[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4826-4828]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01426]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2022-N-0198]

Mark Moffett; Denial of Hearing; Final Debarment Order

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is denying a
request for a hearing submitted by Mark Moffett and is issuing an order
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) permanently
debarring Mr. Moffett from providing services in any capacity to a
person that has an approved or pending drug product application. FDA
bases this order on a finding that Mr. Moffett was convicted of
multiple felonies under Federal law for conduct relating to the
regulation of a drug product under the FD&C Act. Mr. Moffett was given
notice of the proposed debarment and an opportunity to request a
hearing within the timeframe prescribed by regulation. Mr. Moffett
submitted a request for hearing but failed to file with the Agency
information and analysis sufficient to create a basis for a hearing.

DATES: The order is applicable January 25, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Any application for termination of debarment by Mr. Moffett
under section 306(d) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(d)) (application)
may be submitted as follows:

Electronic Submissions

     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. An application
submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because
your application will be made public, you are solely responsible for
ensuring that your application does not include any confidential
information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such
as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number,
or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process.
Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or
other information that identifies you in the body of your application,
that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit an application with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the application as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For a written/paper application submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your application, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All applications must include the Docket No. FDA-
2022-N-0198. An application will be placed in the docket and, unless
submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit an application with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your application only as a written/paper submission.
You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the
information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note
that states ``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The
Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential
information, in its consideration of your application. The second copy,
which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked
out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov. Submit both copies to the Dockets Management
Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made
publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet
and not in the body of your application and you must identify this
information as ``confidential.'' Any information marked as
``confidential'' will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR
10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about
FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September
18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov
and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this
document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts and/or go to
the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville,
MD 20852, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 240-402-
7500. Publicly available submissions may be seen in the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachael Vieder Linowes, Office of
Scientific Integrity, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4206, Silver Spring, MD 20993,
[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 306(a)(2)(B) of the FD&C Act mandates permanent debarment
if FDA finds that the individual has been convicted of a felony under
Federal law for conduct relating to the regulation of any drug product
under the FD&C Act.
    On January 18, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts entered a judgment against Mr. Moffett, after a jury
verdict, for nine counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343
and five counts of aggravated identify theft in violation of 18 U.S.C.
1028A(a)(1). The court sentenced Mr. Moffett to 54 months in prison,
$1,500 restitution payment, and upon his release from prison, a 36-
month supervised release. The bases for his convictions stem from his
employment with Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Aegerion), a
pharmaceutical company located in Massachusetts, which held an approved
drug application for the drug JUXTAPID (NDA 203858).
    According to FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs' (ORA) proposal to
debar, discussed in more detail below, JUXTAPID was subject to risk
evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS) requirements due to
JUXTAPID's risk of liver toxicity. JUXTAPID prescribers had to enroll
in the JUXTAPID REMS program and attest that the patients to which they
prescribed JUXTAPID had a diagnosis consistent with homozygous familial
hypercholesterolemia (HoFH). JUXTAPID was only distributed by certain
pharmacies and prior to dispensing, the pharmacy had to verify that the
prescriber was certified in the JUXTAPID REMS program. Additionally,
insurance companies would not pay for JUXTAPID if the patient did not
have a HoFH diagnosis, so to facilitate insurance claims processing for
patients, Aergerion established the patient access program (PAP), and
the PAP personnel would call health insurance companies to obtain
insurance coverage determinations for patients who had been prescribed
JUXTAPID.
    According to the proposal to debar, Mr. Moffett was a sales
representative for Aegerion. Aegerion paid its sales representatives a
base salary, plus bonuses for new prescriptions and bonuses for
patients remaining on JUXTAPID over time. ORA found that Mr. Moffett
schemed to enrich himself through the bonus program, and as part

of that scheme, from on or about January 2014 through at least October
2015, convinced doctors to prescribe JUXTAPID for statin intolerant
patients who had not been diagnosed with HoFH. According to the
proposal to debar, Mr. Moffett, among other actions:
    1. Directed and caused JUXTAPID REMS forms, statements of medical
necessity, and insurance forms to be submitted to insurance plans for
JUXTAPID coverage by falsely representing that the prescriptions were
for patients with HoFH;
    2. Obtained fraudulent REMS forms from prescribers or obtained
prescriptions from providers who had not treated relevant patients; and
    3. Sent falsified prior authorizations or caused the falsified
prior authorizations forms to be sent to PAP personnel, causing them to
communicate the false information to insurance companies.
    ORA's proposal to debar stated that Mr. Moffett received tens of
thousands of dollars in bonuses for making purported sales of JUXTAPID.
    By letter dated July 5, 2022, ORA notified Mr. Moffett of a
proposal to permanently debar him from providing services in any
capacity to a person having an approved or pending drug product
application, based on the multiple convictions and underlying conduct
outlined above. In addition to outlining the above information, ORA
found that the wire fraud and aggravated identity theft felonies were
for conduct relating to the regulation of drug products. ORA found that
Mr. Moffett's actions undermine the process for the regulation of drugs
because Mr. Moffett schemed to deceive health insurance companies into
covering JUXTAPID for ineligible patients. Additionally, ORA found that
Mr. Moffett's actions circumvented the REMS program, which subverted
safety protocols put into place as part of JUXTAPID's approval.
Therefore, ORA found that permanent debarment was appropriate.
    By letter, dated August 4, 2022, Mr. Moffett submitted a document
titled ``request for a hearing.'' This letter did not contain an actual
request for a hearing, but the Director of the Office of Scientific
Integrity (OSI) construed it as one. In addition, OSI granted Mr.
Moffett an extension to submit any information or factual analyses in
support of his request for a hearing until October 31, 2022. Mr.
Moffett submitted another letter on October 11, 2022.
    Under the authority delegated to her by the Commissioner of Food
and Drugs, the Chief Scientist has considered Mr. Moffett's request for
a hearing. Hearings are granted only if there is a genuine and
substantial issue of fact. Hearings will not be granted on issues of
policy or law, on mere allegations, denials or general descriptions of
positions and contentions, or on data and information insufficient to
justify the factual determination urged (see 21 CFR 12.24(b)).
    Neither of Mr. Moffett's letters provides any information or
factual analysis in rebutting the proposed findings in ORA's proposal
to debar him. Instead, both letters state that he is currently
appealing the convictions on which the proposed debarment is based.
Specifically, in Mr. Moffett's October 11, 2022, letter, he requests a
delay in the debarment proceeding until the conclusion of his appeal,
and states that, ``if a hearing is scheduled before [he] receive[s] the
results of [his] appellate appeal,'' he would like to know when the
hearing will take place so that he may participate.
    As previously explained in OSI's letter to Mr. Moffett granting him
an extension, under section 306(l) of the FD&C Act, ``a person is
considered to have been convicted of a criminal offense . . . (A) when
a judgment of conviction has been entered against the person by a
Federal or State court, regardless of whether there is an appeal
pending.'' A pending appeal is therefore not a ground for postponing
either ruling on a hearing request or conducting a hearing on a
proposed debarment. However, if Mr. Moffett's appeal ultimately results
in the convictions being overturned, he may seek termination of his
debarment (see section 306(d)(B)(ii) of the FD&C Act).
    Given that Mr. Moffett did not submit any information or factual
analyses addressing the findings in ORA's proposal to debar him, Mr.
Moffett has not raised a genuine and substantial issue of fact
regarding whether he was convicted of a felony under Federal law for
conduct relating to the regulation of a drug product under the FD&C
Act. Therefore, OSI denies Mr. Moffett's request for a hearing.

