[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 123 (Thursday, June 26, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36324-36325]
[FR Doc No: 2014-14921]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0001]

Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on August 14, 2014, from 8
a.m. to 4 p.m.
    Location: FDA White Oak Campus, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 31
Conference Center, the Great Room (rm. 1503), Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002. Information regarding special accommodations due to a disability,
visitor parking, and transportation may be accessed at: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm; under the heading
``Resources for You,'' click on ``Public Meetings at the FDA White Oak
Campus.'' Please note that visitors to the White Oak Campus must enter
through Building 1.
    Contact Person: Cindy Hong, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
31, rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX: 301-847-
8533, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information
Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area). A
notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that
impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always
be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the Agency's Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm and scroll down to the appropriate
advisory committee meeting link, or call the advisory committee
information line to learn about possible modifications before coming to
the meeting.
    Agenda: The committee will discuss new drug application (NDA)
21936, for tiotropium bromide inhalation spray, submitted by Boehringer
Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., for the long-term, once-daily
maintenance treatment of bronchospasm associated with chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and for reducing COPD
exacerbations. The discussion will include efficacy data, including the
data to support the claim for reduction of COPD exacerbations, but the
focus will be on safety findings from the clinical development program
and the results of a large safety trial comparing tiotropium bromide
inhalation spray and tiotropium bromide inhalation powder.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee meeting
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before July
31, 2014. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
approximately 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. Those individuals interested in making
formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a
brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they
wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and
an indication of the approximate time requested to make their
presentation on or before July 23, 2014. Time allotted for each
presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to
speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the
scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to
determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session.
The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their
request to speak by July 24, 2014.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Cindy Hong at least
7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: June 20, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-14921 Filed 6-25-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4623-4625]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1960]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0013]

Wheego Electric Cars, Inc. Receipt of Petition for Temporary
Exemption From the Electronic Stability Control Requirements of FMVSS
No. 126

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

ACTION: Notice of receipt of a petition for temporary exemption from
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 126, Electronic
Stability Control Systems.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures in 49 CFR part 555, Wheego
Electric Cars, Inc., has petitioned the agency for a temporary
exemption from the electronic stability control requirements of FMVSS
No. 126. The basis for the application is that the petitioner avers
that the exemption would make the development or field evaluation of a
low-emission vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower the safety
level of that vehicle.\1\ This notice of receipt of an application for
a temporary exemption is published in accordance with statutory and
administrative provisions. NHTSA has made no judgment on the merits of
the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the application and its supplement, go to http://www.regulations.gov and enter the docket number set forth in the
heading of this document.

DATES: You should submit your comments not later than February 29,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Jasinski, Office of the Chief
Counsel, NCC-112, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building 4th Floor, Room W41-213,
Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

ADDRESSES: We invite you to submit comments on the application
described above. You may submit comments identified by docket number at
the heading of this notice by any of the following methods:
     Web Site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments on the electronic docket site by
clicking on ``Help and Information'' or ``Help/Info.''
     Fax: 1<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-

30, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. Please see the Privacy Act discussion below. We
will consider all comments received before the close of business on the
comment closing date indicated above. To the extent possible, we will
also consider comments filed after the closing date.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
    Confidential Business Information: If you wish to submit any
information under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three
copies of your complete submission, including the information you claim
to be confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA,
at the address given under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In
addition, you should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the
claimed confidential business information, to Docket Management at the
address given above. When you send a comment containing information
claimed to be confidential business information, you should include a
cover letter setting forth the information specified in our
confidential business information regulation (49 CFR Part 512).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Statutory Basis for Temporary Exemptions

