[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 242 (Monday, December 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 74736]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30241]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2012-0087]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    In accordance with Part 235 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) and Title 49 U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public
notice that by a document dated October 31, 2012, the Norfolk Southern
Corporation (NS) has petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) seeking approval for the discontinuance or modification of a
signal system. FRA assigned the petition docket number FRA-2012-0087.
    Applicant: Norfolk Southern Corporation, Mr. Brian Sykes, Chief
Engineer C&S Engineering, 1200 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia
30309.
    NS seeks approval of the proposed discontinuance of automatic
signals within traffic control signal (TCS) territory and the
installation of a cab signal system without wayside signals on the NS
Pittsburgh Line, from Harrisburg, Milepost (MP) PT 104.90 to
Pittsburgh, PA, MP PT 353.35. All existing automatic signals on this
line will be retired. The discontinuance will include automatic
signals: PT 107.5, PT 116.1, PT 121.3, PT 124.1, PT 126.4, PT 128.6, PT
131.5, PT 135.75, PT 137.7, PT 139.8, PT 142.3, 146.8, PT 148.7 PT
151.1, PT 155.7, PT 157.8, PT 162.7, PT 167.2, PT 172.1, PT 174.6, PT
176.9, PT 182.2, PT 184.4, PT 186.7, PT 188.9, PT 193.9, PT 196.2, PT
198.1, PT 200.2, PT 204.9, PT 206.75, PT 209.0, PT 211.1, PT 215.7, PT
218.6, PT 221.3, PT 225.0, PT 228.0, PT 230.0, PT 234.0, PT 238.5, PT
239.4, PT 240.7, PT 241.6, PT 242.7, PT 245.6, PT 246.3, PT 249.5, PT
252.5, PT 254.8, PT 256.8, PT 257.1, PT 259.0, PT 261.1, PT 263.8, PT
268.5, PT271.3, PT 275.3, PT 277.1, PT 280.6, PT 283.1, PT 286.7, PT
292.7, PT 294.5, PT 296.4, PT 298.3, PT 302.5, PT 304.4, PT 307.4, PT
310.2, PT 315.1, PT 318.6, PT 312.7, PT 328.4, PT 330.4, PT 332.6, PT
334.6, PT 343.0, PT 345.2, PT 350.2
    The installation of cab signals without wayside signals will
include ``block clear'' signals at all control points in event of an
onboard cab signal failure en route.
    The reasons given for the proposed changes is that the installation
of cab signals without wayside signals will improve train operations
and will facilitate the installation of Positive Train Control on the
Pittsburgh Line.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is
open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by January 31, 2013 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 10, 2012.
Robert C. Lauby,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Regulatory and Legislative
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2012-30241 Filed 12-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 146 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44434-44437]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17607]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0488; Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-20-AD;
Amendment 39-17126; AD 2012-14-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Various Restricted Category Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Arrow
Falcon Exporters, Inc. (previously Utah State University); Firefly
Aviation Helicopter Services (previously Erickson Air-Crane Co.);
California Department of Forestry; Garlick Helicopters, Inc.; Global
Helicopter Technology, Inc.; Hagglund Helicopters, LLC (previously
Western International Aviation, Inc.); International Helicopters, Inc.;
Precision Helicopters, LLC; Robinson Air Crane, Inc.; San Joaquin
Helicopters (previously Hawkins and Powers Aviation, Inc.); S.M.&T.
Aircraft (previously US Helicopters, Inc., UNC Helicopter, Inc.,
Southern Aero Corporation, and Wilco Aviation); Smith Helicopters;
Southern Helicopter, Inc.; Southwest Florida Aviation International,
Inc. (previously Jamie R. Hill and Southwest Florida Aviation);
Tamarack Helicopters, Inc. (previously Ranger Helicopter Services,
Inc.); US Helicopter, Inc. (previously UNC Helicopter, Inc.); West
Coast Fabrication; and Williams Helicopter Corporation (previously
Scott Paper Co.) Model HH-1K, TH-1F, TH-1L, UH-1A, UH-1B, UH-1E, UH-1F,
UH-1H, UH-1L, and UH-1P Helicopters; and Southwest Florida Aviation
Model UH-1B (SW204 and SW204HP) and UH-1H (SW205) Helicopters. This AD
requires

inspecting each affected tail rotor blade (blade) forward tip weight
retention block (tip block) and the aft tip closure (tip closure) for
adhesive bond voids and removing any blade with an excessive void from
service. This AD also requires modifying certain blades by installing
shear pins and tip closure rivets. This AD was prompted by reports of
missing tip blocks or tip closures, resulting in minor to substantial
damage to blades installed on Bell Model 212 and 412 helicopters. The
actions are intended to prevent loss of a tip block or tip closure,
loss of a blade, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

DATES: This AD is effective September 4, 2012.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain documents listed in this AD as of September 4,
2012.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell
Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101; telephone
(817) 280-3391; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/. You may review a copy of the referenced service information at
the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
    Examining the AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Docket
Operations Office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, any
incorporated-by-reference service information, the economic evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations Office, M-30, West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