II. Findings and Order

    The Chief Scientist, under section 306(a)(2) of the FD&C Act and
under the authority delegated to her, finds that Mr. Mark Moffett has
been convicted of felonies under Federal law for conduct relating to
the regulation of a drug product under the FD&C Act.
    As a result of the foregoing findings, Mr. Moffett is permanently
debarred from providing services in any capacity to a person with an
approved or pending drug product application under section 505, 512, or
802 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360b, or 382), or under section 351
of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), effective (see DATES)
(21 U.S.C. 335a(c)(1)(B) and (c)(2)(A)(ii) and 21 U.S.C. 321(dd)). Any
person with an approved or pending drug product application who
knowingly uses the services of Mr. Moffett, in any capacity during his
period of debarment, will be subject to civil money penalties (section
307(a)(6) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335b(a)(6))). If Mr. Moffett,
during his period of debarment, provides services in any capacity to a
person with an approved or pending drug product application, he will be
subject to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(7) of the FD&C Act).
In addition, FDA will not accept or review any abbreviated new drug
applications submitted by or with the assistance of Mr. Moffett during
his period of debarment.

    Dated: January 19, 2023.
Namandje N. Bumpus,
Chief Scientist.
[FR Doc. 2023-01426 Filed 1-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 87922]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29226]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 11834-065]

Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Application for Temporary Variance of
Minimum Flow Requirements.
    b. Project No.: 11834-065.
    c. Date Filed: November 23, 2016.
    d. Applicant: Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC (licensee).
    e. Name of Project: Upper and Middle Dams Storage Hydroelectric
Project.
    f. Location: Rapid River in Oxford and Franklin counties, Maine.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Kelly Maloney, Manager, Licensing and
Compliance, Brookfield White Pine Hydro LLC, 150 Main Street, Lewiston,
ME 04240, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Ballantine,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests,
and recommendations is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice
(by December 29, 2016). The Commission strongly encourages electronic
filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or
recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-11834-065)
on any comments, motions to intervene, protests, or recommendations
filed.
    k. Description of Request: The licensee requests a temporary
variance of the minimum flow requirements in the Rapid River below the
Middle Dam development due to drought conditions. License Article 402,
in part, requires the licensee to release from September 16 through the
start of the spring refill of Richardson Lake, a minimum flow of 472
cubic feet per second (cfs). The licensee explains that due to drought
conditions, Richardson Lake is below its long term average. Considering
a dry long term precipitation forecast and the impending winter freeze
up, the licensee is concerned that the reservoir may not refill by
spring as intended, which could cause additional water level and
minimum flow issues in the spring of 2017. Therefore in order to
conserve as much fall runoff as possible, the licensee is requesting to
reduce the minimum flow to 200 cfs until April 23, 2017, at which time
a minimum flow of 382 cfs would be released in accordance with the
requirements of Article 402.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of proposed action. Agencies may
obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of
any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each
representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.

    Dated: November 29, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-29226 Filed 12-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 20 (Thursday, January 30, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5533-5534]
[FR Doc No: 2020-01758]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0383; FMCSA-2014-0387; FMCSA-2015-0325]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for four
individuals from the hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) for interstate commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) drivers. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf
individuals to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on November 15, 2019. The
exemptions expire on November 15, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Documents and Comments

    To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this notice
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2014-0383 or http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2014-0387 or http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2015-0325 and
choose the document to review. If you do not have access to the
internet, you may view the docket online by visiting the Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these
comments, without

edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On December 4, 2019, FMCSA published a notice announcing its
decision to renew exemptions for four individuals from the hearing
standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in interstate
commerce and requested comments from the public (84 FR 66451). The
public comment period ended on January 3, 2020, and no comments were
received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that renewing these exemptions would achieve a level of
safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved
by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(11).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced
whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or
without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric
device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a
hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American
National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5-1951.
    This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow
drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing
aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (April 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the four renewal exemption
applications, FMCSA announces its decision to exempt the following
drivers from the hearing requirement in Sec.  391.41 (b)(11).
    As of November 15, 2019, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), the following four individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the hearing requirement in
the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (84 FR 66451):
Daniel T. Harnish (UT)
Tami S. Richardson-Nelson (NE)
Anthony J. Saive (OH)
Jennifer L. Valentine (TX)
    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2014-0383 or
FMCSA-2014-0387 or FMCSA-2015-0325. Jennifer Valentine was previously
published under the name Jennifer Campbell. Their exemptions are
applicable as of November 15, 2019, and will expire on November 15,
2021.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid
for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b).

    Issued on: January 17, 2020.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-01758 Filed 1-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 118 (Wednesday, June 23, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 32920]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13178]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10024-61-OMS]

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision
Approval, State of Wyoming

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s
approval of the State of Wyoming's request to revise/modify certain of
its EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting.

DATES: EPA approves the authorized program revisions/modifications as
of June 23, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shirley M. Miller, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Information Management, Mail Stop 2824T,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR.
CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory
alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure
that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper
counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local
government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving,
electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to
EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA
approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on
consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the
state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic
reporting. Additionally, section 3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part
3, subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and
modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option
of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures
available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An
application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the
state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to
implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered
by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems
that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.
    On March 5, 2021, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
(WY DEQ) submitted an application titled NeTDMR for revisions/
modifications to its EPA-approved programs under title 40 CFR to allow
new electronic reporting. EPA reviewed WY DEQ's request to revise/
modify its EPA-authorized programs and, based on this review, EPA
determined that the application met the standards for approval of
authorized program revisions/modifications set out in 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR 3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's
decision to approve Wyoming's request to revise/modify its following
EPA-authorized programs to allow electronic reporting under 40 CFR part
123 is being published in the Federal Register:

Part 123: EPA-Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Reporting under CFR 122 & 125

    WY DEQ was notified of EPA's determination to approve its
application with respect to the authorized programs listed above.

    Dated: June 8, 2021.
Jennifer Campbell,
Director, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2021-13178 Filed 6-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 119 (Thursday, June 22, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40685-40695]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13319]

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

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

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 119 / Thursday, June 22, 2023 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-0668; Project Identifier AD-2023-00199-R;
Amendment 39-22453; AD 2023-11-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Various Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2021-23-
13, which applied to all helicopters equipped with a radio (also known
as radar) altimeter. AD 2021-23-13 required revising the limitations
section of the existing rotorcraft flight manual (RFM) for your
helicopter to incorporate limitations prohibiting certain operations
requiring radio altimeter data when in the presence of 5G C-Band
interference in areas as identified by Notices to Air Missions
(NOTAMs). Since the FAA issued AD 2021-23-13, the FAA determined that
additional limitations are needed due to the continued deployment of
new 5G C-Band base stations whose signals are expected to cover most of
the contiguous United States at transmission frequencies between 3.7-
3.98 GHz (5G C-Band). This AD requires revising the limitations section
of the existing RFM to incorporate limitations prohibiting certain
operations requiring radio altimeter data, due to the presence of 5G C-
Band interference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products. In addition, the FAA is requesting comment
on the change to the spurious emission level requirement.

