[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 17, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14528-14531]
[FR Doc No: 2021-05534]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0914; Product Identifier 2020-NM-058-AD; Amendment
39-21463; AD 2021-05-20]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2018-16-
02, which applied to all Airbus SAS Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes;
Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes; Model A320-211, -
212, -214, and -216 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212,
and -213 airplanes. AD 2018-16-02 required modifying and re-identifying
the 3-lug aft engine mount assemblies. This AD continues to require
modifying and re-identifying the 3-lug aft engine mount assemblies, and
also requires modifying and re-identifying the 4-lug aft engine mount
assemblies; as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. This AD was prompted by
a report of a production quality deficiency on the inner retainer
installed on link assemblies of the aft engine mount, which could
result in failure of the retainer. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective April 21, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 21,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
phone: +49 221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet:
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in
the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0914.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0914; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0085, dated April 6, 2020 (EASA
AD 2020-0085) (also referred to as the

Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to
correct an unsafe condition for all Airbus SAS Model A318-111 and -112
airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes; Model
A320-211, -212, -214, -215, and -216 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -
112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes. Model A320-215 airplanes are not
certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type
certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those
airplanes in the applicability.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2018-16-02, Amendment 39-19342 (83 FR
39326, August 9, 2018) (AD 2018-16-02). AD 2018-16-02 applied to all
Airbus SAS Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes, Model A319-111, -112, -
113, -114, and -115 airplanes, Model A320-211, -212, -214, and -216
airplanes, and Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes.
The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 14, 2020 (85 FR
64984). The NPRM was prompted by a report of a production quality
deficiency on the inner retainer installed on link assemblies of the
aft engine mount, which could result in failure of the retainer. The
NPRM proposed to continue to require modifying and re-identifying the
3-lug aft engine mount assemblies, as specified in an EASA AD. The NPRM
also proposed to require modifying and re-identifying the 4-lug aft
engine mount assemblies, as specified in an EASA AD.
    The FAA is issuing this AD to address non-conforming retainers of
the aft engine mount. This condition could result in loss of the
locking feature of the nuts of the inner and outer pins; loss of the
pins will result in the aft mount engine link no longer being secured
to the aft engine mount, possibly resulting in damage to the airplane.
See the MCAI for additional background information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) expressed
support for the NPRM.

Request for Consistency in Used Terms

    Delta Air Lines (DAL) requested that, for consistency, the FAA
remove the parenthesis around the terms 3-lug and 4-lug under the
Actions Since AD 2018-16-02 Was Issued heading in the NPRM. No further
justification was provided.
    The FAA agrees that the change would have provided consistency in
terminology. However, that portion of the NPRM is not restated in this
final rule; therefore, no change has been made to this final rule in
this regard.

Request To Remove Duplicate Wording

    DAL requested that the FAA revise the NPRM to remove duplicate
wording ``procedures for'' under the Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR
part 51 heading. DAL pointed out that the duplicate wording is a
typographical error.
    The FAA agrees for the reasons provided and has updated this final
rule accordingly.

Request To Clarify Whether Model CFM56-5B and -5C Engines are Affected

    United Airlines (UAL) requested that the FAA clarify whether the
NPRM affects airplanes equipped with CFM International, S.A. Model
CFM56-5B and -5C engines that are fitted with a turbine rear frame
(TRF) with a 4-lug configuration.
    The FAA agrees to clarify. EASA AD 2020-0085 defines a 4-lug engine
as a ``CFM56-5A1, CFM56-5A3, CFM56-5A4, CFM56-5A4/F, CFM56-5A5 or
CFM56-5A5/F engines, fitted with a turbine rear frame (TRF) having a P/
N [part number] as identified in Appendix 1 of [EASA AD 2020-0085].''
The FAA has not received any information regarding Model CFM56-5B and -
5C engines that would cause the FAA to determine that those engine
models are subject to the identified unsafe condition; therefore, those
engines are not included in the applicability of this AD. However,
should the FAA receive information that the Model CFM56-5B and -5C
engines are subject to the identified unsafe condition, the FAA may
consider additional rulemaking at that time. This final rule has not
been changed in this regard.

