
    The term ``provision'' means providing or supplying something. If
the safety analysis depends on data provided by specific
instrumentation that is not otherwise required, the instrumentation
must be identified in the analysis and appropriately substantiated. We
find the wording of the rule is consistent with our intent.

Harmonization With S-P Amendment 1

    EASA commented the proposed rule does not consider changes
introduced by CS-P Amendment 1. This amendment, effective on November
16, 2006, revised the CS-P to add new definitions and to modify the
propeller safety analysis and critical parts requirements (CS-P 150 and
160, respectively). Amendment 1 also added a requirement that propeller
components located in a fire zone be ``fire resistant.''
    We are aware of the differences brought about as a result of
Amendment 1. The Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee has accepted a
task and established a new Propeller Working Group that is assessing
critical parts and will make recommendations to the FAA for revised
propeller critical parts requirements.
    We do not believe additional changes to fire resistant requirements
are needed for propeller components located in a

fire zone. Section 35.23(b)(2) provides that a fire cannot lead to
hazardous propeller effects. This requirement is consistent with
similar fire resistant requirements in EASA's Certification
Specifications for Propellers.

Modular Propeller System

    Under part 35, a propeller is issued a type certificate independent
of the airplane and engine on which it is installed.
    MT-Propeller recommended the rule be crafted so it can be complied
with by a company with a modular propeller system in which a variety of
propeller models, with different blade types and diameters, can be
certificated for different airplanes.
    This rule does not require all potential engine/aircraft
applications be listed on the propeller's type certificate data sheet,
and this is not required for propeller certification. We find,
therefore, that companies that produce propellers for a variety of
engine/aircraft installations can comply with the rule.

Effect of New Part 35 on Older General Aviation Aircraft

    This final rule, like the proposed rule, does not make any changes
to Appendix A to Part 35 or to Sec.  35.4, Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness. AOPA commented the FAA should consider and evaluate the
effect the proposed rule would have on propeller airworthiness options
for owners of older general aviation aircraft. This population of
aircraft may be type certificated with propellers that are no longer
being manufactured or that can no longer be overhauled to comply with
applicable instructions for continued airworthiness. AOPA stated that a
supplemental type certificate may be the ``only option'' for these
aircraft. AOPA argued, therefore, that any aircraft or propeller that
falls into this category should be exempt from these proposed changes.
    We considered the effect this rule will have on aircraft that were
type certificated with propellers no longer being manufactured or with
propellers that cannot be overhauled to comply with applicable
airworthiness instructions. If the propeller type design is unchanged,
this rule will have no effect on the propellers cited by AOPA. The new
part 35 only affects existing propellers when the propeller type design
is changed. In that case, the applicable propeller requirements would
then be assessed in accordance with Sec.  21.101.

Propeller and Airplane Certification

    We are adding a new paragraph (c) to Sec.  35.1, Applicability, in
the final rule to more clearly define the relationship between
propeller and airplane certification. This paragraph notes that a
propeller may not be installed on an airplane unless the applicant has
shown compliance with either Sec. Sec.  23.907 or 25.907, Propeller
vibration and fatigue, as applicable, or unless compliance is not
required for installation on that airplane.
    GAMA is concerned that Sec.  35.1(c) might be interpreted as not
allowing experimental or pre-production configuration flight testing to
occur. GAMA suggested that changing the word ``installed'' to
``approved'' would accomplish the FAA's objectives while eliminating
confusion. Hamilton Sundstrand also requested that Sec.  35.1(c) be
clarified to allow installation of propellers for flight tests.
    An airplane conducting pre-production or experimental flights would
fly under an experimental certificate. An airplane with an experimental
certificate does not need to show compliance with Sec. Sec.  23.907 or
25.907. Our wording ``or compliance is not required for installation on
that airplane * * *'' permits the installation of the propeller on an
airplane with an experimental certificate. Further, we do not agree
with GAMA that changing ``installed'' to ``approved'' would eliminate
confusion. Our rule language allows the installation of propellers on
airplanes that do not require compliance with either Sec. Sec.  23.907
or 25.907 and prevents installation of propellers on airplanes that do
require compliance with either Sec. Sec.  23.907 or 25.907. For
instance, a propeller installed on an airplane with an experimental
certificate is an approved configuration.

Features of the Propeller

    The new Sec.  35.7, Features and characteristics, requires a
propeller not have any features or characteristics that make it unsafe
for the purposes for which it is being certificated. Section 35.7(b)
sets forth the applicant's responsibilities if a failure occurs during
a certification test.
    Hamilton Sundstrand commented the term ``failure,'' as used in
Sec.  35.7(b) ``If a failure occurs during a certification test * * *''
is vague. Hamilton claimed some conditions that could affect
airworthiness might not be interpreted as ``failures'' by the
applicant. In addition, not all failures necessarily drive design
changes (for instance, life limits may be imposed instead). Hamilton
noted that analysis should be added as an option when acceptable to the
Administrator. Hamilton Sundstrand recommended deleting ``failure
occurs'' from Sec.  35.7(b) and replacing it with ``test plan objective
is not met''.
    The phrase ``test plan objective is not met'' does not encompass
the intent of the rule. A ``failure'' may represent a `failure of the
component being tested' or `a failure of the test rig such that the
certification test cannot be completed.' Both of these instances fit
the term ``failure'' and allow for appropriate review by the
Administrator. Therefore, we find that the term ``failure'' best
describes the intent of the rule.

Feathering Propellers

    We added a new Sec.  35.22, Feathering propellers, that
incorporates requirements for feathering propellers formerly located in
Sec.  35.23(b) as well as requirements from EASA's CS-P 220,
``Feathering Propellers.'' The new section requires that feathering
propellers be designed to feather from all normal and emergency
conditions in flight, considering likely wear and leakage. It also
requires that applicants document the feathering characteristics and
limitations in the appropriate manuals. Section 35.22(c) requires that
the applicant design the propeller to be capable of unfeathering at the
minimum declared outside air temperature after stabilization to a
steady-state temperature.
    GAMA requested the FAA change the wording of Sec.  35.22(a) as
follows: ``Feathering propellers are intended to be featherable from
all flight conditions, taking into account expected wear and leakage;
however, any feathering or unfeathering limitations must be documented
in the appropriate manuals.'' GAMA claimed that if feathering
propellers must be capable of being feathered from all conditions in-
flight, then it is contradictory to require documentation of
unfeathering limitations.
    We agree and modified Sec.  35.22(a) in the final rule to remove
the requirement that propellers be designed to feather from all
conditions in flight.
    GAMA asked for clarification in advisory material for Sec.
35.22(c), since there is no declared test duration or required
unfeathering rate, and Hamilton Sundstrand suggested changing the
paragraph wording for clarification.
    We agree and changed Sec.  35.22(c) in the final rule to read:
``Feathering propellers must be designed to be capable of unfeathering
after the propeller system has stabilized to the

minimum declared outside air temperature.''