    The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act),
codified as 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301, authorizes the Secretary of
Transportation to exempt, on a temporary basis and under specified
circumstances, motor vehicles from a motor vehicle safety standard or
bumper standard. This authority is set forth at 49 U.S.C. 30113. The
Secretary has delegated the authority in this section to NHTSA.
    NHTSA established 49 CFR part 555, Temporary Exemption from Motor
Vehicle Safety and Bumper Standards, to implement the statutory
provisions concerning temporary exemptions. A vehicle manufacturer
wishing to obtain an exemption from a standard must demonstrate in its
application (A) that an exemption would be in the public interest and
consistent with the Safety Act and (B) that the manufacturer satisfies
one of the following four bases for an exemption: (i) Compliance with
the standard would cause substantial economic hardship to a
manufacturer that has tried to comply with the standard in good faith;
(ii) the exemption would make easier the development or field
evaluation of a new motor vehicle safety feature providing a safety
level at least equal to the safety level of the standard; (iii) the
exemption would make the development or field evaluation of a low-
emission motor vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower the
safety level of that vehicle; or (iv) compliance with the standard
would prevent the manufacturer from selling a motor vehicle with an
overall safety level at least equal to the overall safety level of
nonexempt vehicles.
    For an exemption petition to be granted on the basis that the
exemption would make the development or field evaluation of a low-
emission motor vehicle easier and would not unreasonably lower the
safety level of the vehicle, the petition must include specified
information set forth at 49 CFR 555.6(c). The main requirements of that
section include: (1) Substantiation that the vehicle is a low-emission
vehicle; (2) documentation establishing that a temporary exemption
would not unreasonably degrade the safety of a vehicle; (3)
substantiation that a temporary exemption would facilitate the
development or field evaluation of the vehicle; (4) a statement of
whether the petitioner intends to conform to the standard at the end of
the exemption period; and (5) a statement that not more than 2,500
exempted vehicles will be sold in the United States in any 12-month
period for which an exemption may be granted.

II. Electronic Stability Control Systems Requirement

    In April 2007, NHTSA published a final rule requiring that vehicles
with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kilograms (kg) (10,000
pounds) or less be equipped with electronic stability control (ESC)
systems. ESC systems use automatic computer-controlled braking of
individual wheels to assist the driver in maintaining control in
critical driving situations in which the vehicle is beginning to lose
directional stability at the rear wheels (spin out) or directional
control at the front wheels (plow out). An anti-lock brake system (ABS)
is a prerequisite for an ESC system because ESC uses many of the same
components as ABS. Thus, the cost of complying with FMVSS No. 126 is
less for vehicle models already equipped with ABS.
    Preventing single-vehicle loss-of-control crashes is the most
effective way to reduce deaths resulting from rollover crashes. This is
because most loss-of-control crashes culminate in the vehicle leaving
the roadway, which dramatically increases the probability of a
rollover. NHTSA's crash data study of existing vehicles equipped with
ESC demonstrated that these systems reduce fatal single-vehicle crashes
of passenger cars by 55 percent and fatal single-vehicle crashes of
light trucks and vans (LTVs) by 50 percent.\2\ NHTSA estimates that ESC
has the potential to prevent 56 percent of the fatal passenger car
rollovers and 74 percent of the fatal LTV first-event rollovers that
would otherwise occur in single-vehicle crashes.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Sivinski, R., Crash Prevention Effectiveness of Light-
Vehicle Electronic Stability Control: An Update of the 2007 NHTSA
Evaluation; DOT HS 811 486 (June 2011).
    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ESC requirement became effective for substantially all vehicles
on September 1, 2011.

III. Overview of Petition

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30113 and the procedures in 49 CFR
Part 555, Wheego Electric Cars, Inc. (Wheego) submitted a petition
dated August 15, 2011 asking the agency for a temporary exemption from
the electronic stability control requirements of FMVSS No. 126. Wheego
submitted a supplement to its application by letter dated December 2,
2011. The basis for the application is that the exemption would make
the development or field evaluation of a low-emission vehicle easier
and would not unreasonably lower the safety level