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

Discussion

    On May 13, 2010, at 75 FR 26889, the Federal Register published our
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), which proposed to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to Arrow Falcon Exporters,
Inc. (previously Utah State University); Firefly Aviation Helicopter
Services (previously Erickson Air-Crane Co.); California Department of
Forestry; Garlick Helicopters, Inc.; Global Helicopter Technology,
Inc.; Hagglund Helicopters, LLC (previously Western International
Aviation, Inc.); International Helicopters, Inc.; Precision
Helicopters, LLC; Robinson Air Crane, Inc.; San Joaquin Helicopters
(previously Hawkins and Powers Aviation, Inc.); S.M.&T. Aircraft
(previously US Helicopters, Inc., UNC Helicopter, Inc., Southern Aero
Corporation, and Wilco Aviation); Smith Helicopters; Southern
Helicopter, Inc.; Southwest Florida Aviation International, Inc.
(previously Jamie R. Hill and Southwest Florida Aviation); Tamarack
Helicopters, Inc. (previously Ranger Helicopter Services, Inc.); US
Helicopter, Inc. (previously UNC Helicopter, Inc.); West Coast
Fabrication; and Williams Helicopter Corporation (previously Scott
Paper Co.) Model HH-1K, TH-1F, TH-1L, UH-1A, UH-1B, UH-1E, UH-1F, UH-
1H, UH-1L, and UH-1P Helicopters; and Southwest Florida Aviation Model
UH-1B (SW204 and SW204HP) and UH-1H (SW205) Helicopters. This NPRM
proposed to require inspecting each applicable blade tip block and tip
closure for voids and removing any blade with an excessive void from
service. The NPRM also proposed to require modifying certain blades by
installing shear pins and tip closure rivets. The proposed requirements
were intended to prevent loss of a tip block or tip closure, loss of a
blade, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.
    AD 2002-09-04, Amendment 39-12737 (67 FR 22349, May 3, 2002), was
issued for the Bell Model 205A, 205A-1, 205B, 212, 412, 412CF, and
412EP helicopters and contained the same requirements as those in this
AD. AD 2007-22-02, Amendment 39-15238 (72 FR 60760, October 26, 2007),
superseded AD 2002-09-04 to expand the applicability to include other
part- and serial-numbered blades. Some of the blades in the
applicability of AD 2007-22-02 are eligible for installation on
helicopters included in this AD, which may have an FAA-approved
modification that increases the helicopter's power rating to the
equivalent of the Bell Model 205B or the 212 helicopter. The Bell Model
205B and 212 helicopters are addressed in AD 2007-22-02. Consequently,
the inspections and modifications required by AD 2007-22-02 are
mandated for the blades installed on helicopters included in this AD.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD, but we did not receive any comments on the NPRM.

FAA's Determination

    We have reviewed the relevant information and determined that an
unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other
products of these same type designs and that air safety and the public
interest require adopting the AD requirements as proposed except we
have revised the estimated costs of complying with this AD to reflect
ten hours for inspection instead of three hours, and minor editorial
changes. These minor editorial changes are consistent with the intent
of the proposals in the NPRM and will not increase the scope of the AD.

Related Service Information

    We have reviewed Bell Helicopter Textron Alert Service Bulletin No.
212-00-111, Revision D, dated March 18, 2005 (ASB), which describes
procedures for inspecting and modifying certain tail rotor blades. The
ASB was issued as a result of an investigation of an in-flight loss of
a blade tip block, part number (P/N) 212-010-750-105. The investigation
revealed the countersunk screws retaining the tip block were installed
incorrectly, resulting in inadequate tip block retention. Reports have
also been submitted about loss of the tip closures from other blades
possibly because of inadequate adhesive bonding in this area.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 716 helicopters of U.S.
registry, and 25 of those helicopters will have the increased power
rating. Labor costs will average an estimated $85 per work hour. Based
on these assumptions, we expect the following costs:
     About 1 work hour to review the helicopter records for a
labor cost of $85 per helicopter, $60,860 for the U.S. fleet.
     About 10 work hours to inspect the affected blades,
install the shear pins and tip closure rivets, reidentify, and
dynamically balance the blade. Required supplies will cost about $45,
for a total cost of $895 per helicopter. We assume that the blade sets
are installed on 25 helicopters with the FAA-approved modification that
will need to be inspected and repaired.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2012-14-12 Arrow Falcon Exporters, Inc. (previously Utah State
University); Firefly Aviation Helicopter Services (previously
Erickson Air-Crane Co.); California Department of Forestry; Garlick
Helicopters, Inc.; Global Helicopter Technology, Inc.; Hagglund
Helicopters, LLC (previously Western International Aviation, Inc.);
International Helicopters, Inc.; Precision Helicopters, LLC;
Robinson Air Crane, Inc.; San Joaquin Helicopters (previously
Hawkins and Powers Aviation, Inc.); S.M.&T. Aircraft (previously US
Helicopters, Inc., UNC Helicopter, Inc., Southern Aero Corporation,
and Wilco Aviation); Smith Helicopters; Southern Helicopter, Inc.;
Southwest Florida Aviation International, Inc. (previously Jamie R.
Hill and Southwest Florida Aviation); Tamarack Helicopters, Inc.
(previously Ranger Helicopter Services, Inc.); US Helicopter, Inc.
(previously UNC Helicopter, Inc.); West Coast Fabrication; and
Williams Helicopter Corporation (previously Scott Paper Co.) Model
HH-1K, TH-1F, TH-1L, UH-1A, UH-1B, UH-1E, UH-1F, UH-1H, UH-1L, and
UH-1P Helicopters; and Southwest Florida Aviation Model UH-1B (SW204
and SW204HP) and UH-1H (SW205) Helicopters: Amendment 39-17126;
Docket No. FAA-2010-0488; Directorate Identifier 2008-SW-20-AD.

(a) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to Model HH-1K, TH-1F, TH-1L, UH-1A, UH-1B,
UH-1E, UH-1F, UH-1H, UH-1L, and UH-1P helicopters, and Southwest
Florida Aviation Model UH-1B series (SW204 series and SW204HP) and
UH-1H series (SW205 series) helicopters, with a tail rotor blade
(blade), part number (P/N) 212-010-750-009 through -129, all serial
numbers except serial numbers with a prefix of ``A'' or ``AFS,'' and
the number 11926, 13351, 13367, 13393, 13400, 13402, 13515, 13540,
13568, 13595 through 13602, 13619, and subsequent larger numbers,
installed, certificated in any category.
    (2) A blade inspected and modified by following either AD 2002-
09-04 (67 FR 22349, May 3, 2002) or AD 2007-22-02 (72 FR 60760,
October 26, 2007), for the Bell Helicopter Textron (Bell) Model
205A, 205A-1, 205B, 212, 412, 412CF, and 412EP helicopters satisfies
the requirements of this AD.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as adhesive bond voids.
This condition could result in loss of the forward tip weight
retention block (tip block) or aft tip closure (tip closure), loss
of the blade, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective September 4, 2012.