Bird Impact

    We added a new Sec.  35.36, Bird impact, to part 35 to address bird
impact with the propeller. The new Sec.  35.36 requires the propeller
to withstand a 4-pound bird impact without contributing to a major or
hazardous propeller effect. This requirement is based on extensive
service history and applies to all propeller designs, except fixed-
pitch wood propellers of conventional design.
    GAMA commented that metal propellers of conventional design, given
their substantial and positive service experience, should be exempt
from the proposed changes to Sec.  35.36. MT-Propellers stated that if
metal propellers are exempt then propellers with detachable wooden
blades should also be exempt.
    Service experience with current type certificated metal propeller
designs has shown that these designs are able to withstand the impact
of a 4-pound bird. This section is adopted as proposed.

Fatigue Evaluation of the Propeller

    We proposed to revise Sec.  35.37, which was not harmonized with
CS-P 370, to more adequately address composite materials. The new Sec.
35.37 expands the requirement to all materials and components
(including controls system components, if applicable) whose failure
would cause a hazardous propeller effect. It also adds environmental
effects to the factors that must be considered when establishing
fatigue limits. We also proposed adding a requirement in Sec.  35.37(c)
for applicants to conduct a fatigue evaluation of the propeller to show
that hazardous propeller effects due to fatigue will be avoided
throughout the intended operational life of the propeller, and we
renamed Sec.  35.37 from ``Fatigue limit tests'' to ``Fatigue limits
and evaluation.''
    GAMA commented the requirement for a fatigue evaluation in Sec.
35.37(c) is unnecessary and compliance with this paragraph is unclear.
GAMA indicated this requirement duplicates the requirements in proposed
Sec. Sec.  23.907 and 25.907, which also require a fatigue evaluation.
    We established the fatigue evaluation in Sec.  35.37(c) so that, at
a minimum, the propeller will be shown to be acceptable for fatigue on
a typical airplane. If the airplane installation is known at the time
of propeller certification, then the same fatigue evaluation may be
used to show compliance with Sec. Sec.  23.907 or 25.907. If the
airplane installation is not known, a typical airplane will be assumed.
Without this requirement, a propeller that does not have the capability
to be installed on an airplane could be certificated. This section is
adopted as proposed.

Lightning Strike

    We added a new Sec.  35.38, Lightning strike, to harmonize with CS-
P 380, Lightning Strike. Part 35 formerly had no lightning strike
requirements. Section 35.38 requires that composite propellers
withstand a lightning strike without contributing to a major or
hazardous propeller effect. The new requirement applies to metallic
blades but allows compliance by experience from similar designs. We
excluded conventional fixed-pitch wood propellers from the requirement
because of their satisfactory service experience.
    GAMA commented that, based on substantial and positive service
experience, metal propellers of conventional design should be exempt
from the requirements of Sec.  35.38.
    Service experience with current type certificated metal propeller
designs has shown that these designs are able to withstand lightning
strike. Proposed Sec.  35.38 allows for use of service experience on
similar designs to show compliance with lightning strike provisions.
This section is adopted as proposed.

Overspeed and Overtorque

    We added a new overspeed and overtorque requirement in Sec.  35.41
to harmonize with CS-P 410(a). This section requires that applicants
verify the declared transient overspeed and overtorque limits of the
propeller.
    GAMA commented that Sec.  35.41(a)(1) and (b)(1), which refer to
the applicant seeking approval for transient maximum propeller
overspeed and overtorque, respectively, should be part of advisory
material rather than the rule as they represent one method, but not the
only method, of compliance. GAMA claimed the requirements of paragraphs
(a)(1) and (b)(1) are inconsistent with the requirements of CS-P as
EASA does not require demonstration that ``* * * the propeller is
capable of further operation without maintenance action.''
    Transient overspeed conditions will occur over the life of the
propeller. This rule establishes a limit where no maintenance is
required. It does not prevent an applicant from establishing other
overspeed limits that do require maintenance action. The sentence is
included in the requirement to define the intent of an overspeed limit.
It is consistent with EASA definitions.

Propeller Accessories

    We revised Sec. Sec.  23.905, Propellers, and 25.905, Propellers,
to ensure that propeller controls that are certified as part of the
airplane or engine type design meet the same requirements as propeller
controls that are certified as part of the propeller design.
    GAMA and Hamilton Sundstrand suggested the FAA consider including
requirements in Sec.  23.905 for propeller accessories, such as
spinners and de-icing equipment, to satisfy the requirement of Sec.
35.35(c) for overload. GAMA noted in many cases this equipment is not
type certificated with the propeller, but rather aircraft manufacturers
or modifiers may install their own spinners and de-icing equipment and
in these cases no similar tests are required.
    Part 23 requirements for airplane components requirements are
beyond the scope of the proposed rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that the FAA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. We have determined there is
no current or new requirement for information collection associated
with this amendment.

International Compatibility

    In keeping with U.S. obligations under the Convention on
International Civil Aviation, it is FAA policy to comply with
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Standards and
Recommended Practices to the maximum extent practicable. The FAA has
reviewed the corresponding ICAO Standards and Recommended Practices and
has identified no differences with these regulations.

