[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 231 (Friday, December 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74209-74212]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26270]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0021; Notice 2]

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Mercedes-Benz AG (MBAG) and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA)
(collectively, ``Mercedes-Benz'') have determined that certain model
year (MY) 2019 Mercedes-Benz A-Class motor vehicles do not fully comply
with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 104, Windshield
Wiping and Washing Systems. Mercedes-Benz filed a noncompliance report
dated February 24, 2020. Mercedes-Benz subsequently petitioned NHTSA on
March 12, 2020, and later provided supplemental material on July 9,
2020, for a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety. This notice announces the grant
of Mercedes-Benz's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil Dold, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Mercedes-Benz has determined that certain MY 2019 Mercedes-Benz A-
Class motor vehicles do not fully comply with the requirements of
paragraph S4.1.2 of FMVSS No. 104, Windshield Wiping and Washing
Systems (49 CFR 571.104). Mercedes-Benz filed a noncompliance report
dated February 24, 2020, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
noncompliance responsibility and reports. Mercedes-Benz subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on March 12, 2020, and later provided supplemental
material on July 9, 2020, for an exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.

chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for inconsequential defect or
noncompliance.
    Notice of receipt of Mercedes Benz's petition was published with a
30-day public comment period, on June 12, 2020, in the Federal Register
(85 FR 35990). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2020-0021.''

II. Vehicles Involved

    Approximately 4,145 MY 2019 Mercedes-Benz A220 and A220 4MATIC
motor vehicles manufactured between August 3, 2018, and November 26,
2019, are potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    Mercedes-Benz explains that the noncompliance is that the
windshield wiping systems in the subject vehicles do not wipe the
percentage of the windshield as required by paragraph S4.1.2 of FMVSS
No. 104. Specifically, because of variations in the manufacturing
process, the windshield wiping system may not meet the manufacturer's
design specifications and thus may only wipe 93.8% of Area B of the
windshield instead of the 94% minimum required.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S4.1.2 of FMVSS No. 104 includes the requirements
relevant to this petition. When tested wet in accordance with SAE
Recommended Practice J903a (1966), each passenger car windshield wiping
system shall wipe the percentage of designated Areas A, B, and C of the
windshield (established in accordance with S<IP_ADDRESS>) that (1) is
specified in column 2 of the applicable table following subparagraph
S<IP_ADDRESS> and (2) is within the area bounded by a perimeter line on the
glazing surface 25 millimeters from the edge of the ``daylight
opening.''

V. Summary of Mercedes-Benz's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of Mercedes-Benz's Petition,'' are the views and arguments
provided by Mercedes-Benz and do not reflect the views of the Agency.
Mercedes-Benz described the subject noncompliance and contended that
the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety.
    In support of its petition, Mercedes-Benz submitted the following:
    1. Mercedes-Benz cited the definition of ``motor vehicle safety''
as cited in the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966
and their belief is that this matter is appropriate for a decision that
the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety as it does
not present any increased risk to vehicle occupants.
    2. They state that, in the subject vehicles, the portion of the
windshield that falls just below the minimum wiped area is located at
the outer edge of the windshield. In the worst-case scenario, only
93.8%, instead of the minimum 94%, of the Area B portion of the
windshield remains wiped (note: the petition erroneously stated
``unwiped'' rather than ``wiped''). In the original petition, Mercedes-
Benz stated that the affected portion of Area B is located at the outer
edge of the passenger's side of the windshield; however, in a
subsequent communication with NHTSA, they clarified that the affected
portion of Area B is located at the outer edge of the driver's side of
the windshield rather than the passenger's side.
    3. Mercedes-Benz asserts that NHTSA has previously considered the
performance of windshield wiper systems in the context of interpreting
the meaning of the term ``daylight opening'' in FMVSS No. 104.
Mercedes-Benz says that in 2003, in response to a request from a
manufacturer, NHTSA interpreted that opaque coatings located around the
edge of the windshield would not be considered part of the daylight
opening for purposes of calculating the starting point of the wiped
area. See Letter to Reed, May 6, 2003. This interpretation was an
apparent change in approach for several manufacturers. In a request for
reconsideration, the industry reported that many vehicles would not
meet the minimum wiped portion of Area B based on the Agency's new
interpretation. In supporting comments, two manufacturers reported that
there were multiple vehicle models that would not meet the 94% minimum
requirement for Area B. For one of the manufacturers, all of its
vehicles were no more than 93.2% of the Area B minimum, while the other
manufacturer did not provide specific information on how far its system
deviated from the Area B minimum. After considering the substantial
resources necessary to redesign the wiper systems outside of the normal
vehicle refresh schedule, the Agency delayed the date on which it would
begin enforcement of FMVSS No. 104 based on its updated interpretation.
See Letter to Strassburger, January 7, 2005.
    4. Thus, while the Agency was alerted to the fact that certain
vehicles would not be able to comply with the minimum wiped area
requirements of FMVSS No. 104, the Agency delayed implementing
enforcement of the new interpretation for several years. While the
delay was based, in part on the additional complexities needed to
update the vehicle, fundamentally, the small deviation in the minimum
wiped area requirement appears to not have been considered one that
adversely impacted driver visibility or increased the safety risk to
vehicle occupants. In that case, the deviation from the minimum wiped
portion of Area B was more than what exists in the subject vehicles.
While it is unclear from the interpretation letters what portion of
Area B did not meet the minimum wiped requirements, in the subject
vehicles, only a narrow strip of a portion of the outer edge of the
driver's side of the windshield is affected by the deviation. Due to
the location and small size of the unwiped area, the deviation would
not affect the visibility of the driver or their ability to safely
operate the vehicle and would not lead to an overall increased safety
risk to the vehicle occupants.
    5. Mercedes-Benz stated that the windshield wiper systems installed
in the subject vehicles otherwise meet or exceed the remaining
requirements in FMVSS No. 104 for the wiped portion of Areas A and C,
for wiper frequency, and the windshield washing system. Mercedes-Benz
has not received any reports related to a lack of visibility due to the
performance of the windshield wiping system at issue here.
    Mercedes-Benz concluded by again contending that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    Mercedes Benz's complete petition and all supporting documents are
available by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)
website at: https://www.regulations.gov and by following the online
search instructions to locate the docket number as listed in the title
of this notice.