(d) Compliance

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

(e) Required Actions

    Within 100 hours time-in-service:
    (1) Inspect the tip block and tip closure of each blade for
voids. Remove from service any blade with a void in excess of that
allowed by the applicable maintenance or Component Repair and
Overhaul Manual limitations.
    (2) Inspect the tip block attachment countersink screws in the
four locations to determine if the head of each countersunk screw is
flush with the surface of the abrasion strip. The locations of these
four screws are depicted on Figure 1 of Bell Alert Service Bulletin
212-00-111, Revision D, dated March 18, 2005 (ASB). If any of these
screws are set below the surface of the abrasion strip or are
covered with filler material, install shear pins by following the
Accomplishment Instructions, Part A, Shear Pin Installation
paragraphs, of the ASB.
    (3) Install the tip closure rivets on each blade, re-identify
the modified blade by adding an ``FM'' after the P/N, and
dynamically balance the tail rotor hub assembly by following the
Accomplishment Instructions, Part B, Aft Tip Closure Rivet
Installation paragraphs, of the ASB.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(g) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6410, Tail Rotor
Blades.

(h) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bell Helicopter Textron Alert Service Bulletin No. 212-00-
111, Revision D, dated March 18, 2005.

    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell
Helicopter Textron, Inc., P.O. Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or at http://www.bellcustomer.com/files/.
    (4) You may review the referenced service information at the
FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 2601 Meacham
Blvd., Room 663, Fort Worth, Texas 76137.
    (5) You may also review a copy of the service information that
is incorporated by reference at the National Archives and Records
Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this
material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on July 10, 2012.
Kim Smith,
Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-17607 Filed 7-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


42040 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2003 / Notices States, cis 3 hexen 1 ol is cleared for use in non food pesticide applications. [ FR Doc. 03   17899 Filed 7   15   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ RCRA   2003   0013; SWH   FRL   7527   9]

Recovered Materials Advisory Notice AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Notice of data availability.

SUMMARY: On August 28, 2001, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA or the Agency) proposed to designate nylon carpet in its Comprehensive Procurement Guideline IV ( CPG IV). On that same day, EPA issued a Draft Recovered Materials Advisory Notice IV ( RMAN IV) for nylon carpet. The RMAN provides guidance to procuring agencies for purchasing items designated in the CPG. Specifically, Table C   4 of the draft RMAN IV contained recommended recovered materials content ranges for use by procurement officials when buying nylon carpet containing recovered materials and/ or nylon carpet with backing made from recovered materials. Today's action announces the availability of information submitted both during and after the close of the public comment period for the draft RMAN IV for nylon carpet, provides a summary of the revisions EPA is considering making to the draft RMAN for nylon carpet as a result of comments received, and requests comments both on the information submitted and on the revisions being considered for the RMAN on nylon carpet. EPA will consider information and data submitted in response to this notice when issuing the final RMAN recommendations for nylon carpet. EPA notes that in the August 28, 2001 rulemaking notice, 10 other items were proposed for designation in the CPG. The agency is currently reviewing comments received on those proposed designations and will be issuing a separate rulemaking notice for those items in the near future. DATES: EPA will accept public comments on this Notice of Data Availability until September 2, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. B of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact the RCRA Call Center at ( 800) 424   9346 or TDD ( 800) 553   7672 ( hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC metropolitan area, call ( 703) 412   9810 or TDD ( 703) 412   3323. For technical information pertaining to this notice, contact Sue Nogas at ( 703) 308   0199. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for the materials discussed in this notice under Docket ID No. RCRA   2003   0013. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the RCRA Docket in the EPA Docket Center, ( EPA/ DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is ( 202) 566   1744, and the telephone number for the RCRA Docket is ( 202) 566   0270. Copies cost $. 15 per page. 2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. A. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked `` late.'' EPA will consider late comments if time permits. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 17: 58 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16JYN1. SGM 16JYN1 42041 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2003 / Notices comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select `` Information Sources,'' `` Dockets,'' and `` EPA Dockets.'' Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. RCRA   2003   0013. The system is an `` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail ( e mail) to rcradocket epa. gov, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA   2003   0013. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's email system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. B. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By Mail. Send an original version of your comments to: RCRA Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 5305T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA   2003   0013. 3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention Docket ID No. RCRA   2003   0013. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. A. 1.

C. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency? Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Document Control Officer ( 5305T), Office of Solid Waste, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. RCRA   2003   0013. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

D. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternatives. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments.

II. What Is the Subject of Today's Action?

EPA is requesting comments on the information submitted in response to the draft RMAN for nylon carpet and is also requesting comments on the revisions EPA is considering making to the RMAN as a result of public comments. Section V, below, shows what revisions the agency is considering for the final RMAN for nylon carpet. Section VI requests comments on these revisions and other issues raised in response to the draft RMAN.

III. What Did EPA Recommend for Nylon Carpet in the Draft RMAN IV?

In Table C   4 of the draft RMAN IV, EPA recommended separate recovered materials content ranges for nylon carpet face fiber and nylon carpet backing ( 66 FR 45301, August 28, 2001). These recommendations are reproduced below. Although the draft RMAN IV contained recommendations for polyester carpet, today's action only pertains to the nylon carpet recommendations made in the draft RMAN IV. EPA received no comment on the draft RMAN for polyester carpet. Therefore the draft recommendations for polyester carpet will be addressed in the final RMAN IV.