Regulatory Evaluation, Regulatory Flexibility Determination,
International Trade Impact Assessment, and Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Changes to Federal regulations must undergo several economic
analyses. First, Executive Order 12866 directs that each Federal agency
shall propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination
that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs. Second,
the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) requires
agencies to analyze the economic impact of regulatory changes on small
entities. Third, the Trade Agreements Act (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits
agencies from setting standards that create unnecessary obstacles to
the foreign commerce of the United States. In

developing U.S. standards, this Trade Act requires agencies to consider
international standards and, where appropriate, that they be the basis
of U.S. standards. Fourth, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(Pub. L. 104-4) requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of
the costs, benefits, and other effects of proposed or final rules that
include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector, of $100 million or more annually (adjusted for inflation with
base year of 1995). This portion of the preamble summarizes the FAA's
analysis of the economic impacts of this final rule.
    Department of Transportation Order DOT 2100.5 prescribes policies
and procedures for simplification, analysis, and review of regulations.
If the expected cost impact is so minimal that a proposed or final rule
does not warrant a full evaluation, this order permits that a statement
to that effect and the basis for it be included in the preamble if a
full regulatory evaluation of the cost and benefits is not prepared.
Such a determination has been made for this final rule. The reasoning
for this determination follows.
    To a great extent this final rule requires propeller manufacturers
to certificate future production propellers for sale in the United
States to the same European standards that these firms already meet.
EASA became responsible for certification of aircraft, engines, parts
and appliances on September 28, 2003 by Commission Regulation (EC)
1702/2003. Because the U.S. and European effort to have common
certification propeller regulations was almost completed when EASA
became operational, the proposed part 35 and the European propeller
requirements CS-P are almost identical. CS-P is now an official rule of
a foreign regulatory agency while this is a final rule. To export
propellers to Europe, U.S. manufacturers now must meet the European
requirements. Before EASA issued these requirements, industry provided
us with a cost estimate of $31 million over a 25-year analysis period
for them to be in compliance with the FAA proposed propeller
requirements which would have codified existing special tests and
conditions. However, as manufacturers are already in compliance with
these now harmonized requirements, there are no additional compliance
costs.
    This final rule has only one regulation stricter than EASA's CS-P.
This rule will codify the current special condition 4-pound bird strike
test for composite propeller blades. CS-P requires newly certificated
propellers to withstand a 4-pound bird strike for equivalent part 25
airplanes. However, CS-P requires newly certificated propellers to
withstand a 2.8-pound bird strike for equivalent part 23 commuter
airplanes and does not require a bird strike test for other equivalent
part 23 airplanes. U.S. propeller manufacturers provided us with their
estimated costs to meet the proposed 4-pound requirement. Over a 25-
year analysis period (based on the operational life of a propeller) we
estimate the total cost for 635 future propellers to be $458,000 or
$213,000 in present value (7 percent discount rate) or approximately
$335 per propeller. For the NPRM we stated this cost would be minimal.
We received no comments disputing this finding; therefore we believe
our finding is correct.
    The benefits from this higher bird-strike requirement are the
expected continuation of over 50 million flight hours with no accidents
attributed to bird impacts against composite propellers despite many
bird strikes. Between 1990 and 2004, there have been over 150 bird
strikes to part 23 propellers (see the FAA National Wildlife Strike
Database, Version 6.0, February 26, 2005; available online at http://
wildlife.pr.erau.edu/public/index1.html).
    No substantive changes were made to the proposed rule as a result
of the comments received. One comment was received on the regulatory
evaluation. The commenter agreed with the FAA that the economic effects
on the industry would be minimal. Therefore, the regulatory evaluation
did not change the determination that the benefits exceed the costs and
the rule imposes minimal costs.
    FAA has, therefore, determined that this final rule is not a
``significant regulatory action'' as defined in section 3(f) of
Executive Order 12866, and is not ``significant'' as defined in DOT's
Regulatory Policies and Procedures.

Regulatory Flexibility Determination

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-354) (RFA)
establishes ``* * * as a principle of regulatory issuance that agencies
shall endeavor, consistent with the objectives of the rule and of
applicable statutes, to fit regulatory and informational requirements
to the scale of the business, organizations, and governmental
jurisdictions subject to regulation. To achieve this principle,
agencies are required to solicit and consider flexible regulatory
proposals and to explain the rationale for their actions to assure that
such proposals are given serious consideration.'' The RFA covers a wide
range of small entities, including small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
    Agencies must perform a review to determine whether a rule will
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. If the determination is that it will, the agency must prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis as described in the RFA.
    However, if an agency determines that a rule is not expected to
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities, section 605(b) of the RFA provides that the head of the
agency may so certify and a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. The certification must include a statement providing the
factual basis for this determination, and the reasoning should be
clear.
    The purpose of this FRFA is to ensure that the agency has
considered all reasonable regulatory alternatives that would minimize
the final rule's economic burdens for affected small entities, while
achieving its safety objectives.
    Under Section 603 of the RFA, the analysis must address:
    1. Reasons for this final rule.
    2. Significant issues raised in public comments in response to the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA).
    3. Estimated number of small entities to which this rule would
apply.
    4. Recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of this rule.

1. Reasons for This Rule

    The FAA revised the airworthiness standards for the issuance of
original and amended type certificates for airplane propellers. The
previous propeller requirements did not adequately address the
technological advances of the past 20 years. The new standards address
the current advances in technology and harmonize the FAA requirements
with the existing requirements of Certification Specifications for
Propellers of the EASA. This final rule establishes nearly uniform
standards for aircraft propellers certified by the United States under
FAA standards and by European countries under EASA standards, thereby
simplifying airworthiness approvals for import and export products.

2. Significant Issues Raised in Public Comments in Response to the IRFA

    We received no comments on the IRFA. Therefore, no changes were
made to the IRFA as a result of comments received.