VI. NHTSA's Analysis

    The burden of establishing the inconsequentiality of a failure to
comply

with a performance requirement in a standard--as opposed to a labeling
requirement with no performance implications--is more substantial and
difficult to meet. Accordingly, the Agency has not found many such
noncompliances inconsequential.\1\ Potential performance failures of
safety-critical equipment, like seat belts or air bags, are rarely
deemed inconsequential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An important issue to consider in determining inconsequentiality
based upon NHTSA's prior decisions on noncompliance issues was the
safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against
which the recall would otherwise protect.\2\ NHTSA also does not
consider the absence of complaints or injuries to show that the issue
is inconsequential to safety. ``Most importantly, the absence of a
complaint does not mean there have not been any safety issues, nor does
it mean that there will not be safety issues in the future.'' \3\
``[T]he fact that in past reported cases good luck and swift reaction
have prevented many serious injuries does not mean that good luck will
continue to work.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
    \3\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
    \4\ United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C.
Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk when it
``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden engine fire,
and where there is no dispute that at least some such hazards, in
this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in the
future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or items of motor
vehicle equipment are affected have also not justified granting an
inconsequentiality petition.\5\ Similarly, NHTSA has rejected petitions
based on the assertion that only a small percentage of vehicles or
items of equipment are likely to actually exhibit a noncompliance. The
percentage of potential occupants that could be adversely affected by a
noncompliance does not determine the question of inconsequentiality.
Rather, the issue to consider is the consequence to an occupant who is
exposed to the consequence of that noncompliance.\6\ These
considerations are also relevant when considering whether a defect is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23,
2001) (rejecting argument that noncompliance was inconsequential
because of the small number of vehicles affected); Aston Martin
Lagonda Ltd.; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016) (noting that situations
involving individuals trapped in motor vehicles--while infrequent--
are consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.; Denial of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663,
21664 (Apr. 12, 2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be
granted because the vehicle was produced in very low numbers and
likely to be operated on a limited basis).
    \6\ See Gen. Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for Determination
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19900 (Apr. 14,
2004); Cosco Inc.; Denial of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408, 29409 (June 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has evaluated the merits of the inconsequential noncompliance
petition submitted by Mercedes-Benz and has determined that this
particular noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Specifically, the Agency considered the following when making its
decision:
    1. Given the inconsistent information in the petition about which
portions of the windshield did not meet the Standard, NHTSA requested
additional information from Mercedes-Benz. On July 9, 2020, Mercedes-
Benz responded, and the supplemental information provided is available
on the FDMS website.\7\ In the worst-case scenario presented in this
data, Area C is completely (100%) wiped, as required by the standard.
Area A, according to this data, has a wiped area of 91%--exceeding the
standard's minimum threshold of 80%--while the wiped portion of Area B
is slightly below the required minimum 94% threshold at 93.8%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Regulations.gov/docket/NHTSA-2020-0021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The magnitude of the deviation from Mercedes-Benz's design
specification was also considered. Vehicles manufactured without
deviation from Mercedes-Benz's specification would have wiped 91.4% of
Area A and 94.3% of Area B. In the worst-case scenario described by
Mercedes-Benz, comparing the manufacturing deviation to Mercedes-Benz's
design specification, the percent of Area A wiped decreases by 0.4% to
the aforementioned 91% of Area A's total area and the percent of Area B
wiped decreases by 0.5% to the aforementioned 93.8% of Area B's total
area. There is no change in the wiped portion of Area C (the area of
the windshield directly in front of the driver).
    3. NHTSA also considered the location within Area B affected by the
manufacturing deviation. The reduction in wiped area is located at the
outer edge of Area B on the driver's side--with greater deviation in
wiper coverage toward the top of the windshield--where the impact to
visibility is less likely to create a safety risk. A depiction of the
wiper deviation was provided by Mercedes-Benz in the petition and was
updated on July 9, 2020, after NHTSA requested additional information.
Both depictions are available on the FDMS website.
    4. Although Mercedes-Benz's petition cited a letter of
interpretation that delayed enforcement of the threshold for minimum
wiped area for Area B, NHTSA did not consider this to be persuasive.
The delay at issue resulted from the agency's determination that strict
enforcement would be inequitable. NHTSA did not determine that the
requirements of the Standard should be relaxed. Our analysis here is
based on the location and magnitude of the specific noncompliance as
detailed in this notice and the documents included in the docket.
    5. NHTSA has determined, based on both the magnitude and the
location of the wiper deviation, that the difference between a
compliant vehicle (produced without the manufacturing deviation) and a
worst-case noncompliant vehicle (produced with the manufacturing
deviation) is unlikely to impact visibility in a manner that would be
consequential to safety.

