[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 49140]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19580]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72835; File No. SR-MIAX-2014-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission
Action on a Proposed Rule Change To List and Trade Options on Shares of
the iShare ETFs

August 13, 2014.
    On June 17, 2014, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC
(``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4
thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to list and trade on the Exchange
options on shares of the iShares MSCI Brazil Capped ETF, iShares MSCI
Chile Capped ETF, iShares MSCI Peru Capped ETF, and iShares MSCI Spain
Capped ETF (collectively ``iShare ETFs''). The proposed rule change was
published for comment in the Federal Register on July 3, 2014.\3\ No
comments were received on the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72492 (June 27,
2014), 79 FR 38099.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day for this filing is August 17, 2014. The Commission is
extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider this proposed rule change. The proposed
rule change, if approved, would allow the Exchange to list for trading
options on shares of the iShare ETFs for which the Exchange has not
entered into comprehensive surveillance sharing agreements with the
underlying foreign markets.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ designates October 1, 2014, as the date by which the Commission
should either approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-
MIAX-2014-30).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-19580 Filed 8-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 59 (Friday, March 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16379-16381]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06939]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0058; FRL-9922-78]

Registration Review; Draft Human Health and/or Ecological Risk
Assessment; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's draft human
health and/or ecological risk assessment for the registration review of
propoxycarbazone-sodium, and opens a public comment period on this
document. Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide
registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the
statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform
its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human
health or the environment. As part of the registration review process,
the Agency has completed a comprehensive draft human health and
ecological risk assessment for all uses of the previously listed
pesticide chemical. The ecological risk assessment includes or will
include an assessment of risks to listed species, and the human health
and ecological risk assessments includes or will include a
determination of endocrine disrupter effects for the case. After
reviewing comments received during the public comment period, EPA may
issue revised risk assessments, explain any changes to the draft risk
assessments, and respond to comments. The Agency also will request
public input on any proposed risk mitigation measures before completing
a proposed registration review decision for the previously listed
pesticide chemical. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each
pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other
knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment
registration is based on current

scientific and other knowledge, including its effects on human health
and the environment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 26, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0058, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC) (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For pesticide specific information
contact: Chemical Review Manager identified in the table in Unit III.A.
for the pesticide of interest.
    For general questions on the registration review program, contact:
Richard Dumas, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

 A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the Chemical Review Manager listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes 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.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of dimethoate,
flurprimido, fosamine ammonium, propoxur, propoxycarbazone-sodium, and
tetrachlorvinphos pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural Regulations
for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of
FIFRA provides, among other things, that the registrations of
pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under FIFRA, a pesticide
product may be registered or remain registered only if it meets the
statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA section 3(c)(5) (7
U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with widespread and
commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must perform its
intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the
use of a pesticide in or on food.

III. Registration Reviews

    As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide
registration for propoxycarbazone-sodium to ensure that it continues to
satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration--that is, this pesticide
can still be used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health
or the environment. Information on the type of pesticide, target pests
and uses sites can be found later in this document. EPA has completed
draft human health and/or ecological risk assessments for all
propoxycarbazone-sodium, uses.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c), EPA is providing an opportunity,
through this notice of availability, for interested parties to provide
comments and input concerning the Agency's draft human health and
ecological risk assessment for propoxycarbazone-sodium. Such comments
and input could address, among other things, the Agency's risk
assessment methodologies and assumptions, as applied to this draft risk
assessment. The Agency will consider all comments received during the
public comment period and make changes, as appropriate, to the draft
human health and ecological risk assessments. EPA will then, as needed,
issue revised risk assessments, explain any changes to the draft risk
assessments, and respond to the comments. In the Federal Register
notice announcing the availability of the revised risk assessments, if
a revised risk assessment indicates risks of concern, the Agency may
provide a comment period for the public to submit suggestions for
mitigating the risks identified in the revised risk assessment before
developing a proposed registration review decision. Alternatively, the
Agency may seek public comment on a proposed registration review
decision without revising the risk assessments for any given chemical.
At present, EPA is releasing registration review draft risk assessments
for the pesticide case identified in the following table and further
described after the table.