of that vehicle. Wheego has requested an exemption for the LiFe model
until August 1, 2012.
    Wheego is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Atlanta,
Georgia. Wheego began manufacturing and selling low-speed electric
vehicles in the U.S. in June 2009. In April 2011, Wheego began
manufacturing its first all-electric passenger car, the two-door, two-
seat LiFe model. Wheego also states that it is developing a four-door
passenger vehicle for sale in late 2012.
    In February 2011, Wheego was granted a temporary exemption from the
advanced air bag requirements of FMVSS No. 208, Occupant Crash
Protection, that is effective until February 11, 2013.\4\ Wheego states
that it plans to meet all other currently applicable FMVSSs for a
passenger car.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 76 FR 7898 (Feb. 11, 2011); Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wheego asserts that the company had intended to develop an ESC
system for the LiFe. However, Wheego asserts that delays in funding and
later developments made it impossible for Wheego to develop an ESC
system for the LiFe before September 2011. Wheego requests an exemption
from the ESC requirements until August 1, 2012 for up to 500 vehicles
so that it can continue its development and evaluation of a low-
emission vehicle.\5\ Wheego states that the company intends to comply
with FMVSS No. 126 at the end of the exemption period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Wheego initially requested an exemption for up to 1,000
vehicles, but later amended its petition to request no more than 500
exempted vehicles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wheego asserts that a temporary exemption would not unreasonably
degrade the safety or impact protection of the vehicle. Wheego states
that the LiFe has an ABS system that prevents loss of control by
preventing the wheels from locking up and the tires from skidding
during braking. Wheego also asserts that its standard tires are wide
with wide, circumferential grooves that provide rapid water evacuation
to aid wet traction. Wheego notes that the LiFe is limited to a top
speed of 65 mph, which may contribute to a reduction of crashes
associated with high speeds. Wheego also states that the LiFe has a low
center of gravity with 762 pounds of batteries beneath the floorboard
of the vehicle. Further, Wheego argues that the relatively limited
range of the LiFe compared to gasoline-powered vehicles (100 miles
before needing a charge) makes it less likely that a LiFe would be
involved in a high-speed or rollover crash. Wheego also asserts that
the relatively small number of vehicles that would be produced under
the exemption suggests that the exemption would have a negligible
effect on vehicle safety.
    Wheego argues that an exemption would make the development or field
evaluation of a low-emission vehicle easier. Wheego states that it
would be able to use consumer feedback and other testing and evaluation
to improve design and efficiency to improve charging, battery
management, and safety systems in future vehicle models. Wheego states
that, without the exemption, the company would not be able to produce
enough cars or revenue to sustain these developments or to launch a new
vehicle model. Wheego also believes that its success can add to the
overall development of low-emission vehicles as a whole by
demonstrating the viability of electric cars to consumers and
encouraging other manufacturers to build electric cars.
    Wheego also asserts that the granting of the exemption would be in
the public interest. Wheego notes that NHTSA has traditionally found
that the public interest is served by affording consumers a wider
variety of motor vehicles, by encouraging the development of fuel-
efficient and alternative-energy vehicles, and by providing additional
employment opportunities. Wheego asserts that granting this petition
serves each of those interests.

IV. Completeness and Comment Period

    Upon receiving a petition, NHTSA conducts an initial review of the
petition with respect to whether the petition is complete and whether
the petitioner appears to be eligible to apply for the requested
petition. The agency has tentatively concluded that the petition from
Wheego is complete and that Wheego is eligible to apply for a temporary
exemption. The agency has not made any judgment on the merits of the
application, and is placing a non-confidential copy of the petition in
the docket.
    The agency seeks comment from the public on the merits of Wheego's
application for a temporary exemption from FMVSS No. 126. We are
providing a 30-day comment period. After considering public comments
and other available information, we will publish a notice of final
action on the application in the Federal Register.

    Issued on: January 24, 2012.
Christopher J. Bonanti,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-1960 Filed 1-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 102 (Thursday, May 26, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30529-30531]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13014]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0994; Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-39-AD;
Amendment 39-16707; AD 2011-11-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-535 Series
Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

    There have been several findings of cracking at the firtrees of
LP Turbine discs. Fatigue crack initiation and subsequent crack
propagation at the firtree may result in multiple LP Turbine blade
release. The latter may potentially be beyond the containment
capabilities of the engine casings. Thus, cracking at the firtrees
of LP Turbine discs constitutes a potentially unsafe condition.