VII. NHTSA's Decision

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that Mercedes-Benz
has met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 104
noncompliance in the affected vehicles is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety. Accordingly, Mercedes-Benz's petition is hereby
granted, and Mercedes-Benz is exempted from the obligation of providing
notification of, and a free remedy for, that noncompliance under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the subject vehicles that Mercedes-Benz no longer

controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, the granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after
Mercedes-Benz notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-26270 Filed 12-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 240 (Friday, December 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64383-64384]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27093]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SEC File No. 270-774, OMB Control No. 3235-0726]

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Rules 300-304 of Regulation Crowdfunding (Intermediaries).

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (``PRA'') (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information provided for Rule 17Ab2-1 (17 CFR 240.17Ab2-1) and Form CA-
1: Registration of Clearing Agencies (17 CFR 249b.200) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') (15 U.S.C. 78a et
seq.). The Commission plans to submit this existing collection

of information to the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') for
extension and approval.
    Rules 300-304 of Regulation Crowdfunding enumerate the requirements
with which intermediaries must comply to participate in the offer and
sale of securities in reliance on Section 4(a)(6) of the Securities Act
of 1933 (``Section 4(a)(6)''). Rule 300 requires an intermediary to be
registered with the Commission as a broker or as a funding portal and
be a member of a registered national securities association.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Currently, FINRA is the only registered national securities
association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 301 requires intermediaries to have a reasonable basis for
believing that an issuer seeking to offer and sell securities in
reliance on Section 4(a)(6) through the intermediary's platform
complies with the requirements in Section 4A(b) of the Securities Act
and the related requirements in Regulation Crowdfunding. Rule 302
provides that no intermediary or associated person of an intermediary
may accept an investment commitment in a transaction involving the
offer or sale of securities made in reliance on Section 4(a)(6) until
the investor has opened an account with the intermediary and the
intermediary has obtained from the investor consent to electronic
delivery of materials. Rule 303 requires an intermediary to make
publicly available on its platform the information that an issuer of
crowdfunding securities is required to provide to potential investors,
in a manner that reasonably permits a person accessing the platform to
save, download or otherwise store the information, for a minimum of 21
days before any securities are sold in the offering, during which time
the intermediary may accept investment commitments. Rule 303 also
requires intermediaries to comply with the requirements related to the
maintenance and transmission of funds. An intermediary that is a
registered broker is required to comply with the requirements of Rule
15c2-4 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'')
(Transmission or Maintenance of Payments Received in Connection with
Underwritings).\2\ An intermediary that is a registered funding portal
must direct investors to transmit the money or other consideration
directly to a qualified third party that has agreed in writing to hold
the funds for the benefit of, and to promptly transmit or return the
funds to, the persons entitled thereto in accordance with Regulation
Crowdfunding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 17 CFR 240.15c2-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rules also require intermediaries to implement and maintain
systems to comply with the information disclosure, communication
channels, and investor notification requirements. These requirements
include providing disclosure about compensation at account opening
(Rule 302), obtaining investor acknowledgements to confirm investor
qualifications and review of educational materials (Rule 303),
providing investor questionnaires (Rule 303), providing communication
channels with third parties and among investors (Rule 303), notifying
investors of investment commitments (Rule 303), confirming completed
transactions (Rule 303) and confirming or reconfirming offering
cancellations (Rule 304).
    The Commission staff estimates that there are 62 intermediaries
engaged in crowdfunding activity and therefore subject to Rules 300-
304. The Commission staff estimates that annualized industry burden
would be 15,621 hours to comply with Rules 300-304. This estimate is
composed of a one-time burden for new intermediaries to comply with the
rules and develop the platform and ongoing burdens associated with
maintaining the platform. The Commission staff estimates that the costs
associated with complying with Rules 300-304 are estimated to be
approximately a total amount of $5,772,327. These costs are composed of
a one-time burden for new intermediaries to comply with the rules and
develop the platform and ongoing burdens associated with maintaining
the platform.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Charles Riddle, Acting
Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission,
c/o Candace Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: December 10, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-27093 Filed 12-13-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: August 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 164)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 48597-48600]
[DOCID:fr24au07-17]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29043; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-177-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500
Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. This
proposed AD would require revising the FAA-approved maintenance
inspection program to include inspections that will give no less than
the required damage tolerance rating for each structural significant
item (SSI), doing repetitive inspections to detect cracks of all SSIs,
and repairing cracked structure. This proposed AD results from a report
of incidents involving fatigue cracking and corrosion in transport
category airplanes that are approaching or have exceeded their design
service objective. We are proposing this AD to maintain the continued
structural integrity of the entire fleet of Model 737-300, -400, and -
500 series airplanes.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 9, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to submit comments on
this proposed AD.
     DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow

the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
 and follow the instructions for sending your

comments electronically.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Hand Delivery: Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, P.O. Box 3707, Seattle,
Washington 98124-2207, for the service information identified in this
proposed AD.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
917-6440; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to submit any relevant written data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed in the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number ``FAA-2007-
29043; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-177-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the
proposed AD in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We will

also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of
that Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our
dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or
signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union,
etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78), or you
may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

Examining the Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov
, or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is located on the
ground level of the West Building at the DOT street address stated in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after the Docket Management System receives them.