3. Estimated Number of Small Firms Potentially Impacted

    Under the RFA, the FAA must determine whether or not a proposal
significantly affects a substantial number of small entities. This
determination is typically based on small entity size and cost
thresholds that vary depending on the affected industry. The Small
Business Administration (SBA) uses the NAICS (North American Industry
Classification System) 2002 to determine size standards for small
businesses. There is no entry in the NAICS 2002 for propeller
manufacturers. However, the NAICS 2002 does list under Sectors 31-33,
Manufacturing, Subsector 336, Transportation Equipment Manufacturing,
which in turn lists the following numbers and number of employees as
shown in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Number of
        NAICS 2002 No.                Description            employees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
336411.......................  Aircraft Manufacturing...           1,500
336412.......................  Aircraft Engine and                 1,000
                                Engine Parts
                                Manufacturing.
336413.......................  Other Aircraft Part and             1,000
                                Auxiliary Equipment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Propeller manufacturing could be included in 336412, Aircraft
Engine and Aircraft Parts Manufacturing; or 336413, Other
Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing. Both these
categories use 1,000 employees to define a small business. Therefore,
the FAA defines a small business in the variable pitch propeller
manufacturing industry as a business with 1,000 or less employees. In
accordance with SBA usage, this number applies to the ultimate
ownership of the company.
    In 2008, the American airplane variable pitch propeller industry
consisted of three firms. These firms were Hamilton Sundstrand,
Hartzell Propeller, and McCauley Propeller Systems. Hamilton Sundstrand
is a subsidiary of United Technologies which employed approximately
226,000 people and had annual revenues of approximately $55 billion in
2007.\1\ McCauley Propeller Systems is owned by Cessna, which, in turn,
is owned by Textron, Inc. Textron employed some 44,000 people and had
annual revenues of some $13 billion in 2007.\2\ Hartzell Propeller,
Inc. employed 300 employees in 2007 and had annual revenues between $20
and $50 million in 2007.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ United Technologies Corporation--Our Profile, http://
www.utc.com/profile/facts/index.htm, (Accessed 04/10/2008).
    \2\ http://www.textron.com/about/company/index.jsp (Accessed 04/
10/2008).
    \3\ Reference USA, Version 2008.4, http://www.referenceusa.com/
bd/results.asp?backHistory=true (Accessed 04/11/2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conclusion, using the above criteria, Hartzell is a small
business and Hamilton Sundstrand and McCauley are not small businesses.
As only one small entity will be affected by the rule and the rule
imposes only minimal costs, there are not a substantial number of small
entities that will be adversely affected by this rule. Therefore, as
the acting FAA Administrator, I certify that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

International Trade Impact Assessment

    The Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (Pub. L. 96-39) prohibits Federal
agencies from establishing any standards or engaging in related
activities that create unnecessary obstacles to the foreign commerce of
the United States. Legitimate domestic objectives, such as safety, are
not considered unnecessary obstacles. The statute also requires
consideration of international standards and, where appropriate, that
they be the basis for U.S. standards. The FAA has assessed the
potential effect of this final rule and determined that it is in accord
with the Trade Agreements Act as the final rule uses European standards
as the basis for United States regulation.

Unfunded Mandates Assessment

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement
assessing the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final
agency rule that may result in an expenditure of $100 million or more
(in 1995 dollars) in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector; such a mandate
is deemed to be a ``significant regulatory action.'' The FAA currently
uses an inflation-adjusted value of $136.1 million in lieu of $100
million.
    This final rule does not contain such a mandate; therefore, the
requirements of Title II of the Act do not apply.

Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under the principles and
criteria of Executive Order 13132, Federalism. We determined that this
action will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, or the
relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, and, therefore, does not have federalism implications.

Environmental Analysis

    FAA Order 1050.1E identifies FAA actions that are categorically
excluded from preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy
Act in the absence of extraordinary circumstances. The FAA has
determined this rulemaking action qualifies for the categorical
exclusion identified in paragraph 312d and involves no extraordinary
circumstances.

Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use

    The FAA has analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (May 18, 2001). We have determined that it is not
a ``significant energy action'' under the executive order because it is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866,
and it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy.

Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    You can get an electronic copy of rulemaking documents using the
Internet by--
    1. Searching the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://
www.regulations.gov);
    2. Visiting the FAA's Regulations and Policies Web page at  http://
www.faa.gov/regulations_policies; or
    3. Accessing the Government Printing Office's Web page at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html.
    You can also get a copy by sending a request to the Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, ARM-1, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. Make
sure to

identify the amendment number or docket number of this rulemaking.
    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 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996 requires FAA to comply with small entity requests for information
or advice about compliance with statutes and regulations within its
jurisdiction. If you are a small entity and you have a question
regarding this document, you may contact your local FAA official, or
the person listed under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT heading at
the beginning of the preamble. You can find out more about SBREFA on
the Internet at http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/
sbre_act/.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Parts 23, 25, 33 and 35

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends parts 23, 25, 33, and 35 of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations
as follows:

PART 23--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL, UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND
COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES

0
1. The authority citation for part 23 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.
0
2. Revise Sec.  23.905(d) to read as follows:

Sec.  23.905  Propellers.

* * * * *
    (d) The propeller blade pitch control system must meet the
requirements of Sec. Sec.  35.21, 35.23, 35.42 and 35.43 of this
chapter.
* * * * *

0
3. Revise Sec.  23.907 to read as follows:

Sec.  23.907  Propeller vibration and fatigue.

    This section does not apply to fixed-pitch wood propellers of
conventional design.
    (a) The applicant must determine the magnitude of the propeller
vibration stresses or loads, including any stress peaks and resonant
conditions, throughout the operational envelope of the airplane by
either:
    (1) Measurement of stresses or loads through direct testing or
analysis based on direct testing of the propeller on the airplane and
engine installation for which approval is sought; or
    (2) Comparison of the propeller to similar propellers installed on
similar airplane installations for which these measurements have been
made.
    (b) The applicant must demonstrate by tests, analysis based on
tests, or previous experience on similar designs that the propeller
does not experience harmful effects of flutter throughout the
operational envelope of the airplane.
    (c) The applicant must perform an evaluation of the propeller to
show that failure due to fatigue will be avoided throughout the
operational life of the propeller using the fatigue and structural data
obtained in accordance with part 35 of this chapter and the vibration
data obtained from compliance with paragraph (a) of this section. For
the purpose of this paragraph, the propeller includes the hub, blades,
blade retention component and any other propeller component whose
failure due to fatigue could be catastrophic to the airplane. This
evaluation must include:
    (1) The intended loading spectra including all reasonably
foreseeable propeller vibration and cyclic load patterns, identified
emergency conditions, allowable overspeeds and overtorques, and the
effects of temperatures and humidity expected in service.
    (2) The effects of airplane and propeller operating and
airworthiness limitations.

PART 25--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

0
4. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

     Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.

0
5. Revise Sec.  25.901(b)(1)(i) to read as follows:

Sec.  25.901  Installation.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) The installation instructions provided under Sec. Sec.  33.5
and 35.3 of this chapter; and
* * * * *

0
6. Revise Sec.  25.905(c) to read as follows:

Sec.  25.905  Propellers.

* * * * *
    (c) The propeller blade pitch control system must meet the
requirements of Sec. Sec.  35.21, 35.23, 35.42 and 35.43 of this
chapter.
* * * * *

0
7. Revise Sec.  25.907 to read as follows:

Sec.  25.907  Propeller vibration and fatigue.