TABLE C   4.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLYESTER CARPET AND RECOMMENDED RECOVERED MATERIALS CONTENT LEVELS FOR NYLON CARPET FACING AND NYLON CARPET BACKING Product Material Postconsumer content (%) Total recovered materials content (%)

Polyester carpet face fiber ............................................................................. PET ............................................. 25   100 25   100 Nylon carpet face fiber .................................................................................. Old carpets .................................. 1   100 25   100 VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 17: 58 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16JYN1. SGM 16JYN1 42042 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2003 / Notices TABLE C   4.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLYESTER CARPET AND RECOMMENDED RECOVERED MATERIALS CONTENT LEVELS FOR NYLON CARPET FACING AND NYLON CARPET BACKING   Continued Product Material Postconsumer content (%) Total recovered materials content (%)

Nylon carpet backing ..................................................................................... Vinyl ............................................. 35   70 100 Notes: EPA's recommendations do not preclude a procuring agency from purchasing carpet made from other materials such as acrylic or wool. They simply require that procuring agencies, when purchasing nylon carpet, purchase it with recovered materials in either the fiber facing or the backing, or both, when it meets applicable specifications and performance requirements and when purchasing polyester carpet, purchase it with recovered materials in the fiber facing when it meets applicable specifications and performance requirements. The nylon carpet recommendations would also include `` renewed'' nylon carpet, which is cleaned, retextured, recolored, or otherwise reused to produce a new nylon carpet product.

IV. What Comments Did EPA Receive on the Proposed CPG IV and the Draft RMAN for Nylon Carpet?

EPA received a number of comments on its proposed comprehensive procurement guideline for nylon carpet and its recovered materials content recommendations for nylon carpet face fiber and nylon carpet backing contained in the draft RMAN IV published on August 28, 2001 ( 66 FR 45297). Many commenters generally supported the designation of nylon carpet in the federal procurement guideline program and were generally supportive of EPA's recycled content recommendations. However, some commenters recommended that EPA not designate nylon carpet at all, while others suggested that EPA not include traditional broadloom carpet in the guideline. Several commenters provided new information that suggested an alternative approach: that EPA should provide RMAN recommendations for the different types of nylon carpet ( e. g., broadloom vs. tiles or modular, and traditional broadloom vs. performance broadloom) and designate and/ or provide recovered materials content recommendations for the entire nylon carpet product rather than issue separate recommendations for the fiber face and backing. Eight commenters raised concern over the availability of recovered nylon for producing face fiber for nylon carpet, stating that the closure of the Evergreen nylon recycling facility would seriously impact the availability of recovered nylon face fiber. One commenter stated that closing of the Evergreen facility left no practical options for incorporating postconsumer nylon into new nylon carpet face fiber and that the remaining sources of recovered material feedstock for nylon carpet are post industrial in nature and are not enough to satisfy EPA's criteria for designating a product. Commenters pointed out that using recycled content in traditional broadloom would be of particular concern since traditional broadloom carpet does not have a structured backing that could easily incorporate recycled content and, therefore, most of the recycled content would have to be in the fiber face. Three commenters disagreed with this point of view and stated that the closure of the Evergreen facility should not prevent EPA from going forward with its designation because other fiber manufacturers have the ability to produce recovered content fiber with reasonable postconsumer levels. Some commenters questioned whether EPA should include recycledcontent recommendations at all for traditional broadloom carpets, and one set of comments from members of the carpet industry questioned whether EPA should designate nylon carpet or issue recycled content recommendations as part of the federal CPG program. These commenters claim that focusing on recycled content in nylon carpet could be inconsistent with the broader product stewardship goals established in industry environmental programs such as the Carpet America Recovery Effort ( CARE) and could also divert scarce resources from such programs. The concerns from these commenters are that a postconsumer content requirement would foster the use of heavy weight backing products with postconsumer material as a filler and that, when broader issues of energy, emissions and other resources are taken into consideration, recycled content carpets are not always environmentally preferred over non recycled content carpets. Another commenter stated that the development of an end of life recovery infrastructure has to precede the broad availability of postconsumer recycled materials for manufacturing. One commenter believes EPA improperly restricted nylon backing products to those made from PVC or vinyl. The commenter believes that the recovered material used in the backing should not be limited to PVC or vinyl, because other technologies utilize other types of recovered material in nylon carpet backing and there are many other recovered nylon materials and products that can and are being used in the manufacture of carpet backing. ( These include old carpets containing urethane, fiberglass or latex.) Four organizations submitted comments on fly ash ( used as a filler material and substitute for calcium carbonate or limestone feedstock) as a recovered material in nylon carpet. Some requested that EPA not accept fly ash as a recovered material for nylon carpet while others believe that EPA should not restrict the types of recovered materials that make up carpet. A number of commenters suggested recovered materials content ranges that EPA should consider in making final RMAN recommendations for nylon carpet. Since EPA had proposed separate recovered content recommendations for nylon fiber face and backing, many of the commenters recommended recovered materials content ranges for each carpet component ( i. e., fiber face and backing, separately). Some commenters recommended recycled content ranges for the entire carpet ( i. e., fiber face and backing combined). Copies of all of the comments submitted to EPA in response to the draft RMAN IV of August 2001 are located in the RCRA public docket in docket number F   2001   CP4P   FFFFF. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section above for information on how to view or obtain copies of these comments. Based on the additional information provided in these comments, EPA is considering alternative approaches for nylon carpet, including the possibility of revised recommendations for recycled content based on the entire carpet instead of its components in the final RMAN. Section V, below, provides a summary of one possible approach.