Discussion

    In the early 1980's, as part of its continuing work to maintain the
structural integrity of older transport category airplanes, we
concluded that the incidence of fatigue cracking may increase as these
airplanes reach or exceed their design service objective (DSO). In
light of this, and as a result of increased utilization, and longer
operational lives, we determined that a supplemental structural
inspection program (SSIP) was necessary to maintain the continued
structural integrity for all airplanes in the transport fleet.

Issuance of Advisory Circular (AC)

    As a follow-on from that determination, we issued AC No. 91-56,
``Supplemental Structural Inspection Program for Large Transport
Category Airplanes,'' dated May 6, 1981. That AC provides guidance
material to manufacturers and operators for use in developing a
continuing structural integrity program to ensure safe operation of
older airplanes throughout their operational lives. This guidance
material applies to transport airplanes that were certified under the
fail-safe requirements of part 4b (``Airplane Airworthiness, Transport
Categories'') of the Civil Air Regulations or damage tolerance
structural requirements of part 25 (``Airworthiness Standards:
Transport Category Airplanes'') of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(FAR) (14 CFR part 25), and that have a maximum gross weight greater
than 75,000 pounds. The procedures set forth in that AC are applicable
to transport category

airplanes operated under subpart D (``Special Flight Operations'') of
part 91 of the FAR (14 CFR part 91); part 121 (``Operating
Requirements: Domestic, Flag, and Supplemental Operations''); part 125
(``Certification and Operations: Airplanes having a Seating Capacity of
20 or More Passengers or a Maximum Payload of 6,000 Pounds or More'');
and part 135 (``Operating Requirements: Commuter and On-Demand
Operations'') of the FAR (14 CFR parts 121, 125, and 135). The
objective of the SSIP was to establish inspection programs to ensure
timely detection of fatigue cracking.

Development of the SSIP

    In order to evaluate the effect of increased fatigue cracking with
respect to maintaining fail-safe design and damage tolerance of the
structure of Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes,
Boeing conducted a structural reassessment of those airplanes, using
damage tolerance evaluation techniques. Boeing accomplished this
reassessment using the criteria contained in AC No. 91-56, as well as
Amendment 25-45 of section 25.571 (``Damage-tolerance and fatigue
evaluation of structure'') of the FAR (14 CFR 25.571). During the
reassessment, members of the airline industry participated with Boeing
in working group sessions and developed the SSIP for Model 737-300, -
400, and -500 series airplanes. Engineers and maintenance specialists
from the FAA also supported these sessions. Subsequently, based on the
working group's recommendations, Boeing developed the Supplemental
Structural Inspection Document (SSID).

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed Boeing Models 737-300/400/500 Airplanes Document
No. D6-82669, ``Supplemental Structural Inspection Document,'' Original
Release, dated May 2007 (hereafter ``the SSID''). The SSID describes
procedures for revising the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program
to include inspections that will give no less than the required damage
tolerance rating (DTR) for each supplemental significant item (SSI),
doing repetitive inspections to detect cracks of all SSIs, and
repairing cracked structure. Accomplishing the actions specified in the
SSID is intended to adequately address the unsafe condition.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other airplanes
of this same type design. For this reason, we are proposing this AD,
which would require the following actions:
    Paragraph (g) of the proposed AD would require incorporation of a
revision into the FAA-approved maintenance inspection program that
provides no less than the required DTR for each SSI listed in the SSID.
    Paragraph (h) of the proposed AD would require repetitive
inspections to detect cracks of all SSIs.
    Paragraph (i) of the proposed AD would require repairing any
cracked structure in accordance with a method approved by the FAA or an
Authorized Representative (AR) for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized by
the FAA to make those findings.
    Paragraph (j) of the proposed AD specifies the requirements of the
inspection program for transferred airplanes. Before any airplane that
is subject to this proposed AD can be added to an air carrier's
operations specifications, a program for doing the inspections required
by this proposed AD must be established.

Differences Between the Proposed AD and Service Information

    Section 3.0, ``Structural Significant Items (SSIs)'' of the SSID
specifies a threshold of 66,000 flight cycles for accomplishing the
initial inspections; however, it does not specify a grace period for
airplanes that are near or have passed that threshold. This proposed AD
would allow a grace period of 12 months after the effective date of the
AD to incorporate the SSID into the FAA-approved maintenance inspection
program. This proposed AD also would allow a grace period of 4,000
flight cycles measured from 12 months after the effective date of the
AD to initiate the applicable inspections to detect cracks of all SSIs.
    The SSID does not specify instructions on how to repair certain
conditions. This proposed AD would require repairing those conditions
in one of the following ways:
     Using a method that we approve; or
     Using data that have been approved by an AR for the Boeing
Commercial Airplanes Delegation Option Authorization Organization whom
we have authorized to make those findings.