    This section does not apply to fixed-pitch wood propellers of
conventional design.
    (a) The applicant must determine the magnitude of the propeller
vibration stresses or loads, including any stress peaks and resonant
conditions, throughout the operational envelope of the airplane by
either:
    (1) Measurement of stresses or loads through direct testing or
analysis based on direct testing of the propeller on the airplane and
engine installation for which approval is sought; or
    (2) Comparison of the propeller to similar propellers installed on
similar airplane installations for which these measurements have been
made.
    (b) The applicant must demonstrate by tests, analysis based on
tests, or previous experience on similar designs that the propeller
does not experience harmful effects of flutter throughout the
operational envelope of the airplane.
    (c) The applicant must perform an evaluation of the propeller to
show that failure due to fatigue will be avoided throughout the
operational life of the propeller using the fatigue and structural data
obtained in accordance with part 35 of this chapter and the vibration
data obtained from compliance with paragraph (a) of this section. For
the purpose of this paragraph, the propeller includes the hub, blades,
blade retention component and any other propeller component whose
failure due to fatigue could be catastrophic to the airplane. This
evaluation must include:
    (1) The intended loading spectra including all reasonably
foreseeable propeller vibration and cyclic load patterns, identified
emergency conditions, allowable overspeeds and overtorques, and the
effects of temperatures and humidity expected in service.
    (2) The effects of airplane and propeller operating and
airworthiness limitations.

PART 33--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: AIRCRAFT ENGINES

0
8. The authority citation for part 33 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.

0
9. Revise Sec.  33.19(b) to read as follows:

Sec.  33.19  Durability.

* * * * *
    (b) Each component of the propeller blade pitch control system
which is a part of the engine type design must meet the requirements of
Sec. Sec.  35.21, 35.23, 35.42 and 35.43 of this chapter.

PART 35--AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: PROPELLERS

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

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.

Subpart A--General

0
11. Amend Sec.  35.1 by adding new paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as
follows:

Sec.  35.1  Applicability.

* * * * *
    (c) An applicant is eligible for a propeller type certificate and
changes to those certificates after demonstrating compliance with
subparts A, B and C of this part. However, the propeller may not be
installed on an airplane unless the applicant has shown compliance with
either Sec.  23.907 or Sec.  25.907 of this chapter, as applicable, or
compliance is not required for installation on that airplane.
    (d) For the purposes of this part, the propeller consists of those
components listed in the propeller type design, and the propeller
system consists of the propeller and all the components necessary for
its functioning, but not necessarily included in the propeller type
design.

0
12. Add Sec.  35.2 to read as follows:

Sec.  35.2  Propeller configuration.

    The applicant must provide a list of all the components, including
references to the relevant drawings and software design data, that
define the type design of the propeller to be approved under Sec.
21.31 of this chapter.

0
13. Revise Sec.  35.3 to read as follows:

Sec.  35.3  Instructions for propeller installation and operation.

    The applicant must provide instructions that are approved by the
Administrator. Those approved instructions must contain:
    (a) Instructions for installing the propeller, which:
    (1) Include a description of the operational modes of the propeller
control system and functional interface of the control system with the
airplane and engine systems;
    (2) Specify the physical and functional interfaces with the
airplane, airplane equipment and engine;
    (3) Define the limiting conditions on the interfaces from paragraph
(a)(2) of this section;
    (4) List the limitations established under Sec.  35.5;
    (5) Define the hydraulic fluids approved for use with the
propeller, including grade and specification, related operating
pressure, and filtration levels; and
    (6) State the assumptions made to comply with the requirements of
this part.
    (b) Instructions for operating the propeller which must specify all
procedures necessary for operating the propeller within the limitations
of the propeller type design.

0
14. Revise Sec.  35.5 to read as follows:

Sec.  35.5  Propeller ratings and operating limitations.

    (a) Propeller ratings and operating limitations must:
    (1) Be established by the applicant and approved by the
Administrator.
    (2) Be included directly or by reference in the propeller type
certificate data sheet, as specified in Sec.  21.41 of this chapter.
    (3) Be based on the operating conditions demonstrated during the
tests required by this part as well as any other information the
Administrator requires as necessary for the safe operation of the
propeller.
    (b) Propeller ratings and operating limitations must be established
for the following, as applicable:
    (1) Power and rotational speed:
    (i) For takeoff.
    (ii) For maximum continuous.
    (iii) If requested by the applicant, other ratings may also be
established.
    (2) Overspeed and overtorque limits.

0
15. Add Sec.  35.7 to read as follows:

Sec.  35.7  Features and characteristics.

    (a) The propeller may not have features or characteristics,
revealed by any test or analysis or known to the applicant, that make
it unsafe for the uses for which certification is requested.
    (b) If a failure occurs during a certification test, the applicant
must determine the cause and assess the effect on the airworthiness of
the propeller. The applicant must make changes to the design and
conduct additional tests that the Administrator finds necessary to
establish the airworthiness of the propeller.

Subpart B--Design and Construction

Sec.  35.11  [Removed and Reserved.]

0
16. Remove and reserve Sec.  35.11.

Sec.  35.13  [Removed and Reserved.]

0
17. Remove and reserve Sec.  35.13.
0
18. Revise Sec.  35.15 to read as follows:

Sec.  35.15  Safety analysis.

    (a)(1) The applicant must analyze the propeller system to assess
the likely consequences of all failures that can reasonably be expected
to occur. This analysis will take into account, if applicable:
    (i) The propeller system in a typical installation. When the
analysis depends on representative components, assumed interfaces, or
assumed installed conditions, the assumptions must be stated in the
analysis.
    (ii) Consequential secondary failures and dormant failures.
    (iii) Multiple failures referred to in paragraph (d) of this
section, or that result in the hazardous propeller effects defined in
paragraph (g)(1) of this section.
    (2) The applicant must summarize those failures that could result
in major propeller effects or hazardous propeller effects defined in
paragraph (g) of this section, and estimate the probability of
occurrence of those effects.
    (3) The applicant must show that hazardous propeller effects are
not predicted to occur at a rate in excess of that defined as extremely
remote (probability of 10-7 or less per propeller flight
hour). Since the estimated probability for individual failures may be
insufficiently precise to enable the applicant to assess the total rate
for hazardous propeller effects, compliance may be shown by
demonstrating that the probability of a hazardous propeller effect
arising from an individual failure can be predicted to be not greater
than 10-8 per propeller flight hour. In dealing with
probabilities of this low order of magnitude, absolute proof is not
possible and reliance must be placed on engineering judgment and
previous experience combined with sound design and test philosophies.
    (b) If significant doubt exists as to the effects of failures or
likely combination of failures, the Administrator may require
assumptions used in the analysis to be verified by test.
    (c) The primary failures of certain single elements (for example,
blades) cannot be sensibly estimated in numerical terms. If the failure
of such elements is likely to result in hazardous propeller effects,
then compliance may be shown by reliance on the prescribed integrity
requirements of this part.