                                Table--Registration Review Draft Risk Assessments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Chemical review
                                                                                manager, telephone
Registration review case name and No.               Pesticide docket ID No.                 number, and email
                                                                                address
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Propoxycarbazone-sodium (Case 7264)..  EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0095............................  Lata Venkateshwara,
<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Propoxycarbazone-sodium (Draft Risk Assessments). The registration
review docket for propoxycarbazone-sodium (EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0095) is
opening for public comment on the Preliminary Work Plan (PWP), the
combined summary document and draft human health risk assessment, and
the combined problem formulation and draft ecological risk assessment.
Propoxycarbazone-sodium is a selective post-emergence herbicide
belonging to the sulfonamide class of herbicides. It is formulated as a
water dispersible granule, and is currently registered for use in
control of certain grasses and broadleaf weeds in wheat, triticale,
pastureland, rangeland, and conservation reserve program. There are no
registered residential uses. EPA has completed comprehensive draft
human health and draft ecological risk assessments for all
propoxycarbazone-sodium uses.
    1. Other related information. Additional information on
propoxycarbazone-sodium is available on the Pesticide Registration
Review Status Web page for this pesticide, http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/chemicalsearch/. Information on the Agency's registration
review program and its implementing regulation is available at http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review.
    2. Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or
information in response to this document. To be considered during a
pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must
meet the following requirements:
     To ensure that EPA will consider data or information
submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information
during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider
data or information submitted at a later date.
     The data or information submitted must be presented in a
legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must
accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript
must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or
videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or
electronic form.
     Submitters must clearly identify the source of any
submitted data or information.
     Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or
information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However,
submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider
the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.
    As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for
each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the
duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions
required in the final decision on the registration review case have
been completed.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: March 13, 2015.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2015-06939 Filed 3-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48946-48949]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19539]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 27

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0596; Special Conditions No. 27-035-SC]

Special Conditions: Robinson Model R66 Helicopter, Sec.  27.1309,
Installation of HeliSAS Autopilot and Stabilization Augmentation System
(AP/SAS)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the modification of
the Robinson Helicopter Company Model R66 helicopter. This model
helicopter will have a novel or unusual design feature after
installation of the HeliSAS helicopter autopilot/stabilization
augmentation system (AP/SAS) that has potential failure conditions with
more severe adverse consequences than those envisioned by the existing
applicable airworthiness regulations. These special conditions contain
the added safety standards the Administrator considers necessary to
ensure the failures and their effects are sufficiently analyzed and
contained.

DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is August 7,
2014. We must receive your comments on or before October 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number [FAA-2014-0596]
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery of Courier: Deliver comments to the Docket
Operations, in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information
the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web
site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all comments
received into any FAA docket, including the name of the individual
sending the comment (or signing the comment for an association,
business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can
be found in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Wiley, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, Rotorcraft Directorate, Regulations and Policy Group (ASW-111),
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Reason for No Prior Notice and Comment Before Adoption

    The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for public
comment are unnecessary because the substance of these special
conditions has been subjected to the notice and comment period
previously and has been derived without substantive change from those
previously issued. As it is unlikely that we will receive new comments,
the FAA finds that good cause exists for making these special
conditions effective upon issuance.

Comments Invited

    While we did not precede this with a notice of proposed special
conditions, we invite interested people to take part in this action by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do
so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special
conditions based on the comments we receive.
    If you want us to let you know we received your mailed comments on
these special conditions, send us a pre-addressed, stamped postcard on
which the docket number appears. We will stamp the date on the postcard
and mail it back to you.