We are issuing this AD to detect cracks in the low-pressure (LP)
turbine stage 1, 2, and 3 discs, which could result in an uncontained
release of LP turbine blades and damage to the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective June 30, 2011.

ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground

Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Frederick Zink, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on October 5, 2010 (75
FR 61361). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    There have been several findings of cracking at the firtrees of
LP Turbine discs. Fatigue crack initiation and subsequent crack
propagation at the firtree may result in multiple LP Turbine blade
release. The latter may potentially be beyond the containment
capabilities of the engine casings. Thus, cracking at the firtrees
of LP Turbine discs constitutes a potentially unsafe condition.
    Therefore this Airworthiness Directive requires a change to the
inspection intervals of LP Turbine Discs.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Request To Change Related Information Paragraph

    One commenter, Rolls-Royce plc asked us to use a different
statement for Rolls-Royce contact information in paragraph (i) of the
proposed AD. Rolls-Royce is concerned that responses to requests for
information will be delayed if the statement is not clear on how to
request information on service bulletins.
    We partially agree. Paragraph (i) is now paragraph (j) of this AD,
and we have changed paragraph (j) of the AD to supply the relevant
contact information.

Support for the Proposed AD as Written

    Two commenters, Continental Airlines and The Boeing Company support
the proposed AD as written.

Request To Change the Definition of a Shop Visit

    Three commenters, FedEx, American Airlines, and Rolls-Royce plc
asked us to change the definition of a shop visit to the definition in
the Rolls-Royce Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) RB.211-72-AG272,''at every
engine refurbishment and at every 04 and 05 Module Level 3
(Refurbishment) or Level 4 (Overhaul) shop visit.'' The commenters
believed that the proposed AD definition of a shop visit is too
conservative and will result in unnecessarily increased costs without a
significant improvement in safety.
    We partially agree. We agree that the current definition in the
proposed AD is too broad because inspecting the LP turbine disks every
time an unrelated major flange is separated is not required. We
disagree with using the definition in the service bulletin because the
service bulletin definition is not sufficient for our needs. We changed
paragraph (f) of the proposed AD to ``For the purpose of this AD, an
``engine shop visit'' is the induction of an engine into the shop for
maintenance involving the separation of the intermediate-pressure/low-
pressure (IP/LP) turbine module from the engine, separation of the IP
turbine case from the combustion outer case, or separation of the LP
turbine case from the IP turbine case, except that the separation of
engine flanges solely for the purposes of transportation without
subsequent engine maintenance does not constitute an engine shop
visit.''

Request To Clarify the Compliance Time

    One commenter, American Airlines, asked us to clarify the
compliance time in paragraph (e)(1) of the proposed AD to state that
for engines currently in the shop on the effective date of the AD, the
initial inspection is to be carried out if the affected parts are
exposed and rebuild has not yet started. The commenter believed that
the proposed AD is unclear as to whether engines which have begun their
shop visits prior to the effective date of the AD are required to
undergo the initial inspection before re-introduction into service.
    We agree. Engines currently in the shop at piece part exposure or
in a condition prior to, must comply with the AD before any approval
for return to service. Engines built up beyond this point will not
require compliance with the AD until the next piece part exposure.
Engines that are in the shop and have been approved for return to
service are considered not to be in the shop. We changed paragraph (f)
of the proposed AD to clarify a shop visit.

Request To Change the Initial Inspection Requirements

    One commenter, American Airlines, asked us to change the initial
inspection requirements in paragraph (e)(1) of the proposed AD to
specify ``paragraphs 3.C through 3.E.'' in ASB RR.211-72-AG272, instead
of ``Section 3.'' The commenter believed that only Section 3.C. through
3.E. address the unsafe condition.
    We partially agree. The ASB we reference in paragraph (e)(1) of the
proposed AD is not incorporated by reference, so requiring operators to
follow specific paragraphs in the ASB is unnecessary. We agree,
however, that including the reference may induce confusion. We deleted
the reference from the proposed AD.