DATES: This AD is effective June 22, 2023.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by August 7, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2023-0668; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Swartz, Continued Operational
Safety Technical Advisor, COS Program Management Section, Operational
Safety Branch, FAA; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2021-23-13, Amendment 39 21811 (86 FR
69992, December 9, 2021) (AD 2021-23-13). AD 2021-23-13 applied to all
helicopters equipped with a radio (also known as radar) altimeter. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on April 12, 2023 (88 FR 21931).
The NPRM was prompted by a determination that radio altimeters cannot
be relied upon to perform their intended function if they experience 5G
C-Band interference.
    In the NPRM, the FAA proposed minimum performance levels for radio
altimeters that can be used across the affected fleet. The FAA proposed
that a ``radio altimeter tolerant rotorcraft'' is one for which the
radio altimeter, as installed, demonstrates: (1) tolerance to radio
altimeter interference at or above a fundamental power spectral density
(PSD) curve threshold, and (2) tolerance to an aggregate spurious
emission level of -42 dBm/MHz in the 4200-4400 MHz radio altimeter
band. For rotorcraft with radio altimeters that meet the proposed
minimum performance levels, the FAA proposed to terminate the
operational limitations imposed by AD 2021-23-13 with no further
action. For rotorcraft with radio altimeters that do not meet the
proposed minimum performance levels, the FAA proposed to maintain the
requirements of AD 2021-23-13 by requiring revising the limitations
section of the existing RFM to incorporate limitations prohibiting
certain operations requiring radio altimeter data, due to the presence
of 5G C-Band interference as identified by NOTAM until June 30, 2023.
On or before June 30, 2023, the FAA proposed to also require, for non-
radio altimeter tolerant rotorcraft, revising the existing RFM to
incorporate limitations prohibiting these same operations in the
contiguous U.S. airspace.

Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued the NPRM, the FAA determined that the spurious
emission level as proposed in the NPRM would not necessarily address
the unsafe condition from both indoor and outdoor emitters.
Additionally, commenters of the NPRM requested the FAA replace the
proposed fixed aggregate spurious emission level with a spurious PSD
tolerance curve.
    The FAA analyzed multiple scenarios to determine the worst case
spurious emissions a rotorcraft could be exposed to from either indoor
or outdoor 5G C-band base stations. The constraining scenario is a
rotorcraft operation on a building or elevated platform with a nearby
in-building 5G emitter. Figure 2 of paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD is
derived by assuming that the rotorcraft is at least 75 ft laterally
from the in-building emitter with conducted spurious emissions of -30
dBm/MHz. No building exit losses are accounted for in this curve.
    In this final rule, the FAA replaced the proposed fixed aggregate
spurious emission level of -42 dBm/MHz (conducted) with a spurious PSD
tolerance curve for 5G C-Band interference from a single base station.
This form of the requirement is consistent with the transport and
commuter category airplane

requirement. Similarly, it does not include an aggregation factor or
any base station or aircraft antenna gain factors. The spurious PSD
tolerance curve is based on a different spurious emission level than
what the FAA proposed in the NPRM (-30 dBm/MHz conducted for a single
indoor base station instead of -48 dBm/MHz conducted for a single
outdoor base station and an aggregation factor of 6 dB which yielded an
effective aggregate level of -42 dBm/MHz).
    As a result, the FAA is requesting comments on the spurious PSD
tolerance curve in figure 2 to paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.

Comments on NPRM

    The FAA provided the public with an opportunity to comment on the
NPRM and received submissions to Docket No. FAA-2023-0668 from Sikorsky
Aircraft Corporation (Sikorsky), Bell Textron Inc. (Bell Textron),
Thales Group (Thales), Air Medical Operators Association (AMOA), and
Helicopter Association International (HAI) on behalf of 21 aviation
coalition members.
    The following summarizes the comments received on the NPRM and
provides the FAA's responses.

Request To Clarify AMOC Requirements for PSD Curve

    Comment summary: Bell Textron requested the FAA clarify whether
alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs) will be required for filters
or equipment that meet the fundamental PSD curve.
    FAA response: The AD specifies that radio altimeter tolerant
aircraft must use a method approved by the FAA. The FAA developed a
policy statement and requested public comments on this proposed policy
on May 8, 2023 (88 FR 29554). The policy statement provides additional
guidance on data submittals and approvals for this method. Therefore,
operators will not need an AMOC provided their helicopter meets the
fundamental and spurious emissions PSD curve thresholds specified in
paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (ii) of this AD.

Request To Revise Applicability

    Comment summary: Sikorsky requested that the FAA revise the
proposed AD to exempt helicopters conducting ambulatory, health,
emergency, and search and rescue (SAR) operations. Sikorsky stated that
the inability to conduct these lifesaving operations due to the AD
would have a negative humanitarian and social impact.
    FAA response: The FAA disagrees. The FAA has determined that
regardless of the purpose of a flight, erroneous radio altimeter
behavior creates an unacceptable risk during the operations prohibited
by the AD. To remove those prohibitions from the RFM, operators may
modify their helicopters to a radio altimeter tolerant helicopter as
defined in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD.

Request To Clarify ``Critical Phase of Flight''

    Comment summary: In the NPRM, the FAA explained its determination
that helicopters with a radio altimeter that demonstrates the
tolerances in the AD would not experience interference during a
critical phase of flight in the contiguous U.S. airspace. Sikorsky
questioned whether by ``critical phase of flight'' the FAA means the
definition in 14 CFR 135.100(c).
    FAA response: The commenter is correct that the term ``critical
phase of flight'' in this AD has the same meaning as in 14 CFR
135.100(c): all ground operations involving taxi, takeoff and landing,
and all other flight operations conducted below 10,000 feet, except
cruise flight.

Request To Clarify ``Prohibited Operations''

    Comment summary: In the NPRM, the FAA explained its proposed
actions and stated that after July 1, 2023, helicopters without an
upgraded radio altimeter would be ``subject to the prohibited
operations.'' Sikorsky requested that the FAA clarify its use of the
term ``prohibited operations,'' as avionic system architecture,
redundancies, and associated functional hazard and system safety
assessments could cause aircraft manufacturers, operators, and
regulators to interpret the term differently.
    FAA response: The FAA's use of the term ``prohibited operations''
in the preamble of the NPRM refers to the four operations listed in
figure 3 to paragraph (h) of this AD and figure 4 to paragraph (i) of
this AD.

Request To Extend Compliance Time

    Comment summary: Sikorsky and HAI requested additional time to
comply with the AD. The commenters were concerned that operators will
not have sufficient time to equip with an upgraded radio altimeter
before June 30, 2023, in order to avoid the flight restrictions.
According to HAI, no currently available radio altimeters meet the
proposed performance levels, and about one-third of the fleet will need
to purchase a different make/model radio altimeter and the appropriate
filter solution. The commenters stated that an extension would avoid
operational and economic impacts to U.S. transportation, as well as
disturbances to aerospace production.
    FAA response: The FAA carefully considered the impact of the flight
restrictions on the unmodified fleet after June 30, 2023, and did not
take the decision to prohibit these operations lightly. The June 30,
2023, date was driven by the unsafe condition over which the FAA has no
control. After refraining from operating at the levels authorized by
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for a year and a half,
wireless companies are now able to operate at higher levels, yet still
not at the levels authorized. Additionally, the FAA anticipates 19
additional telecommunications companies will begin transmitting in the
C-Band after June 30, 2023. Although the FAA continues to work with the
companies that intend to transmit in the 3.7-3.98-GHz band near 5G C-
Band mitigated airports (5G CMAs), the FAA has no agreement with those
companies to provide the FAA with tower locations and other information
necessary to support the current NOTAM/AMOC process. Therefore, the FAA
will not be able to extend the June 30, 2023, date.