Costs of Compliance

    There are about 1,961 airplanes of the affected design in the
worldwide fleet. The following table provides the estimated costs for
U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD.

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of U.S.-
             Action                  Work hours       Average labor                 Cost                  registered               Fleet cost
                                                      rate per hour                                        airplanes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision of maintenance          1,200 per operator             $80  $96,000 per operator.............             599  $2,496,000.
 inspection program.              (26 U.S.
                                  operators).
Inspections....................  600 per airplane..              80  $48,000, per airplane, per                    599  $28,752,000 per inspection
                                                                      inspection cycle.                                  cycle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number of inspection work hours, as indicated above, is
presented as if the accomplishment of the actions in this proposed AD
are to be conducted as ``stand alone'' actions. However, in actual
practice, these actions for the most part will be done coincidentally
or in combination with normally scheduled airplane inspections and
other maintenance program tasks. Therefore, the actual number of
necessary additional inspection work hours will be minimal in many
instances. Additionally, any costs associated with special airplane
scheduling will be minimal.
    Further, compliance with this proposed AD would be a means of
compliance with the aging airplane safety final rule (AASFR) for the
baseline structure of Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes.
The AASFR final rule requires certain operators to incorporate damage
tolerance inspections into their maintenance inspection programs. These
requirements are described in 14

CFR 121.370(a) and 129.16. Accomplishment of the actions required by
this proposed AD will meet the requirements of these CFR sections for
the baseline structure. The costs for accomplishing the inspection
portion of this proposed AD were accounted for in the regulatory
evaluation of the AASFR final rule.

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Boeing: Docket No. FAA-2007-29043; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-
177-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by October
9, 2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Boeing Model 737-300, -400, and -500
series airplanes, certificated in any category.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from a report of incidents involving fatigue
cracking and corrosion in transport category airplanes that are
approaching or have exceeded their design service objective. We are
issuing this AD to maintain the continued structural integrity of
the entire fleet of Model 737-300, -400, and -500 series airplanes.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Service Information

    (f) The term ``the SSID,'' as used in this AD, means Boeing
Models 737-300/400/500 Airplanes Document No. D6-82669,
``Supplemental Structural Inspection Document,'' Original Release,
dated May 2007.

Revision of the FAA-Approved Maintenance Inspection Program

    (g) Before the accumulation of 66,000 total flight cycles, or
within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later, incorporate a revision into the FAA-approved
maintenance inspection program that provides no less than the
required damage tolerance rating (DTR) for each structural
significant item (SSI) listed in the SSID. (The required DTR value
for each SSI is listed in the SSID.) The revision to the maintenance
inspection program must include and must be implemented in
accordance with the procedures in Section 5.0, ``Damage Tolerance
Rating (DTR) System Application,'' and Section 6.0, ``SSI
Discrepancy Reporting'' of the SSID. Under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements contained in this AD and has assigned OMB
Control Number 2120-0056.

Initial and Repetitive Inspections

    (h) Before the accumulation of 66,000 total flight cycles, or
within 4,000 flight cycles measured from 12 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later, do the applicable
initial inspections to detect cracks of all SSIs, in accordance with
the SSID. Repeat the applicable inspections thereafter at the
intervals specified in Section 3.0, ``Implementation'' of the SSID.

Repair

    (i) If any cracked structure is found during any inspection
required by paragraph (h) of this AD, before further flight, repair
the cracked structure using a method approved in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

Inspection Program for Transferred Airplanes

    (j) Before any airplane that is subject to this AD and that has
exceeded the applicable compliance times specified in paragraph (h)
of this AD can be added to an air carrier's operations
specifications, a program for the accomplishment of the inspections
required by this AD must be established in accordance with paragraph
(j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
    (1) For airplanes that have been inspected in accordance with
this AD: The inspection of each SSI must be done by the new operator
in accordance with the previous operator's schedule and inspection
method, or the new operator's schedule and inspection method, at
whichever time would result in the earlier accomplishment for that
SSI inspection. The compliance time for accomplishment of this
inspection must be measured from the last inspection accomplished by
the previous operator. After each inspection has been done once,
each subsequent inspection must be performed in accordance with the
new operator's schedule and inspection method.
    (2) For airplanes that have not been inspected in accordance
with this AD: The inspection of each SSI required by this AD must be
done either before adding the airplane to the air carrier's
operations specification, or in accordance with a schedule and an
inspection method approved by the Manager, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), FAA. After each inspection has been done
once, each subsequent inspection must be done in accordance with the
new operator's schedule.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (k)(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested in accordance with the procedures
found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    (2) To request a different method of compliance or a different
compliance time for this AD, follow the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector

(PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking
a PI, your local FSDO.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair required by this AD, if it is approved by an
Authorized Representative for the Boeing Commercial Airplanes
Delegation Option Authorization Organization who has been authorized
by the Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. For a repair
method to be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer
to this AD.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 12, 2007.
Stephen P. Boyd,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E7-16668 Filed 8-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39639-39640]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14106]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[SEC File No. 270-39, OMB Control No. 3235-0049]