These instances must be stated in the safety analysis.
    (d) If reliance is placed on a safety system to prevent a failure
progressing to hazardous propeller effects, the possibility of a safety
system failure in combination with a basic propeller failure must be
included in the analysis. Such a safety system may include safety
devices, instrumentation, early warning devices, maintenance checks,
and other similar equipment or procedures. If items of the safety
system are outside the control of the propeller manufacturer, the
assumptions of the safety analysis with respect to the reliability of
these parts must be clearly stated in the analysis and identified in
the propeller installation and operation instructions required under
Sec.  35.3.
    (e) If the safety analysis depends on one or more of the following
items, those items must be identified in the analysis and appropriately
substantiated.
    (1) Maintenance actions being carried out at stated intervals. This
includes verifying that items that could fail in a latent manner are
functioning properly. When necessary to prevent hazardous propeller
effects, these maintenance actions and intervals must be published in
the instructions for continued airworthiness required under Sec.  35.4.
Additionally, if errors in maintenance of the propeller system could
lead to hazardous propeller effects, the appropriate maintenance
procedures must be included in the relevant propeller manuals.
    (2) Verification of the satisfactory functioning of safety or other
devices at pre-flight or other stated periods. The details of this
satisfactory functioning must be published in the appropriate manual.
    (3) The provision of specific instrumentation not otherwise
required. Such instrumentation must be published in the appropriate
documentation.
    (4) A fatigue assessment.
    (f) If applicable, the safety analysis must include, but not be
limited to, assessment of indicating equipment, manual and automatic
controls, governors and propeller control systems, synchrophasers,
synchronizers, and propeller thrust reversal systems.
    (g) Unless otherwise approved by the Administrator and stated in
the safety analysis, the following failure definitions apply to
compliance with this part.
    (1) The following are regarded as hazardous propeller effects:
    (i) The development of excessive drag.
    (ii) A significant thrust in the opposite direction to that
commanded by the pilot.
    (iii) The release of the propeller or any major portion of the
propeller.
    (iv) A failure that results in excessive unbalance.
    (2) The following are regarded as major propeller effects for
variable pitch propellers:
    (i) An inability to feather the propeller for feathering
propellers.
    (ii) An inability to change propeller pitch when commanded.
    (iii) A significant uncommanded change in pitch.
    (iv) A significant uncontrollable torque or speed fluctuation.

0
19. Revise Sec.  35.17 to read as follows:

Sec.  35.17  Materials and manufacturing methods.

    (a) The suitability and durability of materials used in the
propeller must:
    (1) Be established on the basis of experience, tests, or both.
    (2) Account for environmental conditions expected in service.
    (b) All materials and manufacturing methods must conform to
specifications acceptable to the Administrator.
    (c) The design values of properties of materials must be suitably
related to the most adverse properties stated in the material
specification for applicable conditions expected in service.

0
20. Revise Sec.  35.21 to read as follows:

Sec.  35.21  Variable and reversible pitch propellers.

    (a) No single failure or malfunction in the propeller system will
result in unintended travel of the propeller blades to a position below
the in-flight low-pitch position. The extent of any intended travel
below the in-flight low-pitch position must be documented by the
applicant in the appropriate manuals. Failure of structural elements
need not be considered if the occurrence of such a failure is shown to
be extremely remote under Sec.  35.15.
    (b) For propellers incorporating a method to select blade pitch
below the in-flight low pitch position, provisions must be made to
sense and indicate to the flight crew that the propeller blades are
below that position by an amount defined in the installation manual.
The method for sensing and indicating the propeller blade pitch
position must be such that its failure does not affect the control of
the propeller.

0
21. Add Sec.  35.22 to read as follows:

Sec.  35.22  Feathering propellers.

    (a) Feathering propellers are intended to feather from all flight
conditions, taking into account expected wear and leakage. Any
feathering and unfeathering limitations must be documented in the
appropriate manuals.
    (b) Propeller pitch control systems that use engine oil to feather
must incorporate a method to allow the propeller to feather if the
engine oil system fails.
    (c) Feathering propellers must be designed to be capable of
unfeathering after the propeller system has stabilized to the minimum
declared outside air temperature.

0
22. Revise Sec.  35.23 to read as follows:

Sec.  35.23  Propeller control system.

    The requirements of this section apply to any system or component
that controls, limits or monitors propeller functions.
    (a) The propeller control system must be designed, constructed and
validated to show that:
    (1) The propeller control system, operating in normal and
alternative operating modes and in transition between operating modes,
performs the functions defined by the applicant throughout the declared
operating conditions and flight envelope.
    (2) The propeller control system functionality is not adversely
affected by the declared environmental conditions, including
temperature, electromagnetic interference (EMI), high intensity
radiated fields (HIRF) and lightning. The environmental limits to which
the system has been satisfactorily validated must be documented in the
appropriate propeller manuals.
    (3) A method is provided to indicate that an operating mode change
has occurred if flight crew action is required. In such an event,
operating instructions must be provided in the appropriate manuals.
    (b) The propeller control system must be designed and constructed
so that, in addition to compliance with Sec.  35.15:
    (1) No single failure or malfunction of electrical or electronic
components in the control system results in a hazardous propeller
effect.
    (2) Failures or malfunctions directly affecting the propeller
control system in a typical airplane, such as structural failures of
attachments to the control, fire, or overheat, do not lead to a
hazardous propeller effect.
    (3) The loss of normal propeller pitch control does not cause a
hazardous propeller effect under the intended operating conditions.
    (4) The failure or corruption of data or signals shared across
propellers does not cause a hazardous propeller effect.
    (c) Electronic propeller control system imbedded software must be
designed

and implemented by a method approved by the Administrator that is
consistent with the criticality of the performed functions and that
minimizes the existence of software errors.
    (d) The propeller control system must be designed and constructed
so that the failure or corruption of airplane-supplied data does not
result in hazardous propeller effects.
    (e) The propeller control system must be designed and constructed
so that the loss, interruption or abnormal characteristic of airplane-
supplied electrical power does not result in hazardous propeller
effects. The power quality requirements must be described in the
appropriate manuals.