Request To Extend Compliance Time for Parked Airplanes

    DAL requested that the FAA extend the compliance time specified in
the NPRM for airplanes that are parked due to the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic. DAL pointed out that many operators have had to park
airplanes, and that there is uncertainty regarding any return to
service schedule. DAL mentioned that parked aircraft/engines are not
operating and, therefore, do not accrue time/cycles. DAL then specified
the belief that any deadline for modification and re-identification
should be extended by adding the duration of parking.
    The FAA disagrees with the request. DAL indicated concern related
to the retained requirements of the AD 2018-16-02. The unsafe condition
is the result of a production deficiency that can cause pitting
corrosion, which is not directly related to the accumulation of flight
cycles or flight hours. Corrosion growth is normally related to
calendar time and it is unknown if pitting corrosion is arrested while
the airplane is in long term storage/parking and therefore the FAA does
not agree with the request to provide a compliance time extension for
parked airplanes. However, under the provisions of paragraph (k)(1) of
this AD, the FAA may approve requests for adjustments to the compliance
time if data are submitted to substantiate that such an adjustment
would provide an acceptable level of safety. This AD has not been
changed in this regard.

Request To Clarify Use of ``Production Quality Deficiency''

    DAL requested that the FAA revise paragraph (h)(5) of the NPRM to
better define the production quality deficiency that prompted the NPRM.
DAL pointed out that the NPRM does not define the production quality
deficiency, and does not refer to any other document for a definition.
    The FAA partially agrees. During in-service inspections, several
aft engine mount inner retainers, fitted on airplanes equipped with
Model CFM56-5A/5B engines, were found broken. Investigation identified
that the main cause of crack initiation was the vibration dynamic
effect that affects the retainers, and that the ``dull'' surface finish
pitting is an aggravating factor when compared with the ``bright''
surface finishing. The ``dull'' surface finish pitting is the
production quality deficiency. The FAA has not revised paragraph (h)(5)
of this AD, but has instead added paragraph (g) of this AD to include
the definition of the production quality deficiency. Subsequent
paragraphs have been redesignated have accordingly.

Request To Correct Reference to AD 2018-16-02

    DAL requested that the FAA revise paragraph (h)(7) of the proposed
AD to correct the reference to AD 2018-16-02.
    The FAA agrees for the reasons provided and has updated paragraph
(i)(7) of this AD (paragraph (h)(7) of the proposed AD) accordingly.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this final rule with the changes described previously
and minor editorial changes. The FAA has determined that these minor
changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    The FAA also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this final
rule.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0085 describes procedures for modifying and re-
identifying the aft engine mount retainer assembly. This material is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 119 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained actions from AD 2018-16-02...  20 work-hours x $85 per           $3,152          $4,852        $577,388
                                         hour = $1,700.
New actions...........................  16 work-hours x $85 per            4,362           5,722         680,918
                                         hour = $1,360.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive 2018-16-02, Amendment 39-19342 (83
FR 39326, August 9, 2018), and
0
b. Adding the following new airworthiness directive:

2021-05-20 Airbus SAS: Amendment 39-21463; Docket No. FAA-2020-0914;
Product Identifier 2020-NM-058-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective April 21, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    (1) This AD replaces AD 2018-16-02, Amendment 39-19342 (83 FR
39326, August 9, 2018) (AD 2018-16-02).
    (2) This AD affects AD 2016-14-09, Amendment 39-18590 (81 FR
44989, July 12, 2016) (AD 2016-14-09).
    (3) This AD affects AD 2017-04-10, Amendment 39-18805 (82 FR
11791, February 27, 2017) (AD 2017-04-10).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all the Airbus SAS airplanes identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this AD, certificated in any
category.
    (1) Model A318-111 and -112 airplanes.
    (2) Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, and -115 airplanes.
    (3) Model A320-211, -212, -214, and -216 airplanes.
    (4) Model A321-111, -112, -211, -212, and -213 airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a production quality
deficiency on the inner retainer installed on link assemblies of the
aft engine mount, which could result in failure of the retainer. The
FAA is issuing this AD to address non-conforming retainers of the
aft engine mount. This condition could result in loss of the locking
feature of the nuts of the inner and outer pins; loss of the pins
will result in the aft mount engine link no longer being secured to
the aft engine mount, possibly resulting in damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definition

    For the purposes of this AD, the production quality deficiency
is defined as a ``dull'' finish, which is caused by surface finish
pitting, and is an aggravating factor to crack initiation from
vibration dynamic effect when compared with the ``bright'' surface
finish.