Request To Change Number of Affected Helicopters

    Comment summary: Sikorsky requested that the FAA revise the number
of affected helicopters in the estimated costs section of the preamble.
Sikorsky stated that the number in the NPRM (1,128 helicopters of U.S.
registry) is incorrect as the Sikorsky civil fleet of Model S-76A, S-
76A+, S-76/B, S-76C, S-76C++, S-76D, and S-92A helicopters, which
utilize single and/or dual radio altimeters, total 1,153. AMOA also
stated the proposed AD does not contain an accurate estimate of
affected helicopters.
    FAA response: The FAA has reevaluated and revised the affected
fleet size for U.S registered helicopters. The FAA estimates that
approximately 5,500 helicopters of U.S. registry are likely to have a
radio altimeter installed and are therefore required to revise their
existing RFM or modify to become a radio altimeter tolerant rotorcraft.
The FAA also estimates that 1,128 of the 5,500 helicopters of U.S.
registry are equipped to be able to perform the operations prohibited
by this AD for non-radio altimeter rotorcraft. The FAA has revised the
estimated costs of this final rule accordingly.

Allocation of Federal Funding

    Comment summary: HAI recommended that federal funding be allocated
to helicopter operators to help cover the costs associated with

equipage. This financial support would alleviate the burden on
operators and facilitate the implementation of necessary retrofits.
    FAA response: The FAA appreciates the cost to retrofit helicopters
with tolerant radio altimeters. However, the FAA's budget does not
include allocations for AD costs incurred in modifying privately owned
equipment.

Request To Revise Cost Estimates for Modification and RFM Updates

    Comment summary: Sikorsky, Bell Textron, HAI, and AMOA commented
that the NPRM estimated only the cost to revise the RFM update and did
not include costs to replace or modify the radio altimeters. AMOA also
stated the NPRM does not realistically address the capacity and likely
backlog associated with the modifications.
    FAA response: Based on these comments, the FAA has revised the
estimated costs to include the costs associated with modifying the
helicopter to be a radio altimeter tolerant rotorcraft. The cost
analysis in FAA AD rulemaking actions typically considers only the
direct costs associated with the specific actions required by the AD.
The FAA does not include secondary or indirect costs, such as those
resulting from delays or supply issues. The FAA lacks the data
necessary to quantify those costs, which might vary significantly among
operators; the commenters did not provide such data either.
    Comment summary: Sikorsky stated that the FAA's estimate of the
hourly labor rate and number of hours associated with updating the RFM
is too low. Sikorsky suggested that typical RFM updates/releases
include technical writing, peer reviews, airworthiness approvals, and
release.
    FAA response: The FAA disagrees. The FAA uses 1 work-hour as a
standard estimate in ADs that require an administrative function such
as a revision to a flight manual.

Concern for Agreed-On Mitigations

    Comment summary: Bell Textron, Thales, and Sikorsky expressed
concern that the FAA does not have authority to enforce the voluntary
agreements between the FAA and the telecommunications companies. Bell
Textron requested that the FCC mandate the voluntary mitigations so
that already designed filters will be a lasting solution. Thales and
Sikorsky also requested that the proposed AD include necessary spurious
data that 5G network operators should disclose to the FAA, to determine
what action may be necessary to ensure safe aviation operations in the
U.S.
    FAA response: Thales, Sikorsky, and Bell Textron are correct that
the agreements between the FAA and the telecommunications companies
have been voluntary because the FAA does not have enforcement authority
over the companies' use of licenses they receive from the FCC. However,
the FAA, National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA), and FCC have worked extensively and collaboratively with the
licensees to ensure that the agreements confirm necessary notification
and coordination, that mitigations are in place with network
deployments, and that the agreements are enforceable by the FCC. These
March 31, 2023, voluntary agreements \1\ allow the FAA to continue to
address aviation safety when analysis indicates that a proposed base
station will exceed the permitted PSD values, which ensures the FAA can
protect offshore radio altimeter coupled approaches, hover autopilot
modes that use radio altimeters, search and rescue autopilot modes that
use radio altimeters, and Category A, B, and Performance takeoff and
landing operations without limitations. The FAA disagrees with the
request that the AD include necessary spurious data that 5G network
operators should disclose to the FAA, because the spurious PSD curve in
this AD is based on the spurious emission limits documented in the
March 31, 2023, agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A copy of the letter from AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and
UScellular dated March 31, 2023, documenting their voluntary
commitments to transmit within mitigated parameters is in Docket No.
FAA-2023-0668 and can be found on the FCC's website at: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/1033142661477.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA will continue to work with the FCC and NTIA in this regard
to ensure continuing aviation safety. As stated in the voluntary
agreement letter dated March 31, 2023, the commitments of AT&T, T-
Mobile, UScellular, and Verizon will last until January 1, 2028, at
which point they will sunset unless extended or reduced by mutual
agreement. A mid-term check-in involving the FAA, the FCC, and
telecommunications companies will occur in July 2026 to assess the
status of aviation's long-term migration to next-generation radio
altimeters and the need for the sustainment of these commitments.

Request To Clarify Compliance Methods

    Comment summary: Bell Textron requested the FAA clarify the process
for determining how a radio altimeter will meet the tolerance
requirements in the AD. Bell Textron also requested that the FAA
clarify the requirement in the proposed AD of ``using a method approved
by the FAA.'' HAI requested the FAA revise the proposed AD to include a
reference to an issue paper, advisory circular, or other means of
compliance document that has gone through the public comment process.
    FAA response: The FAA developed a policy statement and requested
public comments on this proposed policy on May 8, 2023 (88 FR 29554).
The proposed policy describes an acceptable framework and method for
demonstrating that an airplane or helicopter is radio altimeter
tolerant. The policy discusses compliance methods that should be
applied to programs for type certificates, amended type certificates,
supplemental type certificates (STCs), and amended STCs. The policy
proposes methods that may be used for compliance only if approved by
the FAA in writing.

Request To Revise PSD Curve

    Comment summary: HAI, Sikorsky, and Thales requested that the FAA
revise the proposed AD to include the frequency range to which the PSD
tolerance curve thresholds apply, a new figure indicating the spurious
tolerance similar to the figure with the PSD tolerance curve, and a
specification of the altitude dependence for spurious tolerance.
    FAA response: The FAA agrees and has added the frequency range to
the PSD tolerance curve. Additionally, as explained previously under
``Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued,'' the FAA has replaced the
proposed fixed emission level with a spurious PSD tolerance curve.