0
23. Add Sec.  35.24 to read as follows:

Sec.  35.24  Strength.

    The maximum stresses developed in the propeller may not exceed
values acceptable to the Administrator considering the particular form
of construction and the most severe operating conditions.

Subpart C--Type Substantiation

Sec.  35.31  [Removed and Reserved.]

0
24. Remove and reserve Sec.  35.31.

0
25. Revise Sec.  35.33 to read as follows:

Sec.  35.33  General.

    (a) Each applicant must furnish test article(s) and suitable
testing facilities, including equipment and competent personnel, and
conduct the required tests in accordance with part 21 of this chapter.
    (b) All automatic controls and safety systems must be in operation
unless it is accepted by the Administrator as impossible or not
required because of the nature of the test. If needed for
substantiation, the applicant may test a different propeller
configuration if this does not constitute a less severe test.
    (c) Any systems or components that cannot be adequately
substantiated by the applicant to the requirements of this part are
required to undergo additional tests or analysis to demonstrate that
the systems or components are able to perform their intended functions
in all declared environmental and operating conditions.

0
26. Add Sec.  35.34 to read as follows:

Sec.  35.34  Inspections, adjustments and repairs.

    (a) Before and after conducting the tests prescribed in this part,
the test article must be subjected to an inspection, and a record must
be made of all the relevant parameters, calibrations and settings.
    (b) During all tests, only servicing and minor repairs are
permitted. If major repairs or part replacement is required, the
Administrator must approve the repair or part replacement prior to
implementation and may require additional testing. Any unscheduled
repair or action on the test article must be recorded and reported.

0
27. Revise Sec.  35.35 to read as follows:

Sec.  35.35  Centrifugal load tests.

    The applicant must demonstrate that a propeller complies with
paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this section without evidence of
failure, malfunction, or permanent deformation that would result in a
major or hazardous propeller effect. When the propeller could be
sensitive to environmental degradation in service, this must be
considered. This section does not apply to fixed-pitch wood or fixed-
pitch metal propellers of conventional design.
    (a) The hub, blade retention system, and counterweights must be
tested for a period of one hour to a load equivalent to twice the
maximum centrifugal load to which the propeller would be subjected
during operation at the maximum rated rotational speed.
    (b) Blade features associated with transitions to the retention
system (for example, a composite blade bonded to a metallic retention)
must be tested either during the test of paragraph (a) of this section
or in a separate component test for a period of one hour to a load
equivalent to twice the maximum centrifugal load to which the propeller
would be subjected during operation at the maximum rated rotational
speed.
    (c) Components used with or attached to the propeller (for example,
spinners, de-icing equipment, and blade erosion shields) must be
subjected to a load equivalent to 159 percent of the maximum
centrifugal load to which the component would be subjected during
operation at the maximum rated rotational speed. This must be performed
by either:
    (1) Testing at the required load for a period of 30 minutes; or
    (2) Analysis based on test.

0
28. Add Sec.  35.36 to read as follows:

Sec.  35.36  Bird impact.

    The applicant must demonstrate, by tests or analysis based on tests
or experience on similar designs, that the propeller can withstand the
impact of a 4-pound bird at the critical location(s) and critical
flight condition(s) of a typical installation without causing a major
or hazardous propeller effect. This section does not apply to fixed-
pitch wood propellers of conventional design.

0
29. Revise Sec.  35.37 to read as follows:

Sec.  35.37  Fatigue limits and evaluation.

    This section does not apply to fixed-pitch wood propellers of
conventional design.
    (a) Fatigue limits must be established by tests, or analysis based
on tests, for propeller:
    (1) Hubs.
    (2) Blades.
    (3) Blade retention components.
    (4) Components which are affected by fatigue loads and which are
shown under Sec.  35.15 to have a fatigue failure mode leading to
hazardous propeller effects.
    (b) The fatigue limits must take into account:
    (1) All known and reasonably foreseeable vibration and cyclic load
patterns that are expected in service; and
    (2) Expected service deterioration, variations in material
properties, manufacturing variations, and environmental effects.
    (c) A fatigue evaluation of the propeller must be conducted to show
that hazardous propeller effects due to fatigue will be avoided
throughout the intended operational life of the propeller on either:
    (1) The intended airplane by complying with Sec. Sec.  23.907 or
25.907 of this chapter, as applicable; or
    (2) A typical airplane.

0
30. Add Sec.  35.38 to read as follows:

Sec.  35.38  Lightning strike.

    The applicant must demonstrate, by tests, analysis based on tests,
or experience on similar designs, that the propeller can withstand a
lightning strike without causing a major or hazardous propeller effect.
The limit to which the propeller has been qualified must be documented
in the appropriate manuals. This section does not apply to fixed-pitch
wood propellers of conventional design.

0
31. Revise Sec.  35.39 to read as follows:

Sec.  35.39  Endurance test.

    Endurance tests on the propeller system must be made on a
representative engine in accordance with paragraph (a) or (b) of this
section, as applicable, without evidence of failure or malfunction.
    (a) Fixed-pitch and ground adjustable-pitch propellers must be
subjected to one of the following tests:
    (1) A 50-hour flight test in level flight or in climb. The
propeller must be

operated at takeoff power and rated rotational speed during at least
five hours of this flight test, and at not less than 90 percent of the
rated rotational speed for the remainder of the 50 hours.
    (2) A 50-hour ground test at takeoff power and rated rotational
speed.
    (b) Variable-pitch propellers must be subjected to one of the
following tests:
    (1) A 110-hour endurance test that must include the following
conditions:
    (i) Five hours at takeoff power and rotational speed and thirty 10-
minute cycles composed of:
    (A) Acceleration from idle,
    (B) Five minutes at takeoff power and rotational speed,
    (C) Deceleration, and
    (D) Five minutes at idle.
    (ii) Fifty hours at maximum continuous power and rotational speed,
    (iii) Fifty hours, consisting of ten 5-hour cycles composed of:
    (A) Five accelerations and decelerations between idle and takeoff
power and rotational speed,
    (B) Four and one half hours at approximately even incremental
conditions from idle up to, but not including, maximum continuous power
and rotational speed, and
    (C) Thirty minutes at idle.
    (2) The operation of the propeller throughout the engine endurance
tests prescribed in part 33 of this chapter.
    (c) An analysis based on tests of propellers of similar design may
be used in place of the tests of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section.