(h) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, paragraphs (3) through (6), (8), (9), (11), and
(12) of European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0085,
dated April 6, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0085).

(i) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0085

    (1) Where EASA AD 2020-0085 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where EASA AD 2020-0085 refers to August 16, 2017 (the
effective date of EASA AD 2017-0138, dated August 2, 2017), this AD
requires using September 13, 2018 (the effective date of AD 2018-16-
02).
    (3) Where EASA AD 2020-0085 refers to December 15, 2017 (the
issue date of EASA AD 2017-0251), this AD requires using September
13, 2018 (the effective date of AD 2018-16-02).
    (4) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0085 does not apply
to this AD.
    (5) Where paragraph (8) of EASA AD 2020-0085 specifies ``do not
operate any airplane having installed a, and do not install on any
airplane a `dull' finish aft engine mount inner retainer,'' for this
AD, do not operate any airplane having installed any inner retainers
affected by the production quality deficiency (as defined in
paragraph (g) of this AD), and do not install on any airplane a
`dull' finish aft engine mount inner retainer.
    (6) Where paragraph (9.3) of EASA AD 2020-0085 refers to January
27, 2016 (the effective date of EASA AD 2016-0010, dated January 13,
2016), this AD requires using April 3, 2017 (the effective date of
AD 2017-04-10).
    (7) Where paragraph (12) of EASA AD 2020-0085 specifies a
compliance time of ``before next flight after December 15, 2017,''
for this AD, that compliance time is ``within 30 days after
September 13, 2018'' (the effective date of AD 2018-16-02.)

(j) Terminating Action for AD 2016-14-09 and AD 2017-04-10

    (1) Modification of an airplane as required by paragraph (h) of
this AD (i.e., accomplishing the modification required by paragraph
(3) of EASA AD 2020-0085, the replacement specified in paragraph (4)
of EASA AD 2020-0085, or the modification specified in paragraph (5)
of EASA AD 2020-0085), constitutes terminating action for the
repetitive detailed inspections required by paragraph (l) of AD
2016-14-09 for that airplane.
    (2) Modification of an airplane as required by paragraph (h) of
this AD (i.e., accomplishing the modification required by paragraph
(3) of EASA AD 2020-0085, the replacement specified in paragraph (4)
of EASA AD 2020-0085, or the modification specified in paragraph (5)
of EASA AD 2020-0085), is a method of compliance with the
requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2017-04-10 for that airplane.

(k) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this
AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (i) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2018-16-02 are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of EASA AD 2020-0085 that are
required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (k)(2) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2020-0085,
dated April 6, 2020.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For EASA AD 2020-0085, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-
Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this
EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (4) You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material
at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be found in the AD
docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0914.
    (5) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on March 1, 2021.
Ross Landes,
Deputy Director for Regulatory Operations, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-05534 Filed 3-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


PART 194— CRITERIA FOR THE CERTIFICATION AND RE CERTIFICATION OF THE WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE 40 CFR PART 191 DISPOSAL REGULATIONS § 194.2 Definitions.

Acceptable knowledge means any information about the process used to generate waste,

material inputs to the process, and the time period during which the waste was generated,

as well as data resulting from the analysis of waste, conducted prior to or separate from the waste certification process authorized by EPA's Certification Decision, to show compliance with Condition 3 of the certification decision ( Appendix A of this part).

Minor alternative provision means an alternative provision to the Compliance Criteria that clarifies a regulatory provision, or does not substantively alter the existing regulatory requirements.

§ 194.6 Alternative provisions.