V. A Possible Approach for Nylon Carpet Based on the public comments received on the draft RMAN IV for nylon carpet ( 66 FR 45301, dated VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 17: 58 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16JYN1. SGM 16JYN1 42043 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 136 / Wednesday, July 16, 2003 / Notices 1 The Agency will respond to all comments on nylon carpet, including those submitted on the August 28, 2001 proposed CPG IV and draft RMAN IV, when it makes a final decision regarding the CPG and RMAN for nylon carpet. August 28, 2001), EPA is considering revising its approach to nylon carpet. 1 One possible approach, suggested by several commenters, is for EPA to issue recommendations for the nylon carpet face fiber and the nylon carpet backing as one product. Recommending recovered materials content levels for the entire carpet product ( i. e., carpet facing and backing combined) may give manufacturers more flexibility to incorporate recovered materials into nylon carpet products, while still realizing a significant environmental benefit. A number of commenters also suggested that EPA issue recommendations that distinguish among various nylon carpet products, such as performance broadloom, new carpet tiles ( i. e., modular), and refurbished carpet tiles ( modular). EPA believes there may be merit to issuing recommendations in this manner, considering the technical and structural differences in these products. EPA might also consider recommending total recovered content levels, and not postconsumer content levels, for traditional broadloom carpet. The table below shows possible revisions to EPA's draft RMAN recommendations for nylon carpet. EPA will take into consideration this and other possible approaches if it issues final RMAN recommendations for nylon carpet. The recovered materials content ranges shown in the table were developed after review of all of the recovered materials content ranges provided by commenters, whether commenters suggested recovered materials content ranges for face fiber and backing separately or recovered materials content ranges for face fiber and backing combined.

POSSIBLE RECOMMENDED RECOVERED MATERIALS CONTENT LEVELS FOR NYLON CARPET 1 Product Material ( component into which the material will get recycled) % Postconsumer content 3 4 % Total recovered content 3 4 Nylon carpet ( performance broadloom) 2 ........................ Nylon ( fiber face) Old carpets 5 ( structured backing) Vinyl ( structured backing). 8   25 30   60 Nylon carpet ( new modular) ............................................ Nylon ( fiber face) Old carpets 5 ( structured backing) Vinyl ( structured backing). 8   25 30   60 Nylon carpet ( refurbished modular) ................................. Old carpet tiles ............................................................... 90   100 90   100 1 These recommendations would not preclude a procuring agency from purchasing carpet made from other materials such as acrylic or wool. They would simply require that procuring agencies, when purchasing nylon carpet, purchase it with recovered materials when it meets applicable specification and performance requirements. 2 Performance nylon carpet products, which may include broadloom and modular carpet ( tiles), are structured back products that have secondary backings made of urethane, polypropylene, vinyl, or a `` hot melt'' coating. Some of the materials used in this secondary backing may be recovered. Therefore, the recovered material content ranges here are inclusive of both the fiber face and backing. 3EPA's carpet recommendations are expressed as percentage, by weight, of the entire carpet. 4EPA's recommendations would exclude materials that serve as fillers and binding agents ( e. g., coal fly ash) as counting toward the recovered material content requirement for this designation. 5 Old carpets may contain a variety of materials, including, but not limited to, nylon, polyurethane ( PUR), polypropylene ( PP), polyethylene ( PE), polyethylene terephthalate ( PET), latex, vinyl, and fiberglass.

VI. What Comments Is EPA Requesting?

EPA requests comments, including additional supporting documentation and information, on the following topics, as well as any other topics that commenters want to address: ( 1) The recovered materials content ranges ( both postconsumer content and total recovered materials content); ( 2) the delineation of carpet products ( e. g., broadloom vs. modular/ tile, and traditional broadloom vs. performance broadloom); ( 3) any quantifiable data to address the availability of postconsumer and total recovered content nylon for use in nylon face fiber and/ or backing; ( 4) whether including nylon carpet in the CPG is inconsistent with environmental goals established in other industry environmental programs such as the Carpet America Recovery Effort ( CARE); and ( 5) whether the agency should or should not recommend recycled content for traditional broadloom carpets and, if it does, whether both postconsumer and total recovered content recommendations should be made. EPA requests that any comments submitted regarding recycled content include recommended recycled content ranges and some rationale or justification for those recommended ranges.

Dated: July 8, 2003. Matthew Hale, Deputy Director, Office of Solid Waste. [ FR Doc. 03   17896 Filed 7   15   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P EXPORT IMPORT BANK [ Public Notice 55]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposes Collection; Comment Request AGENCY: Export Import Bank of the United States. ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

SUMMARY: The Export Import Bank, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. DATES: Written comments should be received on or before September 15, 2003 to be assured of consideration. ADDRESSES: Direct requests for additional information to Angela Beckham, Export Import Bank of the U. S., 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571, ( 202) 565   3418. Direct comments to David Rostker, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information And Regulatory Affairs, NEOB Room 10202, Washington, DC 20503.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Titles and Form Numbers: Application for Medium Term Insurance or Guarantee EIB Form 03   02. OMB Number: New. Type of Review: New collection. Need and Use: The information requested enables the applicant to VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 17: 58 Jul 15, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 16JYN1. SGM 16JYN1


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75142-75143]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29532]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CD15-4-000]

Imperial Irrigation District; Notice of Preliminary Determination
of a Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility and Soliciting Comments and
Motions To Intervene

    On November 26, 2014, the Imperial Irrigation District filed a
notice of intent to construct a qualifying conduit hydropower facility,
pursuant to section 30 of the Federal Power Act (FPA), as amended by
section 4 of the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013 (HREA).
The proposed Newside Check on Central Main Canal In-Conduit
Hydroelectric Project would have an installed capacity of 430 kilowatts
(kW) and would be located on the existing Central Main Canal. This
conduit transports water for irrigation, municipal, and industrial
purposes. The project would be located near the city of Imperial in
Imperial County, California.
    Applicant Contact: Carl Stills, 1651 West Main Street, El Centro,
CA 92243, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    FERC Contact: Robert Bell, Phone No.<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility Description: The proposed
project would consist of: (1) one proposed 37.7-foot-long, 16.8-foot-
wide concrete box intake structure with a 10-foot wide gate; (2) a
proposed 15- by 22-foot powerhouse containing a turbine generator unit
with an installed capacity of 430 kW; (3) a proposed 36-foot-long,
16.8-foot-wide concrete box tailrace structure which returns the water
into the Central Main Canal; and (4) appurtenant facilities. The
proposed project would have an estimated annual generating capacity of
2,201 megawatt-hours.
    A qualifying conduit hydropower facility is one that is determined
or deemed to meet all of the criteria shown in the table below.