Request To Allow Modification as Minor Change

    Comment summary: HAI requested that the FAA revise the proposed AD
to allow modification of the helicopter as a minor change to type
design, to help expedite approvals and make the best use of resources.
    FAA response: The FAA disagrees. Under 14 CFR 21.95, minor design
changes may be approved before an applicant submits to the FAA any
substantiating data. Radio altimeters are critical sensors that must be
shown to perform their intended function, and the modified hardware or
software must be shown to still meet the aircraft-level system safety
requirements. For example, a filter may alter the radio altimeter
performance, which may have an appreciable effect on reliability,
operational characteristics, or other

characteristics affecting airworthiness. For this reason, the FAA
determined that FAA approval of the method used for the modification is
necessary before operators could show compliance with this AD.

Request To Clarify Need for Substantial Redesign of Radio Altimeters

    Comment summary: In the NPRM, the FAA stated that the radio
altimeter modifications would not require a substantial system
redesign, because operators could readily replace radio altimeters or
install filters. Bell Textron commented that anything other than a
simple filter is a substantial system redesign and requested the FAA
provide clarification that some radio altimeters will require
substantial system redesign.
    FAA response: The FAA acknowledges that certain radio altimeter
changes may require a substantial system design at the radio altimeter
or radio altimeter integration level. For some radio altimeters,
hardware or software design changes may be needed to address
attenuation effects of additional filtering. However, some of these
changes may not be considered a substantial system design. For example,
the FAA has allowed many of the radio altimeter filtering that was
implemented as AMOCs to AD 2021-23-12 to be certified as a minor
technical standard order (TSO) change as the change was not extensive
enough to require a substantially complete investigation.

Request for FAA To Retain NVG Exemptions

    Comment summary: AMOA expressed concern about the proposed AD's
effect on Exemption No. 18973, which provides relief to helicopter air
ambulance operators conducting operations under part 135 with night
vision goggles (NVGs). The commenter stated that the exemption is tied
to NOTAMs for identifying areas where the radio altimeter is
unreliable, and in the NPRM, the FAA advised that NOTAMs would no
longer be used to communicate the location of the 5G C-Band
environment. Sikorsky also noted that the NPRM does not address this
exemption.
    FAA response: The FAA acknowledges that Exemption No. 18973 and
related exemptions providing relief for helicopter operations under
parts 91, 135, and 141 with NVGs remain in the public interest. The FAA
is aware of the issue raised by the commenters and will address with
follow-on actions for those exemption holders.

Request for AD Applicability for Offshore Operations

    Comment summary: In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to retain the
prohibition on offshore operations from AD 2021-23-13. HAI and Sikorsky
noted that the NPRM does not specify where or how far off shore the AD
would apply. HAI explained that typically, offshore oil rigs are
situated 3 to 200 miles from the shore, making it crucial to determine
the range of the restrictions. Sikorsky commented the NPRM has no
guidance with respect to offshore operations and asked for
clarification of the proposed FAA offshore applicability limit from the
U.S. coastline.
    FAA response: The flight restrictions required by this AD are
limited to the airspace of the contiguous U.S., which means the
prohibitions are applicable everywhere in the contiguous U.S. to
include the airspace overlying the waters up to 12 nautical miles from
the coast, including from the islands of those states. The FAA notes
that based on the most susceptible radio altimeters, 5G C-Band
interference could extend up to 20 nautical miles beyond the boundaries
of the airspace of the contiguous U.S. on non-radio altimeter tolerant
rotorcraft, so rotorcraft operators should also exercise caution in
operating in those areas.

Request for Continued Collaboration

    Comment summary: HAI stated that, given that FAA will no longer
have access to 5G C-Band emitter locations after June 2023, enhanced
communication and collaboration between FAA and industry stakeholders
will be paramount. HAI offered to assist FAA in tailoring where
barometric minimums should be required under a formal information-
sharing agreement.
    FAA response: FAA appreciates the effort HAI and the rotorcraft
offshore industry have gone through to protect the safety of those
operations and looks forward to continued collaboration with all
stakeholders on sharing data on offshore 5G C-Band mitigation efforts.

Request To Change Limitations

    Comment summary: Bell Textron commented there are hover modes that
provide workload relief under VFR (visual flight rules) conditions and,
because the operation is under VFR, the pilot would be attentive and
mitigate any hazards. Bell Textron requested that the FAA change the
proposed prohibition of ``Engaging hover autopilot modes that require
radio altimeter data'' to ``Engaging hover autopilot modes that require
radio altimeter data for safe flight (e.g., those approved for IMC
[instrument meteorological conditions] or IFR [instrument flight rules]
conditions where visual reference is not adequate for detection and
response).''
    FAA response: The FAA disagrees. The FAA considered both VFR and
IFR operational scenarios and could not rule out an unsafe condition
when operating under VFR conditions. Additionally, the proposed
language is vague and could lead to operator confusion and operations
with unsafe conditions.
    Comment Summary: Bell Textron commented that there are approach
modes other than SAR modes that could result in an unsafe condition if
there is erroneous radio altimeter data. The commenter further stated
that if there are visual references, the pilot can safely mitigate
hazards from erroneous radio altimeter data. Bell Textron requested the
FAA change the proposed prohibition of ``Engaging Search and Rescue
(SAR) autopilot modes that require radio altimeter data'' to ``Engaging
Search and Rescue (SAR) approach or similar low altitude/low speed
autopilot approach modes that require radio altimeter data where visual
reference is not adequate for detection and response.''
    FAA response: The FAA disagrees. If there are autopilot modes
similar to SAR modes, where the radio altimeter data is used to hold
altitude, the hover mode prohibition will cover those modes. The FAA
disagrees that if there are visual references, the pilot can always
safely mitigate hazards from erroneous radio altimeter data while in
SAR modes.
    No change to the proposed hover mode prohibition is necessary as a
result of this comment. Where both barometric minimums and radar
altimeter minimums are available as options in an approach, a non-radio
altimeter tolerant rotorcraft may still conduct those approaches using
the barometric minimums.
    Comment Summary: Bell Textron stated there can be Category A or B
procedures that provide an alternative means to determine the height
above the ground. The commenter requested the FAA change the proposed
prohibition of ``Performing takeoffs and landings in accordance with
any procedure (Category A, Category B, or by Performance Class in the
Rotorcraft Flight Manual or Operations Specification) that requires the
use of radio altimeter data'' to ``Performing takeoffs and landings in
accordance with any procedure (Category A, Category B, or by
Performance Class in the Rotorcraft Flight Manual or Operations
Specification) that requires

the use of radio altimeter data without the option to alternatively use
barometric data or visual references.''
    FAA response: The phrase ``that requires the use of radio altimeter
data'' in the prohibition raised by the commenter is intended to limit
the applicability of that prohibition to procedures that rely on the
data provided by the radio altimeter. If the RFM contains an
alternative procedure for a Category A, B, or performance class takeoff
or landing using a means that does not rely on radio altimeter data,
then that procedure is not prohibited by this AD.