Background

    On July 11, 2014, the Robinson Helicopter Company applied to amend
type certificate (TC) Number R00015LA to install a HeliSAS AP/SAS on
the Robinson Helicopter Company model R66 helicopter. The Robinson
Helicopter Company model R66 helicopter is a 14 CFR part 27 normal
category, single turbine engine, conventional helicopter designed for
civil operation. This helicopter model is capable of carrying up to
four passengers with one pilot, and has a maximum gross weight of up to
2,700 pounds, depending on the model configuration. The major design
features include a 2-blade, fully articulated main rotor, an anti-
torque tail rotor system, a skid landing gear, and a visual flight rule
basic avionics configuration. Robinson Helicopter Company proposes to
modify this model helicopter by installing a two-axis HeliSAS AP/SAS.

Type Certification Basis

    Under 14 CFR 21.101, the Robinson Helicopter Company must show that
the model R66 helicopter, as modified by the installed HeliSAS AP/SAS,
continues to meet the applicable regulations in effect on the date of
application for the change to the type certificate. The baseline of the
certification basis for the unmodified Robinson Helicopter Company
model R66 helicopter is listed in TC Number R00015LA. Additionally,
compliance must be shown to any applicable equivalent level of safety
findings, exemptions, and special conditions prescribed by the
Administrator as part of the certification basis.
    The Administrator has determined the applicable airworthiness
regulations (that is, 14 CFR part 27), as they pertain to this amended
TC, do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the
Robinson Helicopter Company model R66 helicopter because of a novel or
unusual design feature. Therefore, special conditions are prescribed
under Sec.  21.16.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Robinson Helicopter Company must show compliance of the
HeliSAS AP/SAS amended TC altered model R66 helicopter with the noise
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in Sec.  11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38 and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101(d).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The HeliSAS AP/SAS incorporates novel or unusual design features
for installation in a Robinson Helicopter Company model R66 helicopter,
TC Number R00015LA. This HeliSAS AP/SAS performs non-critical control
functions. However, the possible failure conditions for this system,
and their effect on the continued safe flight and landing of the
helicopter, are more severe than those envisioned by the present rules.

Discussion

    The effect on safety is not adequately covered under Sec.  27.1309
for the application of new technology and new application of standard
technology. Specifically, the present provisions of Sec.  27.1309(c) do
not adequately address the safety requirements for systems whose
failures could result in catastrophic or hazardous/severe-major failure
conditions, or for complex systems whose failures could result in major
failure conditions. The current regulations are inadequate because when
Sec.  27.1309(c) were promulgated, it was not envisioned that this type
of rotorcraft would use systems that are complex or whose failure could
result in ``catastrophic'' or ``hazardous/severe-major'' effects on the
rotorcraft. This is particularly true with the application of new
technology, new application of standard technology, or other
applications not envisioned by the rule that affect safety.
    To comply with the provisions of the special conditions, we require
that Robinson Helicopter Company provide the FAA with a systems safety
assessment (SSA) for the final HeliSAS AP/SAS installation
configuration that will adequately address the safety objectives
established by a functional hazard assessment (FHA) and a preliminary
system safety assessment (PSSA), including the fault tree analysis
(FTA). This will ensure that all failure conditions and their resulting
effects are adequately addressed for the installed HeliSAS AP/SAS. The
SSA process, FHA, PSSA, and FTA are all parts of the overall safety
assessment process discussed in FAA Advisory Circular 27-1B
(Certification of Normal Category Rotorcraft) and Society of Automotive
Engineers document Aerospace Recommended Practice 4761 (Guidelines and
Methods for Conducting the Safety Assessment Process on Civil Airborne
Systems and Equipment).
    These special conditions require that the HeliSAS AP/SAS installed
on Robinson Helicopter Company model R66 helicopter meet the
requirements to adequately address the failure effects identified by
the FHA, and subsequently verified by the SSA, within the defined
design integrity requirements.
    Failure Condition Categories. Failure conditions are classified,
according to the severity of their effects on the rotorcraft, into one
of the following categories:
    1. No Effect. Failure conditions that would have no effect on
safety. For example, failure conditions that would not affect the
operational capability of the rotorcraft or increase crew workload;
however, could result in an inconvenience to the occupants, excluding
the flight crew.
    2. Minor. Failure conditions which would not significantly reduce
rotorcraft safety, and which would involve crew actions that are well
within their capabilities. Minor failure conditions would include, for
example, a slight reduction in safety margins or functional
capabilities, a slight increase in crew workload such as routine flight
plan changes or result in some physical discomfort to occupants.
    3. Major. Failure conditions which would reduce the capability of
the rotorcraft or the ability of the crew to