      Table 1--Criteria for Qualifying Conduit Hydropower Facility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Satisfies
       Statutory provision                Description           (Y/N)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FPA 30(a)(3)(A), as amended by     The conduit the facility           Y
 HREA.                              uses is a tunnel,
                                    canal, pipeline,
                                    aqueduct, flume, ditch,
                                    or similar manmade
                                    water conveyance that
                                    is operated for the
                                    distribution of water
                                    for agricultural,
                                    municipal, or
                                    industrial consumption
                                    and not primarily for
                                    the generation of
                                    electricity.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(i), as amended by  The facility is                    Y
 HREA.                              constructed, operated,
                                    or maintained for the
                                    generation of electric
                                    power and uses for such
                                    generation only the
                                    hydroelectric potential
                                    of a non-federally
                                    owned conduit.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(ii), as amended    The facility has an                Y
 by HREA.                           installed capacity that
                                    does not exceed 5
                                    megawatts.
FPA 30(a)(3)(C)(iii), as amended   On or before August 9,             Y
 by HREA.                           2013, the facility is
                                    not licensed, or
                                    exempted from the
                                    licensing requirements
                                    of Part I of the FPA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preliminary Determination: Based upon the above criteria,
Commission staff preliminarily determines that the proposal satisfies
the requirements for a qualifying conduit hydropower facility, which is
not required to be licensed or exempted from licensing.
    Comments and Motions to Intervene: Deadline for filing comments
contesting whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria is 45
days from the issuance date of this notice.
    Deadline for filing motions to intervene is 30 days from the
issuance date of this notice.
    Anyone may submit comments or a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR
385.210 and 385.214. Any motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified deadline date for the particular proceeding.
    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: All filings must (1)
bear in all capital letters the ``COMMENTS CONTESTING QUALIFICATION FOR
A CONDUIT HYDROPOWER FACILITY'' or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE,'' as
applicable; (2) state in the heading the name of the applicant and the
project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3)
state the name, address, and telephone number of the person filing; and
(4) otherwise comply with the requirements of sections 385.2001 through
385.2005 of the Commission's regulations.\1\ All comments contesting
Commission staff's preliminary determination that the facility meets
the qualifying criteria must set forth their evidentiary basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2001-2005 (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
motions to intervene and comments using the Commission's eFiling system
at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_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. 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.
    Locations of Notice of Intent: Copies of the notice of intent can
be obtained directly from the applicant or such copies can be viewed
and reproduced at the Commission in its Public Reference Room, Room 2A,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The filing may also be
viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number (e.g., CD15-4-000) in
the docket number field to access the document. For assistance, call
toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 10, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29532 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 11065]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03792]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL20-22-000;QF94-155-012]

LSP-Whitewater Limited Partnership; Notice of Request for Waiver

    Take notice that on February 13, 2020, pursuant to section
292.205(c) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, implementing the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of
1978, as amended 18 CFR 292.205(c) (2019), LSP-Whitewater Limited
Partnership submitted a request for limited waiver of the operating
standard set forth in section 292.205(a)(1) of the Commission's
regulations for its topping-cycle cogeneration facility located in
Whitewater, Wisconsin, as more fully explained in its request.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the
website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on March 16, 2020.

    Dated: February 14, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-03792 Filed 2-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2417-2418]
[FR Doc No: 2011-602]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2010-0056]

OSHA-7 Form (``Notice of Alleged Safety and Health Hazards'');
Extension of the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of
Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements
specified in the OSHA-7 Form.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
March 14, 2011.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit your comments and attachments
to the OSHA Docket Office, OSHA Docket No. OSHA-2010-0056, U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Heath Administration, Room
N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210. Deliveries
(hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are accepted
during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal business
hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the Information Collection Request (ICR) (OSHA-2010-
0056). All comments, including any personal information you provide,
are placed in the public docket without change, and may be made
available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information
on submitting comments see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the
section of this notice titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Todd Owen at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Owen, Directorate of Standards
and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., workers filing occupational safety or
health complaints) burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program
to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed and
continuing information collection requirements in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program
ensures that information is in the desired format, reporting burden
(time and costs) is minimal, collection instruments are clearly
understood, and OSHA's estimate of the information collection burden is
accurate. The Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act)
(29 U.S.C. 651 et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers
as necessary or appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for
developing information regarding the causes and prevention of
occupational injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The
OSH Act also requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum
burden upon employers, especially those operating small businesses, and
to reduce to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of
efforts in obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    Under paragraphs (a) and (c) of 29 CFR Sec.  1903.11 (``Complaints
by employees'') workers and their representatives may notify the OSHA
area director or an OSHA compliance officer of safety and health
hazards regulated by the Agency that they believe exist in their
workplaces at any time. These provisions state further that this
notification must be in writing and ``shall set forth with reasonable
particularity the grounds for the notice, and shall be signed by the
employee or representative of the employee.''
    In addition to providing specific hazard information to the Agency,
paragraph (a) permits workers/worker representatives to request an
inspection of the workplace. Paragraph (c) also addresses situations in
which workers/worker representatives may provide the information
directly to the OSHA compliance officer during an inspection. An
employer's former workers may also submit complaints to the Agency.
    To address the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (c), especially
the requirement that the information be in writing, the Agency
developed the OSHA-7 Form; this form standardized and simplified the
hazard reporting process. For paragraph (a), they may complete an OSHA-
7 Form obtained from the Agency's Web site and then send it to OSHA
online, or deliver a hardcopy of the form to the OSHA area office by
mail or facsimile, or by hand. They may also write a letter containing
the information and hand deliver it to the area office, or send it by
mail or facsimile. In addition, they may provide the information orally
to the OSHA area office or another party (e.g., a Federal safety and
health committee for Federal workers), in which case the area office or
other party completes the hardcopy version of the form. For the typical
situation addressed by paragraph (c), a worker/worker representative
informs an OSHA compliance officer orally of the alleged hazard during
an inspection, and the compliance officer then completes the hardcopy
version of the OSHA-7 Form; occasionally, the worker/worker
representative provides the compliance officer with the information on
the hardcopy version of the OSHA-7 Form.
    The information in the hardcopy version of the OSHA-7 Form includes
information about the employer and alleged hazards, including: the