0
32. Add Sec.  35.40 to read as follows:

Sec.  35.40  Functional test.

    The variable-pitch propeller system must be subjected to the
applicable functional tests of this section. The same propeller system
used in the endurance test (Sec.  35.39) must be used in the functional
tests and must be driven by a representative engine on a test stand or
on an airplane. The propeller must complete these tests without
evidence of failure or malfunction. This test may be combined with the
endurance test for accumulation of cycles.
    (a) Manually-controllable propellers. Five hundred representative
flight cycles must be made across the range of pitch and rotational
speed.
    (b) Governing propellers. Fifteen hundred complete cycles must be
made across the range of pitch and rotational speed.
    (c) Feathering propellers. Fifty cycles of feather and unfeather
operation must be made.
    (d) Reversible-pitch propellers. Two hundred complete cycles of
control must be made from lowest normal pitch to maximum reverse pitch.
During each cycle, the propeller must run for 30 seconds at the maximum
power and rotational speed selected by the applicant for maximum
reverse pitch.
    (e) An analysis based on tests of propellers of similar design may
be used in place of the tests of this section.

0
33. Revise Sec. Sec.  35.41, 35.42, and 35.43 to read as follows:

Sec.  35.41  Overspeed and overtorque.

    (a) When the applicant seeks approval of a transient maximum
propeller overspeed, the applicant must demonstrate that the propeller
is capable of further operation without maintenance action at the
maximum propeller overspeed condition. This may be accomplished by:
    (1) Performance of 20 runs, each of 30 seconds duration, at the
maximum propeller overspeed condition; or
    (2) Analysis based on test or service experience.
    (b) When the applicant seeks approval of a transient maximum
propeller overtorque, the applicant must demonstrate that the propeller
is capable of further operation without maintenance action at the
maximum propeller overtorque condition. This may be accomplished by:
    (1) Performance of 20 runs, each of 30 seconds duration, at the
maximum propeller overtorque condition; or
    (2) Analysis based on test or service experience.

Sec.  35.42  Components of the propeller control system.

    The applicant must demonstrate by tests, analysis based on tests,
or service experience on similar components, that each propeller blade
pitch control system component, including governors, pitch change
assemblies, pitch locks, mechanical stops, and feathering system
components, can withstand cyclic operation that simulates the normal
load and pitch change travel to which the component would be subjected
during the initially declared overhaul period or during a minimum of
1,000 hours of typical operation in service.

Sec.  35.43  Propeller hydraulic components.

    Applicants must show by test, validated analysis, or both, that
propeller components that contain hydraulic pressure and whose
structural failure or leakage from a structural failure could cause a
hazardous propeller effect demonstrate structural integrity by:
    (a) A proof pressure test to 1.5 times the maximum operating
pressure for one minute without permanent deformation or leakage that
would prevent performance of the intended function.
    (b) A burst pressure test to 2.0 times the maximum operating
pressure for one minute without failure. Leakage is permitted and seals
may be excluded from the test.

Sec.  35.45  [Removed and Reserved.]

0
34. Remove and reserve Sec.  35.45.

Sec.  35.47  [Removed and Reserved.]

0
35. Remove and reserve Sec.  35.47.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 12, 2008.
Robert A. Sturgell,
Acting Administrator.
 [FR Doc. E8-25418 Filed 10-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 46886]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19047]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, August
14, 2014 at 2 p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Piwowar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be:
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution settlement of administrative proceedings; adjudicatory
matters; and other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 7, 2014.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-19047 Filed 8-7-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 8, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 174)]
[Notices]
[Page 52039-52041]
[DOCID:fr08se08-56]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0573, FRL-8712-2]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; RCRA Hazardous Waste Permit Application and
Modification, Part A, EPA ICR Number 0262.12, OMB Control Number 2050-
0034

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is
scheduled to expire on January 31, 2009. Before submitting the ICR to
OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 7, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2008-0573, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: RCRA Docket (2822T), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 3334,
Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the
Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be
made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2008-0573. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any

personal information provided, unless the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov
Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA
without going through www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toshia King, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mailcode 5303W, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0573, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the RCRA Docket in
the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from
8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.
The telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for RCRA Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of
information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing
of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the
public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified in this
document.

What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate 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) Evaluate 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) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through 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 particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to?

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
business or other for-profit, as well as State, local, or Tribal
governments.
    Title: RCRA Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification,
Part A
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0262.12, OMB Control No. 2050-0034.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on January
31, 2009. 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. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: Section 3010 of Subtitle C of RCRA, as amended, requires
any person who generates or transports regulated waste or who owns or
operates a facility for the treatment, storage, or disposal (TSDF) of
regulated waste to notify EPA of their activities, including the
location and general description of activities and the regulated wastes
managed. Section 3005 of Subtitle C of RCRA requires TSDFs to obtain a
permit. To obtain the permit, the TSDF must submit an application
describing the facility's operation. There are two parts to the RCRA
permit application--Part A and Part B. Part A defines the processes to
be used for treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes; the
design capacity of such processes; and the specific hazardous wastes to
be handled at the facility. Part B requires detailed site specific
information such as geologic, hydrologic, and engineering data.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and record keeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 25
hours per response for an initial Part A Application and 13 hours per
response for a revised Part A application. Burden means the total time,
effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,

processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements which have subsequently
changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 23.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent:
1.5.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 402 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $28,884. This includes an estimated
burden cost of $28,712 for labor and an estimated cost of $172 for
capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

What is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: August 18, 2008.
Maria P. Vickers,
Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste.
[FR Doc. E8-20723 Filed 9-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 66494]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21017]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4720-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2023-0001]

Vermont; Amendment No. 7 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Vermont (FEMA-4720-DR), dated July 14, 2023, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued August 11, 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 the incident
period for this disaster is closed effective July 17, 2023.

    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. 2023-21017 Filed 9-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: March 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 50)]
[Notices]
[Page 13369]
[DOCID:fr15mr06-77]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-249-000]

Kern River Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Proposed Changes
in FERC Gas Tariff

March 8, 2006.
    Take notice that on March 1, 2006, Kern River Gas Transmission
Company (Kern River) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas
Tariff, Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective
April 1, 2006:

Seventeenth Revised Sheet No. 5
Thirteenth Revised Sheet No. 5-A
Fifteenth Revised Sheet No. 6

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing 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). 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. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is 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>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-3672 Filed 3-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P