Proposal for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736,

Extension:
    Form ADV

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission is issuing this Notice in
order to supplement the Notice it issued on May 12, soliciting comments
on the collection of information. The Commission is issuing this
supplemental Notice to update the approximate average per adviser
burden based on data as of March 31, 2020. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    The title for the collection of information is ``Form ADV'' (17 CFR
279.1). Form ADV is the investment adviser registration form and exempt
reporting adviser reporting form filed electronically with the
Commission pursuant to rules 203-1 (17 CFR 275.203-1), 204-1 (17 CFR
275.204-1) and 204-4 (17 CFR 275.204-4) under the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80b-1 et seq.) by advisers registered with the
Commission or applying for registration with the Commission or by
exempt reporting advisers filing reports with the Commission. The
information collected takes the form of disclosures to the adviser's
clients and potential clients. The purpose of this collection of
information is to provide advisory clients, prospective clients, and
the Commission with information about the adviser, its business, its
conflicts of interest and personnel. Clients use certain of the
information to determine whether to hire or retain an adviser.
    The information collected provides the Commission with knowledge
about the adviser, its business, its conflicts of interest and
personnel. The Commission uses the information to determine eligibility
for registration with the Commission and to manage its regulatory,
examination, and enforcement programs. Part 1 of Form ADV contains
information used primarily by the Commission staff and Part 2 is the
client brochure. Part 3 requires registered investment advisers that
offer services to retail investors to prepare and file with the
Commission a relationship summary.
    The respondents to this information collection are investment
advisers registered with the Commission or applying for registration
with the Commission and exempt reporting advisers filing reports with
the Commission. Our latest data indicate that there were 13,500
advisers registered with the Commission as of March 31, 2020. The
Commission has estimated that Form ADV imposes an annual blended
average per adviser burden of approximately 21.55 hours per respondent.
Based on this figure, the Commission estimates a total annual burden of
383,652 hours for this collection of information.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and
suggestions submitted in writing within 45 days of this publication. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number. No person shall be
subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of
information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB
control number.
    Please direct your written comments to David Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Cynthia
Roscoe, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Dated: June 25, 2020.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-14106 Filed 6-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Background and Definition of Aero Derivative Turbine Aeroderivative turbines are derived from turbines that were first designed for and used as aircraft propulsion devices. For an aircraft engine to be commercially successful it must have certain attributes. Key among these attributes are: light weight ( high thrust to weight ratio), high simple cycle efficiency ( reduced fuel burn) responsiveness, variable thrust operation and high reliability. Turbines designed with these attributes are finely tuned machines where components have been designed with great precision to maximize customer value ( a weighted measure including all of the above attributes). Aeroderivative engines are derived from aircraft engines due to their attributes of high simple cycle efficiency, responsiveness and reliability. The FAA certifies commercial aircraft engines.

The characteristics of aeroderivative turbines make them particularly well suited for applications where size, high simple cycle efficiency and quick responsiveness matters, such as use for peaking generation to support power grids; emergency grid support needing fast starts to add power to the grid; and applications needing multiple start/ stop cycles. These applications are examples of " load following applications," where the turbine must be able to respond extremely quickly to changes in the load being served by the turbine. Other uses where the characteristics of aeroderivatives are important include power generation at construction sites; use for emergency generation at sites of natural disasters; and high efficiency simple cycle and combined heat and power applications. Additionally aeroderivative engines are also utilized in mechanical drive applications such as gas pumping stations where variable speed operation, reliability and efficiency are key selection criteria.

Maintainability is another feature that differentiates the aeroderivative engines. Aircraft engines are designed to be replaced on wing to keep aircrafts flying without undue delays. Likewise, aeroderivative engines can be replaced within a matter of hours by a spare engine or a leased engine to keep the operation going. Entire engine modules can also be quickly replaced onsite to facilitate quick return of facility to production. High degree of interchangeability brought about by aircraft engine design methodology permits maintenance outages to be of very short durations. Because of this interchangeability, many different engine serial numbers may be installed into an individual site during its service life, very much like airplane applications.

Since aeroderivative engines are designed from aircraft engines, the attributes that result in highly desirable aircraft engine characteristics also affect these aeroderivative engines as they share the structure, architecture, key component designs and materials with the parent aircraft engines.

Because weight is one of the primary design constraints for aircraft propulsion systems, aeroderivative turbines are engineered to be short, compact and light. Additionally, the aircraft engines utilize hollow shafts to transmit torque to the compressors and drive load which is generally a propeller or a fan ( in a turbofan engine). The shafts are supported by rolling element bearings. Both of these aircraft engine features carry over to the resulting aero derivative engines. Modern high power aircraft engines utilize multiple concentric rotors, each running at different speed permitting each rotor to run at its optimal speed. The highest speed shaft generally connects the high pressure turbine to the highpressure compressor and together with the combustor ( placed between the high pressure compressor and the high pressure turbine) is called the ` core' engine. While the output of aircraft engines is measured in thrust, that of aeroderivative engines can be measured in shaft power ( shaft horsepower or shaft mega watts), or gas horsepower ( pressure and temperature of mass flow provided by core to downstream low pressure turbine). The shaft power to weight ratio of the ` cores' of the aeroderivative engines is in the 3 to 30 KW/ lb range.