establishment's name; the site's address and telephone and facsimile
numbers; the name and telephone number of the management official; the
type of business; a description and the specific location of the
hazards, including the approximate number of workers exposed or
threatened by the hazards; and whether or not the worker/worker
representative informed another government agency about the hazards
(and the name of the agency if so informed).
    Additional information on the hardcopy version of the form concerns
the complainant including: whether or not the complainant wants OSHA to
reveal their name to the employer; whether the complainant is a worker
or a worker representative, or for information provided orally, a
member of a Federal safety and health committee or another party (with
space to specify the party); the complainant's name, telephone number,
and address; and the complainant's signature attesting that they
believe a violation of an OSHA standard exists at the named
establishment; and the date of the signature. A worker representative
must also provide the name of the organization they represent and their
title.
    The information contained in the online version of the OSHA-7 Form
is similar to the hardcopy version. However, the online version
requests the complainant's e-mail address, and does not ask for the
site's facsimile number or the complainant's signature and signature
date.
    The Agency uses the information collected on the OSHA-7 Form to
determine whether reasonable grounds exist to conduct an inspection of
the workplace. The description of the hazards, including the number of
exposed workers, allows the Agency to assess the severity of the
hazards and the need to expedite the inspection. The completed form
also provides the employer with notice of the complaint and may serve
as the basis for obtaining a search warrant if the employer denies the
Agency access to the workplace.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on workers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements relating to the OSHA-7 Form. The Agency is
requesting an increase in burden hours from 12,775 to 13,414 (a total
increase of 639 burden hours). The Agency will summarize the comments
submitted in response to this notice and will include this summary in
the request to OMB to extend the approval of the information collection
requirements.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Notice of Alleged Safety and Health Hazards, OSHA-7 Form.
    OMB Number: 1218-0064.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Number of Respondents: 50,715.
    Total Responses: 50,715.
    Frequency of Recordkeeping: On occasion.
    Average Time per Response: Varies from 15 minutes (.25 hour) to
communicate the required information orally to the Agency to 25 minutes
(.42 hour) to provide the information in writing and send it to OSHA.
    Total Burden Hours Requested: 13,414.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $1,116.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (fax); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2010-0056). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number so the Agency can attach them
to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted
material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit
comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User
Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
materials not available through the Web site, and for assistance in
using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, PhD, MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 4-2010
(75 FR 55355).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on January 10, 2011.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2011-602 Filed 1-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 73 (Monday, April 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 20431]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07991]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1093]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Commercial
Air Tour Limitations in the Grand Canyon National Park Special Flight
Rules Area

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on November 23, 2020. The FAA will use the information it
collects and reviews to monitor compliance with the regulations
regarding air tours in the Grand Canyon National Park.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by May 19, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Monica Buenrostro by email at:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0653.
    Title: Commercial Air Tour Limitations in the Grand Canyon National
Park Special Flight Rules Area.
    Form Numbers: OMB 2120-0693.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on November 23, 2020 (85 FR 74782). No comments were
received. Each operator seeking to obtain or in possession of an air
carrier operating certificate is mandated to comply with the
requirements of 14 CFR part 135 or part 121, as appropriate. Thus, each
of these operators conducting air tours in the Grand Canyon National
Park is mandated to comply with the collection requirements for that
airspace. The FAA will use the information it collects and reviews to
evaluate compliance with the regulations and, if necessary, take
enforcement action against violators of the regulations.
    Respondents: 13.
    Frequency: Quarterly.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 48 Hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: $3,272.00.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 14, 2021.
Sheri A. Martin,
Management and Program Analyst, FAA, Air Transportation Division, AFS-
200.
[FR Doc. 2021-07991 Filed 4-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 13, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15894-15895]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05730]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-1258]

Draft Qualitative Risk Assessment of Risk of Activity/Food
Combinations for Activities (Outside the Farm Definition) Conducted in
a Facility Co-Located on a Farm; Availability; Reopening of the Comment
Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification; reopening of the comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or ``we'') is reopening
the comment period for a document entitled ``Draft Qualitative Risk
Assessment of Risk of Activity/

Food Combinations for Activities (Outside the Farm Definition)
Conducted in a Facility Co-Located on a Farm'' (the draft RA) that we
made available for public comment in the Federal Register of January
16, 2013. We are reopening the comment period to update comments and to
receive any new information.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments by May 16, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jenny Scott, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-300), Food and Drug Administration, 5100
Paint Branch Pkwy., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of January 16, 2013 (78 FR 3824), we
published a notification with a 30-day comment period announcing the
availability of, and requesting comment on, a document entitled ``Draft
Qualitative Risk Assessment of Risk of Activity/Food Combinations for
Activities (Outside the Farm Definition) Conducted in a Facility Co-
Located on a Farm.'' The purpose of the draft RA is to provide a
science-based risk analysis of those activity/food combinations that
would be considered low risk. We conducted this draft RA to satisfy
requirements of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) to conduct
a science-based risk analysis and to consider the results of that
analysis in rulemaking that is required by FSMA. In the Federal
Register of January 16, 2013 (78 FR 3646), we announced that we had
used the results of the draft RA to propose to exempt certain food
facilities (i.e., those that are small or very small businesses that
are engaged only in specific types of onfarm manufacturing, processing,
packing, or holding activities identified in the draft RA as low-risk
activity/food combinations) from the proposed requirements of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act for hazard analysis and risk-based
preventive controls (the proposed preventive controls rule). Interested
persons were originally given until February 15, 2013, to comment on
the draft RA.