Request To Change the Costs of Compliance

    One commenter, American Airlines, asked us to change the Costs of
Compliance Section of the proposed AD. American Airlines stated the
number of 90 products installed on U.S. registered airplanes and the
number of work-hours for performing the inspections are incorrect.
American Airlines stated that they operate more RB211-535 engines than
the number listed in the proposed AD. American Airlines also stated
that ASB RB.211-72-AG272 lists the total hour for accomplishing the
required actions as 70 work-hours. American Airlines requests that the
AD reflect the work-hours required as 70 work-hours if limited to
refurbishment shop visits. If non-refurbishment shop visits are
included, American Airlines estimates the average work-hours at 1,300
hours per shop visit.
    We partially agree. As of July 9, 2010, 588 installed engines were
on U.S. registered airplanes. We changed the Costs of Compliance
Section from ``90 products of U.S. registry'' to ``588 products of U.S.
registry.'' We also changed the ``cost of the AD on U.S. operators''
from $229,500 to $1,499,400.
    We don't agree with the request to change the time to comply if
performed during non-refurbishment shop visits. We base the number of
hours in the cost estimate on performing the inspection during the next
shop visit as defined in this AD. We made no change to the AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
the AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these
changes will not increase the scope of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD would
affect about 588 products installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We
also estimate that it would take about 30 work-hours per product to
comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.

Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures,
we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be $1,499,400.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (phone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is provided in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2011-11-08 Rolls-Royce plc: Amendment 39-16707. Docket No. FAA-2010-
0994; Directorate Identifier 2009-NE-39-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective June 30,
2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc RB211-535E4-37, -535E4-B-
37, -535E4-B-75, and -535E4-C-37 turbofan engines. These engines are
installed on, but not limited to, Boeing 757-200 series, -200PF
series, -200CB series, and -300 series airplanes and Tupolev Tu204
series airplanes.

Reason

    (d) This AD results from several findings of cracking at the
firtrees of low-pressure (LP) turbine discs. Fatigue crack
initiation and subsequent crack propagation at the firtree may
result in multiple LP turbine blade release. We are issuing this AD
to detect cracks in the LP turbine stage 1, 2, and 3 discs, which
could result in an uncontained release of LP turbine blades and
damage to the airplane.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, do the following actions.

Initial Inspection Requirements

    (1) At the next engine shop visit after the effective date of
this AD, perform a visual and a fluorescent penetrant inspection
(FPI) of the LP turbine stage 1, 2, and 3 disc.

Repeat Inspection Requirements

    (2) At each engine shop visit after accumulating 1,500 cycles
since the last inspection of the LP turbine stage 1, 2 and 3 discs,
repeat the inspections specified in paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.

Remove Cracked Discs

    (3) If you find cracks, remove the disc from service.

Definitions

    (f) For the purpose of this AD, an ``engine shop visit'' is:
    (1) Induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance
involving the separation of the intermediate-pressure/low-pressure
(IP/LP) turbine module from the engine, or
    (2) Separation of the IP turbine case from the combustion outer
case, or
    (3) Separation of the LP turbine case from the IP turbine case,
except that the separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes
of transportation without subsequent engine maintenance does not
constitute an engine shop visit.
    (g) Engines that have been approved for return to service but
are still physically in the shop are not considered to be in the
shop.

FAA AD Differences

    (h) This AD differs from the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information (MCAI) and or service information as follows in that
while the MCAI compliance requires action at a current shop visit,
this AD requires compliance at the next shop visit after the
effective date of this AD.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19.