Request for PSD Curve Changes

    Comment summary: Thales and Sikorsky requested the FAA clarify
several aspects of the PSD curve in figure 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of the
proposed AD: whether no elevation mask is taken into account at and
below 350 feet above ground level (AGL); at which base station emission
power the PSD curve corresponds (62 dBm/MHz or 65 dBm/MHz); and whether
the radio altimeter performance criteria in the curve explicitly covers
any 5G emitter station up to 65dBm/MHz in the applicable 3.7-3.98 GHz
band, for the foreseeable future. Sikorsky requested that the FAA
revise the proposed AD to include a PSD curve that reflects the reduced
EIRP levels for helicopters operating at the 188 priority airports (5G
CMAs) with reduced power levels.
    FAA response: The notch in the PSD curve does not mean that no
elevation mask is taken into account below 350 feet AGL. The elevation
mask is taken into consideration below 350 feet AGL and is a
fundamental consideration in how the PSD curve was established. The PSD
curve was calibrated to cover 5G C-Band emitter stations up to 65 dBm/
MHz in the applicable 3.7-3.98 GHz band.
    The FAA disagrees with revising the AD to include a PSD curve for
helicopters operating at airports with reduced power levels. The radio
altimeter tolerant rotorcraft PSD curve was established to provide safe
operation anywhere in the contiguous U.S. regardless of whether a
helicopter is operating at a 5G CMA.
    Comment summary: Sikorsky requested the FAA revise the PSD curve in
figure 1 to paragraph (g)(1) of the proposed AD to change the height
above ground at -6 dBm/MHz from 270 feet to 370 feet, and at -16 dBm/
MHz from 300 feet to 400 feet. Sikorsky stated its request was based on
several factors, including the minimum safe obstacle avoidance distance
and the typical decision height used for radio altimeter critical
operations associated with missed approach points (MAPs) during point
in space (PINS) approaches. Sikorsky further stated that radio
altimeters are not operationally used above 1000 feet, and therefore
there is little value for any PSD restrictions above 1000 feet
operationally.
    FAA response: The FAA assumed an emitter base station height of 350
feet based on consensus reached in rotorcraft industry group meetings.
Additionally, FAA analysis of existing emitter base station height data
shows that, while higher emitters do exist, they are infrequently
adjacent to helipads. Second, the FAA assumed the rotorcraft was no
closer than 50 feet above and 75 feet laterally from the emitter. The
vertical distance was based on pilot feedback and the lateral distance
was based on common lateral separation from the main rotor tip
recommendations of 2 main rotor diameters from the tip of the rotor,
selecting a 30 foot rotor as the smallest rotor in this class of
aircraft with the antenna under the main rotor mast. An operator of an
individual model rotorcraft with a larger rotor diameter may request
approval of an AMOC to the AD on the basis of separation distance.
Third, the FAA assumed that the emitter was active at the full rural
power level of 65 dBm/MHz allowed in FCC Report and Order FCC 20-22.\2\
The FAA then evaluated the resulting curve against data from radio
altimeters and found it to be achievable with current technology using
filters that have been developed. Based on data from existing emitters,
if the height reduction from 370 feet to 270 feet, as requested by the
commenter, were adopted, it would result in many more landing scenarios
unprotected from interference because emitters on towers at about 250
feet as opposed to the accepted assumption of 350 feet are much more
common. For this reason, the FAA did not adopt this request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ FCC Report and Order (R&O) FCC 20-22 in the Matter of
Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7-4.2 GHz Band, adopted February 28,
2020, and released March 3, 2020. This document is available in
Docket No. FAA-2023-0668, and at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-expands-flexible-use-cband-5g-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has re-evaluated the need for PSD performance requirements
above 1000 feet and agrees with the reasons provided by the commenter.
The PSD curves specified in this AD have been changed accordingly.

Request for HTAWS Risk Assessment

    Comment summary: Bell Textron commented the helicopter terrain
avoidance warning systems (HTAWS) discussion in the preamble of the
NPRM mixes HTAWS functionality with separate radio altimeter
functionality. The commenter requested that the NPRM discussion be
revised to clearly distinguish between the stand-alone HTAWS and the
hazards associated with the stand-alone radio altimeter and suggested
the following language:

    Unlike the Terrain Awareness and Warnings Systems (TAWS) in
transport airplanes, most Helicopter Terrain Avoidance Warning
Systems (HTAWS) do not rely on radio altimeter inputs. Radio
altimeter data is used for vertical situational awareness in low
visibility conditions (i.e., snow and dust blown up by rotor down
wash) and as an input into several procedures and automated system.

    FAA response: The FAA agrees the proposed language provides a
clearer distinction between the stand-alone HTAWS and the hazards
associated with the stand-alone radio altimeter. However, no change to
the final rule is necessary since the language referenced by the
commenter does not appear in the final rule.
    Comment summary: HAI requested that the FAA include in the final
rule the particulars of the FAA's risk assessments on all rotorcraft
systems where an incorrect radio altimeter reading would result in an
unsafe condition, requiring mitigation.
    FAA response: The FAA assessed the risk of radio altimeter
anomalies on operations coupled to automated functions and determined
that these were the hazards that constituted an unsafe condition. The
FAA provided additional information about its unsafe condition
determination in the preamble of the NPRM and AD 2021-23-13.
Additionally, the FAA acknowledges that radio altimeter anomalies could
lead to increased flightcrew workload and flightcrew desensitization to
warnings that could rise to an unsafe condition and result in
additional rulemaking.

Request To Clarify Effect of Future TSO

    Comment summary: Thales requested clarification regarding
retrofitting with a 5G tolerant radio altimeter and the effect of a
future TSO.
    FAA response: Some rotorcraft may install filters between the radio
altimeter and antenna or with an upgraded radio altimeter to become a
radio altimeter tolerant rotorcraft. The FAA expects that the eventual
new TSO will establish an internationally harmonized performance
requirement, which will follow the existing international technical
consensus on the establishment of the minimum operational performance
standards

(MOPS). The FAA considers this AD an interim action because additional
rulemaking may be necessary once a new radio altimeter TSO is
developed, approved, and available.

Request To Change Unsafe Condition Statement

    Comment summary: In the NPRM, the FAA stated it was proposing the
AD because radio altimeter anomalies that are undetected by the
automation or pilot, particularly close to the ground, could lead to
loss of continued safe flight and landing. Bell Textron commented that
``continued safe flight and landing'' is associated with Category A
rotorcraft and not Category B rotorcraft. The commenter requested the
FAA revise that language to instead state that it could result in an
unsafe condition.
    FAA response: The FAA disagrees. The FAA has evaluated the hazards
associated with both Category A and B helicopter operations and
determined that the severity of those hazards could lead to loss of
continued safe flight and landing.

Comments Beyond Scope of NPRM

    Comment summary: The FAA also received and reviewed comments that
were unrelated to the actions proposed in the NPRM or that did not make
a request that the FAA can act on. These comments included questions
about alternative technologies, which have not yet been developed, and
future broadband towers outside of the locations authorized by the FCC.
These comments are outside the scope of this AD.

Additional Change From the NPRM

    The FAA has added a terminating action in paragraph (j) of this AD
for rotorcraft that have been modified to radio altimeter tolerant
rotorcraft by allowing for the removal of the limitations from the RFM.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments
received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed in the NPRM, except for the changes described previously.
Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

Interim Action

    The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. The FAA
considers that this AD is an interim action. Once the TSO standard for
radio altimeters is established, which will follow the existing
international technical consensus on the establishment of the MOPS, the
FAA anticipates that the MOPS will be incorporated into the TSO. Once a
new radio altimeter TSO is developed, approved, and available, the FAA
might consider additional rulemaking.