II. Request for Comments

    Following publication of the notification announcing the
availability of, and requesting comment on, the draft RA, we received
three requests to allow interested persons additional time to comment.
The requesters asserted that the time period of 30 days was
insufficient to respond fully to FDA's specific requests for comments
and to allow potential respondents to thoroughly evaluate and address
pertinent issues. Two requesters considered that the comment period for
the draft RA should conform to the comment period of the proposed
preventive controls rule. (One of these requesters further requested
that the comment period conform to that of another proposed rule
published in the Federal Register of January 16, 2013 (78 FR 3504; the
proposed produce safety rule) and other major rulemakings that FDA
would be conducting under FSMA but were not yet published.) For similar
reasons, another requestor considered that the comment period should be
extended by another 120 days, to June 14, 2013.
    We have considered the requests and are reopening the comment
period for the draft RA until May 16, 2013, which conforms to the
comment periods of the proposed preventive controls rule and the
proposed produce safety rule. We believe that this extension allows
adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without
significantly delaying the associated rulemaking in the proposed
preventive controls rule.

III. How To Submit Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: March 7, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-05730 Filed 3-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 5, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61558-61559]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25653]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0735; Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-01-AD;
Amendment 39-16807; AD 2011-19-02]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dowty Propellers Type R212/4-30-4/22
and R251/4-30-4/49 Propeller Assemblies

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    Reports have been received from a small number of HS.748
operators of finding cracks in the propeller hub port buttress
threads of R212 and R251 propellers. The affected hubs had
accumulated in excess of 6,000 flight hours. This condition, if not
detected and corrected, could lead to propeller blade separation,
possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and/or injury to
persons on the ground.

We are issuing this AD to prevent propeller hub failure due to cracks
in the hub, which could result in damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective November 9, 2011. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in this AD as of November 9, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Schwetz, Aerospace Engineer,
Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on May 11, 2011 (76 FR
27281). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states that:

    Reports have been received from a small number of HS.748
operators of finding cracks in the propeller hub port buttress
threads of R212 and R251 propellers. The affected hubs had
accumulated in excess of 6,000 flight hours. This condition, if not
detected and corrected, could lead to propeller blade separation,
possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and/or injury to
persons on the ground.

    The cracks originating from the root of the buttress threads in the
blade ports are caused by high-cycle fatigue.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM published in the Federal
Register on May 11, 2011 (76 FR 27281) or on the determination of the
cost to the public.
    Since we published the NPRM in the Federal Register on May 11, 2011
(76 FR 27281), we changed the AD Docket No. from FAA-2011-0033, to FAA-
2011-0735. The original number was inadvertently used both by the FAA
Engine & Propeller Directorate, and the FAA Transport Airplane
Directorate.
    Also since we published the NPRM in the Federal Register on May 11,
2011 (76 FR 27281), we became aware that Dowty Propellers made minor
changes to Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. 61-1043, Revision 6, and
issued Revision 7, dated March 1, 2011. Revision 6 of the ASB had an
incorrect Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) reference in Effectivity
paragraph 1.D. We do not reference that paragraph in this AD, however,
we changed the AD to reference the most current ASB, which is Revision
7.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described
previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD will
affect about 2 propellers installed on one airplane of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per propeller to
comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Required parts will cost about $20,000 per propeller. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be
$40,170.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m.

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is provided in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2011-19-02 Dowty Propellers (formerly Dowty Aerospace; Dowty Rotol
Limited; and Dowty Rotol): Amendment 39-16807. Docket No. FAA-2011-
0735; Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-01-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective November
9, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Dowty Propellers type R212/4-30-4/22
propeller assemblies with hub and driving center assembly part
number (P/N) 601022105, 601022211, 601022294, 601021426, 601021858,
or 601021859 installed, and type R251/4-30-4/49 propeller assemblies
with hub and driving center assembly P/N 660207202 or P/N 660207203
installed.

Reason

    (d) This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. We are issuing this AD to prevent propeller hub failure due
to cracks in the hub, which could result in damage to the airplane.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, do the following:
    (1) Within 500 flight hours after the effective date of this AD,
and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 500 flight hours, inspect
the buttress threads in the propeller hub and driving center
assembly for cracks.
    (2) Use paragraphs 2.A.(1) through 2.A.(4)(a) of Accomplishment
Instructions of Dowty Propellers Alert Service Bulletin No. 61-1043,
Revision 7, dated March 1, 2011, and NDT Technique NDT 175U
(Appendix A of Dowty Propellers Alert Service Bulletin No. 61-1043,
Revision 7, dated March 1, 2011), to do the inspection.
    (3) If a crack is found, remove the propeller assembly from
service before further flight.
    (4) After the effective date of this AD, do not install this
propeller on any airplane unless the propeller hub and driving
center has passed the inspections required by this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    (f) This AD differs from the service information as follows:
    (1) Although the service bulletin tells you to return the
affected parts to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that
action.
    (2) Although the service bulletin tells you to submit
information to the manufacturer, this AD does not require that
action.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (g) The Manager, Boston Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2011-0012,
dated January 20, 2011, for related information.
    (i) Contact Michael Schwetz, Aerospace Engineer, Boston Aircraft
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for more
information about this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use Dowty Propellers Alert Service Bulletin No. 61-
1043, Revision 7, dated March 1, 2011, to do the actions required by
this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (k) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (l) For service information identified in this AD, contact Dowty
Propellers, 114 Powers Court, Sterling, VA 20166, phone: 703-421-
4434; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (m) You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on September 7, 2011.
Peter A. White,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-25653 Filed 10-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P