cope with adverse operating conditions to the extent that there would
be, for example, a significant reduction in safety margins or
functional capabilities, a significant increase in crew workload or
result in impairing crew efficiency, physical distress to occupants,
including injuries, or physical discomfort to the flight crew.
    4. Hazardous/Severe-Major.
    a. Failure conditions which would reduce the capability of the
rotorcraft or the ability of the crew to cope with adverse operating
conditions to the extent that there would be:
    (1) a large reduction in safety margins or functional capabilities;
    (2) physical distress or excessive workload that would impair the
flight crew's ability to the extent that they could not be relied on to
perform their tasks accurately or completely; or
    (3) possible serious or fatal injury to a passenger or a cabin
crewmember, excluding the flight crew.
    b. ``Hazardous/severe-major'' failure conditions can include events
that are manageable by the crew by the use of proper procedures, which,
if not implemented correctly or in a timely manner, may result in a
catastrophic event.
    5. Catastrophic--Failure conditions which would result in multiple
fatalities to occupants, fatalities or incapacitation to the flight
crew, or result in loss of the rotorcraft.
    Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics, Inc. (RTCA) Document
DO-178C (Software Considerations in Airborne Systems And Equipment
Certification) provides software design assurance levels most commonly
used for the major, hazardous/severe-major, and catastrophic failure
condition categories. The HeliSAS AP/SAS system equipment must be
qualified for the expected installation environment. The test
procedures prescribed in RTCA Document DO-160G (Environmental
Conditions and Test Procedures for Airborne Equipment) are recognized
by the FAA as acceptable methodologies for finding compliance with the
environmental requirements. Equivalent environment test standards may
also be acceptable. This is to show that the HeliSAS AP/SAS system
performs its intended function under any foreseeable operating
condition, which includes the expected environment in which the HeliSAS
AP/SAS is intended to operate. Some of the main considerations for
environmental concerns are installation locations and the resulting
exposure to environmental conditions for the HeliSAS AP/SAS system
equipment, including considerations for other equipment that may be
affected environmentally by the HeliSAS AP/SAS equipment installation.
The level of environmental qualification must be related to the
severity of the considered failure conditions and effects on the
rotorcraft.

Applicability

    These special conditions are applicable to the HeliSAS AP/SAS
installed as an amended TC approval in Robinson Helicopter Company
model R66 helicopter, TC Number R00015LA.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
for a HeliSAS AP/SAS amended TC installed on one model helicopter. It
is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant
who applied to the FAA for approval of these features.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 27

    Aircraft, Aviation safety.
    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7572, 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40105, 40113,
44701-44702, 44704, 44709, 44711, 44713, 44715, 45303.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the Robinson Helicopter Company amended type certificate basis for the
installation of a HeliSAS helicopter autopilot/stabilization
augmentation system (AP/SAS) on the model R66 helicopter, Type
Certificate Number R00015LA. In addition to the requirements of Sec.
27.1309(c), HeliSAS AP/SAS installations on Robinson Helicopter company
model R66 helicopter must be designed and installed so that the failure
conditions identified in the functional hazard assessment (FHA) and
verified by the system safety assessment (SSA), after design
completion, are adequately addressed in accordance with the following
requirements.