Justification for Immediate Adoption and Determination of the Effective
Date

    Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) authorizes agencies to dispense with notice and
comment procedures for rules when the agency, for ``good cause,'' finds
that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest.'' Under this section, an agency, upon finding good
cause, may issue a final rule without providing notice and seeking
comment prior to issuance. Further, section 553(d) of the APA
authorizes agencies to make rules effective in less than thirty days,
upon a finding of good cause.
    Although the FAA provided the public with an opportunity to comment
on the NPRM, as previously explained, this final rule contains a new
requirement in figure 2 to paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD for
demonstrating a radio altimeter meets the tolerance for spurious
emissions. The FAA is requesting public comments on this new
requirement. However, the unsafe condition addressed by this AD
requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing this
opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. Radio altimeter
anomalies that are undetected by the aircraft automation or pilot,
particularly close to the ground, could lead to loss of continued safe
flight and landing. To address this unsafe condition, the actions
required by this AD must be accomplished before the compliance date of
June 30, 2023. The FAA based this date on the changes to the 5G C-Band
environment beginning on July 1, 2023. These changes include increased
wireless broadband deployment and transmissions closer to the
parameters authorized by the FCC. Accordingly, notice and opportunity
for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public
interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
    The FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)
for making this amendment immediately effective for the same reasons
the FAA found good cause to forgo notice and comment. In addition, the
earlier operators learn of the requirements in this AD, the earlier
they can take action to ensure compliance. An effective date less than
30 days would ensure the AD is codified earlier, thereby increasing
awareness of its requirements.

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments
about the spurious emissions PSD tolerance curve as specified in figure
2 to paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this final rule. Send your comments to an
address listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-0668 and
Project Identifier AD-2023-00199-T'' at the beginning of your comments.
The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the figure,
explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting
data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date
and may amend this final rule because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this final rule.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to David
Swartz, Continued Operational Safety Technical Advisor, COS Program
Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, FAA; phone: 817-222-
5390; email: [email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA
receives that is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in
the public docket for this rulemaking.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that there are approximately 5,500 helicopters of
U.S. registry that are likely to have a radio

altimeter installed. The FAA also estimates that 1,128 of the 5,500
helicopters of U.S. registry are equipped to be able to perform the
operations prohibited by this AD for non-radio altimeter rotorcraft.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFM revision for non-radio altimeter    1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85        $467,500
 tolerant rotorcraft (Retained action    hour = $85.
 from AD 2021-23-13).
RFM revision for non-radio altimeter    1 work-hour x $85 per                  0              85         467,500
 tolerant rotorcraft (new requirement).  hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs for operators who elect to
modify their helicopter to be radio altimeter tolerant:

                                        Estimated Costs for Modification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                         Labor cost                Parts cost           Cost per product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modification (replacement).........  ...........................  ......................  Up to $40,000 per
                                                                                helicopter
                                                                                (includes labor and
                                                                                parts).
Modification (filter)..............  Up to 24 work-hours x $85    Up to $8,000..........  Up to $10,040 per
                                      per hour = $2,040.                                   filter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2021-23-13, Amendment 39-21811
(86 FR 69992, December 9, 2021), and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

2023-11-07 Various Helicopters: Amendment 39-22453; Docket No. FAA-
2023-0668; Project Identifier AD-2023-00199-R.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective June 22, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2021-23-13, Amendment 39-21811 (86 FR 69992,
December 9, 2021) (AD 2021-23-13).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all helicopters, certificated in any
category, equipped with a radio (also known as radar) altimeter.
These radio altimeters are installed on various helicopter models
including, but not limited to, the helicopters for which the design
approval holder is identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (20) of
this AD.

(1) Airbus Helicopters
(2) Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH
(3) Air Space Design and Manufacturing, LLC
(4) Bell Textron Canada Limited
(5) Bell Textron Inc.
(6) Brantly International, Inc.
(7) Centerpointe Aerospace Inc.
(8) Columbia Helicopters, Inc.
(9) The Enstrom Helicopter Corporation
(10) Erickson Air-Crane Incorporated, DBA Erickson Air-Crane
(11) Helicopteres Guimbal
(12) Siam Hiller Holdings, Inc.
(13) Kaman Aerospace Corporation
(14) Leonardo S.p.a.
(15) MD Helicopters Inc.
(16) PZL Swidnik S.A.
(17) Robinson Helicopter Company
(18) Schweizer RSG LLC
(19) Scotts-Bell 47 Inc.
(20) Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 3444, Ground
Proximity System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a determination that radio altimeters
cannot be relied upon to perform their intended function if they
experience interference from wireless broadband operations in the
3.7-3.98 GHz frequency band (5G C-Band). The FAA is issuing this AD
because radio altimeter anomalies that are undetected by the
automation or pilot, particularly close to the

ground, could lead to loss of continued safe flight and landing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definitions

    (1) For purposes of this AD, a ``radio altimeter tolerant
rotorcraft'' is one for which the radio altimeter, as installed,
demonstrates the tolerances specified in paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and
(ii) of this AD, using a method approved by the FAA. No actions are
required by this AD for radio altimeter tolerant rotorcraft.
    (i) Tolerance to radio altimeter interference, for the
fundamental emissions (3.7-3.8 GHz), at or above the power spectral
density (PSD) curve threshold specified in figure 1 to paragraph
(g)(1)(i) of this AD.

Figure 1 to paragraph (g)(1)(i)--Fundamental Effective Isotropic PSD
at Outside Interface of Rotorcraft Antenna
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JN23.005

    (ii) Tolerance to radio altimeter interference, for the spurious
emissions (4.2-4.4 GHz), at or above the PSD curve threshold
specified in figure 2 to paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.

Figure 2 to paragraph (g)(1)(ii): Spurious Effective Isotropic PSD
at Outside Interface of Rotorcraft Antenna

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JN23.006

    (2) For purposes of this AD, a ``non-radio altimeter tolerant
rotorcraft'' is one for which the radio altimeter, as installed,
does not demonstrate the tolerances specified in paragraphs
(g)(1)(i) and (ii) of this AD.

(h) Retained Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) Revision for Non-Radio
Altimeter Tolerant Rotorcraft

    For non-radio altimeter tolerant rotorcraft: On or before
January 4, 2022, revise the Limitations Section of the existing RFM
for your helicopter by incorporating the limitations specified in
figure 3 to paragraph (h) of this AD. This may be done by inserting
a copy of this AD into the existing RFM for your helicopter. The
action required by this paragraph may be performed by the owner/
operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate and
must be entered into the aircraft records showing compliance with
this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a)(1) through (4) and 14 CFR
91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR
91.417 or 14 CFR 135.439.

Figure 3 to paragraph (h)--RFM Revision

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JN23.007

(i) RFM Revision for Non-Radio Altimeter Tolerant Rotorcraft

    For non-radio altimeter tolerant rotorcraft, do the actions
specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this AD.
    (1) On or before June 30, 2023, revise the Limitations Section
of the existing RFM for your helicopter by including the information
specified in figure 4 to paragraph (i) of this AD. This may be done
by inserting a copy of this AD into the existing RFM for your
helicopter. The action required by this paragraph may be performed
by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot
certificate and must be entered into the aircraft records showing
compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a)(1) through
(4) and 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as
required by 14 CFR 91.417 or 14 CFR 135.439. Incorporating the RFM
revision required by this paragraph terminates the RFM revision
required by paragraph (h) of this AD.
    (2) Before further flight after incorporating the limitations
specified in figure 4 to paragraph (i) of this AD, remove the RFM
revision required by paragraph (h) of this AD.