The aero turbine cycle is optimized for simple cycle efficiency. Modern aero turbines produce optimal efficiency at operating pressure ratios between 20 and 40. Further, the compressor discharge temperature ( T3) is in excess of 800 º F. On the other hand, the cycle of the frame machine is set to maximize the combined output of the Gas Turbine and the Steam Turbine in combined cycle operation. The maximum efficiency for a frame unit in combined cycle application will occur at a lower pressure ratio ( approx 15.5: 1 for a GE frame 7FA+ e and about 19: 1 for a GE frame 7FB turbine) and will have a lower compressor discharge temperature than is the case for an aero derivative turbine. The cycle conditions in both cases affect many aspects of combustor design, with impact on the ability to meet low emissions.

Aero turbines are also designed for liquid fuel operation and are variable speed ( and thus variable airflow and output power) machines. The characteristic of variable speed operation is essential for aircraft application and it is essential as well to load following applications, but it means the aeroderivatives have a wider range of T3 and compressor discharge pressure ( P3) than do frame machines, though the range of fuel/ air ratio from Full Speed No Load to Full Speed Full Load is only a little smaller. This has combustion system design implications, as described below.

In order to cycle up and down quickly ( which is critical for all load following applications), the shaft and turbo components must be very lightweight. The weight constraint and optimization for simple cycle operation translate into a compact design with little room for design flexibility. Aircraft engine combustors are the shortest that the current state of technology permits, due to the very high emphasis on engine weight. If the designers could shorten the combustor by 0.1 millisecond of combustor residence time, they would. The volumetric heat release rates are very high and the residence times within the combustor short when compared to the frame combustors. For example, the mean residence time in a combustion chamber of an aeroderivative turbine will be in the range of 2 6 milliseconds, compared to the mean residence time in a frame turbine in the range of 20 60 milliseconds. ( It is possible that the mean residence time in aeroderivative turbines designed by other manufacturers could be somewhat higher, but certainly no higher than 10 milliseconds.) The very short combustor residence time of aeroderivative turbines is intrinsic to the design of aircraft engines. The intensity of the combustion process tends to accentuate the pressure oscillations that are characteristic of lean premixed systems   a tendency that largely precludes emissions levels at or below those attained on the larger can annular designs used on frame turbines.

Because aeroderivative turbines have different combustion and emission characteristics from frame turbines; because aeroderivative turbines fulfill a distinct need; and because there is a substantial output capacity overlap between aeroderivative and frame turbines ( frame turbines can range in size from 3.0 MW and larger, and aeroderivative turbines can range in output capacity from less than 1 MW up to 120 MW and, in the future, perhaps even higher), aeroderivatives should be in a distinct subcategory from frame turbines, and EPA's proposed size categorization fails to reflect the proper scope of that subcategory. ( The special considerations affecting turbines used in mechanical drive applications have been described elsewhere. Turbines used in such applications should be regulated in a distinct subcategory as well.)

We suggest the following definition for aeroderivative turbines that should be used to establish a separate subcategory:

An aeroderivative turbine is a combustion turbine that shares design characteristics ( architecture, rotor designs, rolling element bearings, shafts, combustor size) with a parent aircraft engine.

GE, Rolls Royce, and Pratt & Whitney produce aircraft engines, and combustion turbines derived from those aircraft engines. Existing aeroderivative turbines are well known, and can easily be listed. Examples of aeroderivative turbines manufactured by GE, and the aircraft engines from which they are derived, are listed below:

Aircraft Engine Derivative Industrial Turbine GE CF6 6 LM2500, LM2500+, LM2500+ G4 CF6 50 LM5000 F404 LM1600 J79 LM1500 CF6 80C2 LM6000 CF6 80E LMS100 TF34 LM500


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 169 (Friday, September 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60531-60532]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18996]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2010-0060]

Norfolk Southern Railway's Request To Operate During a Temporary
Outage of Its Positive Train Control System

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of availability, request for comments, and notice of
planned decision.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides the public with notice that, on August
28, 2023, Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) submitted a request for
amendment (RFA) to its FRA-certified positive train control (PTC)
system. On August 28, 2023, NS experienced a system-wide outage of its
PTC back office, temporarily impacting the operations of NS and its
tenant railroads. NS is seeking FRA's authorization under FRA's PTC
regulations to continue operations, with certain restrictions, while
NS's PTC system is temporarily disabled.

DATES: FRA will review comments received by September 21, 2023. FRA may
consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES:
    Comments: Comments may be submitted by going to https://www.regulations.gov and following the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and the
applicable docket number. The relevant PTC docket number for this host
railroad is Docket No. FRA-2010-0060. For convenience, all active PTC
dockets are hyperlinked on FRA's website at https://railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/ptc-annual-and-quarterly-reports. All comments
received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov;
this includes any personal information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabe Neal, Staff Director, Signal,
Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In general, Title 49 United States Code
(U.S.C.) Section 20157(h) requires FRA to certify that a host
railroad's PTC system complies with Title 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part 236, subpart I, before the technology may be
operated in revenue service. Before making