Requirements

    The Robinson Helicopter Company must comply with the existing
requirements of Sec.  27.1309 for all applicable design and operational
aspects of the HeliSAS AP/SAS with the failure condition categories of
``no effect,'' and ``minor,'' and for non-complex systems whose failure
condition category is classified as ``major.'' The Robinson Helicopter
Company must comply with the requirements of these special conditions
for all applicable design and operational aspects of the HeliSAS AP/SAS
with the failure condition categories of ``catastrophic'' and
``hazardous severe/major,'' and for complex systems whose failure
condition category is classified as ``major.'' A complex system is a
system whose operations, failure conditions, or failure effects are
difficult to comprehend without the aid of analytical methods (for
example, FTA, Failure Modes and Effect Analysis, FHA).

System Design Integrity Requirements

    Each of the failure condition categories defined in these special
conditions relate to the corresponding aircraft system integrity
requirements. The system design integrity requirements for the HeliSAS
AP/SAS, as they relate to the allowed probability of occurrence for
each failure condition category and the proposed software design
assurance level, are as follows:
    1. ``Major''--For systems with ``major'' failure conditions,
failures resulting in these major effects must be shown to be remote, a
probability of occurrence on the order of between 1 x 10-\5\
to 1 x 10-\7\ failures/hour, and associated software must be
developed, at a minimum, to the Level C software design assurance
level.
    2. ``Hazardous/Severe-Major''--For systems with ``hazardous/severe-
major'' failure conditions, failures resulting in these hazardous/
severe-major effects must be shown to be extremely remote, a
probability of occurrence on the order of between 1 x 10-\7\
to 1 x 10-\9\ failures/hour, and associated software must be
developed, at a minimum, to the Level B software design assurance
level.
    3. ``Catastrophic''--For systems with ``catastrophic'' failure
conditions, failures resulting in these catastrophic effects must be
shown to be extremely improbable, a probability of occurrence on the
order of 1 x 10-\9\ failures/hour or less, and associated
software must be developed, at a minimum, to the Level A design
assurance level.

System Design Environmental Requirements

    The HeliSAS AP/SAS system equipment must be qualified to the
appropriate environmental level for all relevant aspects to show that
it performs its intended function under any foreseeable operating
condition, including the expected environment in which the HeliSAS AP/
SAS is intended to operate. Some of the main considerations for
environmental concerns are installation locations and the resulting
exposure to environmental conditions for the HeliSAS AP/SAS system
equipment, including

considerations for other equipment that may be affected environmentally
by the HeliSAS AP/SAS equipment installation. The level of
environmental qualification must be related to the severity of the
considered failure conditions and effects on the rotorcraft.

Test and Analysis Requirements

    Compliance with the requirements of these special conditions may be
shown by a variety of methods, which typically consist of analysis,
flight tests, ground tests, and simulation, as a minimum. Compliance
methodology is related to the associated failure condition category. If
the HeliSAS AP/SAS is a complex system, compliance with the
requirements for failure conditions classified as ``major'' may be
shown by analysis, in combination with appropriate testing to validate
the analysis. Compliance with the requirements for failure conditions
classified as ``hazardous/severe-major'' may be shown by flight-testing
in combination with analysis and simulation, and the appropriate
testing to validate the analysis. Flight tests may be limited for
``hazardous/severe-major'' failure conditions and effects due to safety
considerations. Compliance with the requirements for failure conditions
classified as ``catastrophic'' may be shown by analysis, and
appropriate testing in combination with simulation to validate the
analysis. Very limited flight tests in combination with simulation are
used as a part of a showing of compliance for ``catastrophic'' failure
conditions. Flight tests are performed only in circumstances that use
operational variations, or extrapolations from other flight performance
aspects to address flight safety.
    These special conditions require that the HeliSAS AP/SAS system
installed on a Robinson Helicopter Company model R66 helicopter, Type
Certificate Number R00015LA, meet these requirements to adequately
address the failure effects identified by the FHA, and subsequently
verified by the SSA, within the defined design system integrity
requirements.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on August 7, 2014.
Lance T. Gant,
Acting Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-19539 Filed 8-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 146 (Tuesday, August 1, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50138-50139]
[FR Doc No: 2023-16233]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas and Oil Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP23-910-000.
    Applicants: Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Update to GT&C Section 6 to be
effective 6/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 7/25/23.
    Accession Number: 20230725-5094.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/7/23.

    Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a
complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with
Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the
specified comment date. Protests may be

considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Commission's Office of Public Participation
(OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in
Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including
landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and
others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission
processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such
as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: July 25, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-16233 Filed 7-31-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 13, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 50)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13494-13496]
[DOCID:fr13mr08-18]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0292; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-286-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Model EMB-135BJ and EMB-145XR Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated 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:

    It has been found that in case of fuel leakage inside the
conduit used to route the clear ice detector wiring through the wing
fuel tank, it is possible to have fuel accumulation inside the
conduit due to application of wiring protection sealant in the
conduit end. The absence of fuel leakage detectability into the
clear ice detector wiring conduit, associated with an ignition
source, could result in fire or explosion inside the tank.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-40, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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 proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1405; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2008-0292;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-286-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC),
which is the aviation authority for Brazil, has issued Brazilian
Airworthiness Directive 2007-02-03, effective March 15, 2007 (referred
to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    It has been found that in case of fuel leakage inside the
conduit used to route the clear ice detector wiring through the wing
fuel tank, it is possible to have fuel accumulation inside the
conduit due to application of wiring protection sealant in the
conduit end. The absence of fuel leakage detectability into the
clear ice detector wiring conduit, associated with an ignition
source, could result in fire or explosion inside the tank.

Corrective action includes removing the sealant used to protect the
wiring conduits of the left- and right-hand clear ice detectors at the
holes through the wing spars, and installing protective Teflon spiral
around the wiring. You

may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Embraer has issued Service Bulletins 145-30-0048 and 145LEG-30-
0015, both dated March 31, 2006. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 142 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that
it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the basic
requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per
work-hour. Required parts cost would be negligible. Where the service
information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty,
we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do
not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may
incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we
estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $34,080,
or $240 per product.

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 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 this 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.

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

Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER): Docket No. FAA-
2008-0292; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-286-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by April 14, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to EMBRAER Model EMB-135BJ and EMB-145XR
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Embraer
Service Bulletins 145-30-0048 and 145LEG-30-0015, both dated March
31, 2006.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30: Ice and
Rain Protection.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    It has been found that in case of fuel leakage inside the
conduit used to route the clear ice detector wiring through the wing
fuel tank, it is possible to have fuel accumulation inside the
conduit due to application of wiring protection sealant in the
conduit end. The absence of fuel leakage detectability into the
clear ice detector wiring conduit, associated with an ignition
source, could result in fire or explosion inside the tank.

Corrective action includes removing the sealant used to protect the
wiring conduits of the left-hand (LH) and right-hand (RH) clear ice
detectors at the holes through the wing spars, and installing
protective Teflon spiral around the wiring.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) At the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph
(f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, unless already done, remove the sealant
used to protect the LH and RH clear ice detectors wiring conduits at
the holes through the wing spars and install protective Teflon
spiral; in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Embraer Service Bulletin 145-30-0048 or 145LEG-30-0015, both dated
March 31, 2006; as applicable.
    (1) For Model EMB-135BJ airplanes: Within 4,000 flight hours or
48 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
first.
    (2) For Model EMB-145XR airplanes: Within 5,000 flight hours or
48 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs
first.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows. The MCAI specifies a compliance time of ``5,000 flight
hours'' for all affected airplanes. This AD requires a compliance
time of ``5,000 flight hours'' for Model EMB-145XR airplanes, and

``4,000 flight hours'' for Model EMB-135BJ airplanes. This
difference has been coordinated with ANAC.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN:
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
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.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2007-02-03,
effective March 15, 2007; Embraer Service Bulletin 145-30-0048,
dated March 31, 2006; and Embraer Service Bulletin 145LEG-30-0015,
dated March 31, 2006; for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 3, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-5002 Filed 3-12-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P