Figure 4 to paragraph (i)--RFM Revision for Non-Radio Altimeter
Tolerant Rotorcraft
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22JN23.008

(j) Terminating Action for RFM Limitations

    (1) Modifying the rotorcraft from a non-radio altimeter tolerant
rotorcraft to a radio altimeter tolerant rotorcraft terminates the
limitations in paragraph (i) of this AD for that rotorcraft.
    (2) After modifying the rotorcraft to a radio altimeter tolerant
rotorcraft, the limitations specified by paragraph (i) of this AD
may be removed from the RFM.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the manager of the Operational Safety Branch, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (3) AMOCs approved for AD 2021-23-13 are approved as AMOCs for
the requirements specified in paragraph (h) of this AD until June
30, 2023.

(l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact David Swartz,
Continued Operational Safety Technical Advisor, COS Program
Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, FAA; phone: 817-222-
5390; email: [email protected].

(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on June 15, 2023.
Michael Linegang, Acting Director,
Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-13319 Filed 6-16-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-C


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 73 (Monday, April 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16431-16432]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07875]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0051]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for extension of a currently approved collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: This document solicits public comments on continuation of the
requirements for the collection of information entitled ``Motorcycle
Helmets (Labeling)'' (OMB Control Number: 2127-0518).
    Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the
public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatement of previously approved collections.

DATES: You should submit your comments early enough to ensure that
Docket Management receives them no later than June 15, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by the DOT Docket ID
Number above) by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should mention the
docket number of this document. You may call the Docket at 202-366-
9324. Please identify the proposed collection of information for which
a comment is provided, by referencing its OMB clearance number. It is
requested, but not required, that two copies of the comment be
provided.
    Note that all comments received will be posted without change to
http://

www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received
into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the
comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street
address listed above. Follow the online instructions for accessing the
dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert Mazurowski, U.S. Department
of Transportation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Room
W43-445, NRM-130, Washington, DC 20590. Mr. Robert Mazurowski's
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please
identify the relevant collection of information by referring to its OMB
Control Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected;
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic
submission of responses.
In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public comments
on the following proposed collection of information:
    Title: ``Motorcycle Helmets (Labeling)''.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0518.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from the
approval date.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: The National Traffic
Vehicle Safety statute at 49 U.S.C. Subchapter II Standards and
Compliance, Sections 30111 and 30117, authorizes the issuance of
Federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS). The Secretary is
authorized to issue, amend, and revoke such rules and regulations as
he/she deems necessary. The Secretary is also authorized to require
manufacturers to provide information to first purchasers of motor
vehicles or motor vehicle equipment when the vehicle equipment is
purchased, in the form of printed matter placed in the vehicle or
attached to the motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment.
    Using this authority, the agency issued the initial FMVSS No. 218,
``Motorcycle helmets,'' in 1974. Motorcycle helmets are devices used to
protect motorcyclists from head injury in motor vehicle accidents.
FMVSS No. 218 S5.6 requires that each helmet shall be labeled
permanently and legibly in a manner such that the label(s) can be read
easily without removing padding or any other permanent part.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 9,100 hours.
    NHTSA estimates that 3,250,000 motorcycle helmets are manufactured
annually by 45 motorcycle helmet manufacturers. NHTSA also estimates
that 0.0028 hours are spent per helmet on the required labels.
Therefore, the estimated total annual burden hours for the collection
of information required in FMVSS No. 218 is 9,100 hours (= 3,250,000 x
0.0028).
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2018-07875 Filed 4-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 141 (Friday, July 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43996-43997]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18557]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC11-510-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-510); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed information collection and request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(a)
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is soliciting public comment
on the specific aspects of the information collection described below.

DATES: Comments in consideration of the collection of information are
due September 20, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be filed either electronically (eFiled) or in
paper format, and should refer to Docket No. IC11-521-000. Documents
must be prepared in an acceptable filing format and in compliance with
Commission submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. eFiling instructions are available at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. First time users must follow
eRegister instructions at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/eregistration.asp, to establish a username and password before eFiling.
The Commission will send an automatic acknowledgement to the sender's
e-mail address upon receipt of eFiled comments. Commenters making an
eFiling should not make a paper filing. Commenters that are not able to
file electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in
this docket may do so through eSubscription at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp. In addition, all comments and FERC
issuances may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely through FERC's
eLibrary at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp, by searching
on Docket No. IC11-521. For user assistance, contact FERC Online
Support by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at: (866)
208-3676 (toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by e-mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at
(202) 273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information collected under the
requirements of FERC-510, ``Application for Surrender of Hydropower
License'', (OMB No. 1902-0068) is used by the Commission to implement
the statutory provisions of sections 4(e), 6 and 13 of the Federal
Power Act (FPA) 16 U.S. Code (U.S.C). sections 797(e), 799 and 806.
Section 4(e) gives the Commission authority to issue licenses for the
purposes of constructing, operating and maintaining dams, water
conduits, reservoirs, powerhouses, transmission lines or other power
project works necessary or convenient for developing and improving
navigation, transmission and utilization of power over which Congress
has jurisdiction. Section 6 gives the Commission the authority to
prescribe the conditions of licenses including the revocation or
surrender of the license. Section 13 defines the Commission's authority
to delegate time periods for when a license must be terminated if
project construction has not begun. Surrender of a license may be
desired by a licensee when a licensed project is retired, not
constructed, or natural catastrophes have damaged or destroyed the
project facilities. The information collected under the designation
FERC-510 is in the form of a written application for surrender of a
hydropower license. The information is used by Commission staff to
determine the broad impact of such surrender. The Commission will issue
a notice soliciting comments from the public and other agencies and
conduct a careful review of the prepared application before issuing an
order for surrender of a license. The order is the result of an
analysis of the information produced, i.e., economic, environmental
concerns, etc., which are examined to determine if the application for
surrender is warranted. The order implements the existing regulations
and is inclusive for surrender of all types of hydropower licenses
issued by FERC and its predecessor, the Federal Power Commission. The
Commission implements these mandatory filing requirements in the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR 6.1-6.4.
    Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the
current expiration date, with no changes to the existing collection of
data.
    Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this collection is
estimated as:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Number of     Average  burden
                Number of respondents annually                  responses per      hours per       Total annual
                                                                  respondent        response       burden hours
(1)                                                                       (2)              (3)      (1)x(2)x(3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16...........................................................               1               10              160
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated cost burden to respondents is $10,952 (160 hours/2080
hours per year times $142,372 per year average per employee = $10,952
(rounded)). The estimated annual cost per respondent is $685 (rounded).
    The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing,
acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining,
disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways
to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
(4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5)
searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of
information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the
information.
    The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for
professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect
overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to
providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost
for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs
incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs
apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than
any one particular function or activity.
    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) 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; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology e.g. permitting electronic submission of
responses.

    Dated: July 18, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-18557 Filed 7-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P