Related Information

    (j) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness
Directive 2009-0244, dated November 9, 2009, and Rolls-Royce plc
Alert Service Bulletin No. RB.211-72-AG272 for related information.
Contact Rolls-Royce plc., P.O. Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United
Kingdom; phone: 011 44 1332 242424, fax: 011 44 1332 249936; or e-
mail from:http://www.rollsroyce.com/contact/civil_team.jsp, for a
copy of this service information or download the publication from
https://www.aeromanager.com.
    (k) Contact Frederick Zink, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (781) 238-
7199, for more information about this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (l) None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on May 20, 2011.
Peter A. White,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-13014 Filed 5-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 133 (Friday, July 11, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39975-39976]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16275]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 168

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0607; FRL-9913-18]
RIN 2070-AJ53

Withdrawal of Labeling of Pesticide Products and Devices for
Export

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register of April 30, 2014, EPA published a
direct final rule amending the regulations that pertain to the labeling
of pesticide products and devices intended solely for export. In
accordance with the procedures described in the April 30, 2014 Federal
Register document, EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule, because
the Agency received adverse comments.

DATES: Effective July 11, 2014 the rule published in the Federal
Register of April 30, 2014 (79 FR 24347) (FRL-9909-82) is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathryn Boyle, Field and External
Affairs Division (7506P), 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. Does this action apply to me?

    A list of potentially affected entities is provided in the April
30, 2014 Federal Register document. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. What rule is being withdrawn?

    In the April 30, 2014 Federal Register document, EPA amended the
labeling regulations for pesticide products and devices intended solely
for export to allow placement of required information on collateral
labeling attached to a shipping container of such products rather than
on the label of each individual product in such a shipment by direct
final rule. In accordance with the procedures described in the April
30, 2014 Federal Register document, EPA is withdrawing the direct final
rule, because the Agency received adverse comments, copies of which are
available in the docket. Elsewhere in this Federal Register, EPA is
proposing a rule to seek public comment on the labeling regulations and
the issues raised by the adverse comments received.

III. How do I access the docket?

    To access the docket, please go to http://www.regulations.gov and
follow the online instructions using the docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2009-0607. Additional information about the Docket Facility is also
provided under ADDRESSES in the April 30, 2014 Federal Register
document. If you have questions, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

IV. Good Cause Finding

    EPA finds that there is ``good cause'' under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)) to withdraw the rule
discussed in this document without prior notice and comment. For this
document, notice and comment is impracticable and unnecessary because
EPA is under a time limit to publish this withdrawal. It was determined
that this document is not subject to the 30-day delay of effective date
generally required by 5 U.S.C. 553(d). This withdrawal must become
effective prior to the effective date of the rule being withdrawn.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This document withdraws regulatory requirements that have not gone
into effect. As such, the Agency has determined that this withdrawal
will not have any adverse impacts, economic or otherwise. The statutory
and Executive Order review requirements applicable to the rule being
withdrawn were discussed in the April 30, 2014 Federal Register
document. Those review requirements do not apply to this action because
it is a withdrawal and does not contain any new or amended
requirements.

VI. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    Pursuant to the CRA (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), EPA will submit a
report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General
of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). Section 808 of the CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule
effective sooner than otherwise provided by CRA if the agency makes a
good cause finding that notice and public procedure is impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. As required by 5
U.S.C. 808(2), this determination is supported by a brief statement in
Unit IV.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 168

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Advertising, Labeling, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: July 3, 2014.
James Jones,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2014-16275 Filed 7-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 5, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 42)]
[Notices]
[Page 9610-9611]
[DOCID:fr05mr09-40]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER09-666-000, ER09-667-000, ER09-668-000, ER09-669-000,
ER09-670-000, ER09-671-000]

EDFD Handsome Lake; EDFD Perryman; EDFD Keystone; EDFD Conemaugh;
EDFD C.P. Crane; EDFD West Valley; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

February 25, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
EDFD Handsome Lake's, EDFD Perryman's, EDFD Keystone's, EDFD
Conemaugh's, EDFD C.P. Crane's and EDFD West Valley's application for
market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting
that such application includes a request for blanket authorization,
under 18 CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions
of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal

Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC,
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a
motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on
the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is March 17, 2009.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC, 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list.
    They are also available for review in the Commission's Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the
Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-4706 Filed 3-4-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P