certain changes to an FRA-certified PTC system or the associated FRA-
approved PTC Safety Plan or disabling the PTC system, a host railroad
must submit, and obtain FRA's approval of, an RFA under 49 CFR
236.1021.
    Under 49 CFR 236.1021(e), FRA's regulations provide that FRA will
publish a notice in the Federal Register and invite public comment in
accordance with 49 CFR part 211, if an RFA includes a request for
approval of a material modification or discontinuance of a signal or
train control system. Accordingly, this notice informs the public that,
on August 28, 2023, NS submitted an RFA to its PTC system under 49 CFR
236.1021(m), and that RFA is available in Docket No. FRA-2010-0060.
Interested parties are invited to comment on NS's RFA by submitting
written comments or data.
    FRA typically invites the public to comment on such RFAs for a
period of 20 days, as FRA must issue a decision to the railroad within
45 days of receipt of the RFA. 49 CFR 236.1021(e), (m)(3)(i). However,
FRA's PTC regulations, at Sec.  236.1021(m)(3)(ii), recognize that FRA
may issue a decision before the standard 45-day decision deadline in
emergencies or under other circumstances necessitating immediate
approval. Given the circumstances and impact to NS's entire network,
FRA intends to issue a decision immediately, subject to conditions and
other limitation to ensure rail safety. FRA will review and consider
any comments received during the comment period, even after issuing a
decision.

Privacy Act Notice

    In accordance with 49 CFR 211.3, FRA solicits comments from the
public to better inform its decisions. DOT posts these comments,
without edit, including any personal information the commenter
provides, to https://www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of
records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov. To facilitate
comment tracking, we encourage commenters to provide their name, or the
name of their organization; however, submission of names is completely
optional. If you wish to provide comments containing proprietary or
confidential information, please contact FRA for alternate submission
instructions.

    Issued in Washington, DC
Carolyn R. Hayward-Williams,
Director, Office of Railroad Systems and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2023-18996 Filed 8-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 62719]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24776]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold a Closed Meeting on Thursday, October
24, 2013 at 11:00 a.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has
certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a)(3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10), permit consideration of the
scheduled matter at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Aguilar, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the Closed Meeting in a closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting will be: Institution and
settlement of injunctive actions; institution and settlement of
administrative proceedings; adjudicatory matters; amicus consideration;
and other matters relating to enforcement proceedings.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact the Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 17, 2013.
Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-24776 Filed 10-18-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 48 (Monday, March 12, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10644-10645]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04925]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 48 / Monday, March 12, 2018 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0100; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASW-3]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Duncan, OK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend the Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Halliburton Field, Duncan,
OK. The FAA is proposing this action as a result of an airspace review
caused by the decommissioning of the Duncan VHF omnidirectional range
(VOR) navigation aid as part of the VOR Minimum Operational Network
(MON) Program and the cancellation of the associated instrument
procedures. The geographic coordinates of the airport would also be
updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database, as well as an
editorial change removing the city associated with the airport name in
the airspace designation.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2018-0100; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASW-3, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11B at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at Halliburton Field, Duncan, OK, to support instrument
flight rules operations.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2018-0100;
Airspace Docket No. 18-ASW-3.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective
September 15, 2017. FAA Order

7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of
this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A, B, C, D, and E
airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending the Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.6-mile radius
(decreased from a 6.7-mile radius) at Halliburton Field, Duncan, OK,
and removing the extension to the north of the airport associated with
the Halliburton Field Localizer. This proposal would add an extension
within 4 miles each side of the 359[deg] bearing from the airport from
the 6.6-mile radius to 11.6 miles north of the airport. The geographic
coordinates of the airport would also be updated to coincide with the
FAA's aeronautical database, and the name of the city associated with
the airport in the airspace description would be removed to comply with
a change to FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for Handling Airspace
Matters.
    This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Duncan VOR as part of the VOR MON Program and
cancellation of the associated instrument procedures.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and
effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

ASW OK E5 Duncan, OK [Amended]

Halliburton Field, OK
    (Lat. 34[deg]28'17'' N, long. 97[deg]57'36'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Halliburton Field, and within 4.0 miles
each side of the 359[deg] bearing from the airport extending from
the 6.6-mile radius to 11.6 miles north of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 5, 2018.
Christopher L. Southerland,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-04925 Filed 3-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 141 (Wednesday, July 22, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 44337]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15800]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

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

Extension:
    Rule 17g-1and Form NRSRO SEC File No. 270-563, OMB Control No.
3235-0625

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the existing
collection of information provided for in Rule 17g-1, Form NRSRO and
Instructions to Form NRSRO under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.).\1\ The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 17 CFR 240.17g-1 and 17 CFR 249b.300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 17g-1, Form NRSRO and the Instructions to Form NRSRO contain
certain recordkeeping and disclosure requirements for NRSROs.
Currently, there are 9 credit rating agencies registered as NRSROs with
the Commission. The Commission estimates that the total burden for
respondents to comply with Rule 17g-1 and Form NRSRO is 4,160 hours,
which includes one-time reporting burdens for new registration
applications, registration for additional categories of credit ratings,
withdrawals of NRSRO applications, and withdrawals of NRSRO
registration.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information on
respondents; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on respondents, including through the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in
writing within 60 days of this publication.
    The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No
person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a
valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
    Please direct your written comments to: Dave Bottom, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Cynthia
Roscoe, 100 F St. NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 16, 2020.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-15800 Filed 7-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P