The Administrator may, by rule pursuant to 5 U. S. C. 553, substitute for any of the provisions of this part alternative provisions, or minor alternative provisions, in accordance with the following procedures:

(a) Alternative provisions may be substituted after:

(1) Alternative procedures have been proposed for public comment in the Federal Register together with information describing how the alternative provisions comport with the disposal regulations, the reasons why the existing provisions of this part appear inappropriate, and the costs, risks and benefits of compliance in accordance with the alternative provisions; (2) A public comment period of at least 120 days has been completed and public hearings have been held in New Mexico;

(3) The public comments received have been fully considered; and (4) A notice of final rulemaking is published in the Federal Register.

(b) Minor alternative provisions may be substituted after:

(1) The minor alternative provisions have been proposed for public comment in the Federal Register together with information describing how the alternative minor revision or update comport with the disposal regulations, the reasons why the existing regulation of this part requires the minor revision or update, and the benefit of compliance in accordance with the alternative minor revision or update;

(2) A public comment period of at least 30 days have been completed for the minor revisions or updates and the public comments received have been fully considered;

(3) A notice of final rulemaking is published in the Federal Register for the minor revisions or updates.

§ 194.8 Approval Process for Waste Shipment from Waste Generator Sites for Disposal at the WIPP.

(b) Waste Characterization Programs at Transuranic Waste Sites. The Agency will establish compliance with Condition 3 of the certification using the process set forth below.

(1) DOE will implement waste characterization programs and processes in accordance with § 194.24( c)( 4) to confirm that the total amount of each waste component that will be emplaced in the disposal system will not exceed the upper limiting value or fall below the lower limiting value described in the introductory text of paragraph (c) of § 194.24. Waste characterization processes will include the collection and use of acceptable knowledge;

destructive and/ or nondestructive techniques for identifying and measuring waste components;

and the validation, control, and transmittal to the WIPP Waste Information System database of waste characterization data, in accordance with § 194.24( c)( 4).

(2) The Agency will verify the compliance of waste characterization programs and processes identified in paragraph (b)( 1) of this section using the process set forth below.

(i) DOE will notify EPA by letter that a transuranic waste site is prepared to ship waste to the WIPP and has established adequate waste characterization processes and programs. DOE also will provide the relevant waste characterization program plans and documentation. EPA may request additional information from DOE.

(ii) EPA will conduct a baseline inspection at the site to verify that adequate waste characterization program plans and technical procedures have been established, and that those plans and procedures are effectively implemented. The inspection will include a demonstration or test by the site of the waste characterization processes identified in paragraph (b)( 1) of this section. If an inspection does not lead to approval, we will a send an inspection report to DOE identifying deficiencies and place the report in the public docket described in § 194.67. More than one inspection may be necessary to resolve compliance issues.

(iii) The Agency will announce in the Federal Register a proposed Baseline Compliance Decision to accept the site's compliance with § 194.24( c)( 4). In the notice, we will solicit public comment on the relevant inspection report( s) and any supporting materials, which will be placed in the public docket described in § 194.67. The proposal will describe any limitations on approved waste streams or waste characterization processes and identify tier assignments for the site's reporting of changes to the approved waste characterization processes that we deem necessary in light of the site's demonstrated capabilities at the time of our inspection( s).

(iv) Our written decision regarding compliance with the requirements for waste characterization programs and processes described in paragraph (b)( 1) of this section will be conveyed in a letter from the Administrator's authorized representative to DOE. EPA will not issue a compliance decision until after the end of the public comment period described in paragraph (b)( 2)( iii) of this section. EPA's compliance decision will respond to significant and timely received comments. A copy of our compliance decision will be placed in the public docket described in § 194.67. DOE will comply with any reporting requirements identified in the compliance decision and the accompanying inspection report.

(3) Subsequent to any positive determination of compliance as described in paragraph (b)( 2)( iv) of this section, the Agency intends to conduct inspections, in accordance with § 194.24( h), to confirm the continued compliance of approved waste characterization programs and processes at transuranic waste sites. EPA will make the results of these inspections available to the public in the dockets described in § 194.67.

(i) If the Agency determines, at a subsequent inspection of an approved transuranic waste site, that waste characterization programs or processes are not adequately established or implemented, then we may suspend shipments and disposal of affected and potentially affected waste streams, or take other action in accordance with §§ 194.4( b)( 1) and (2), until we determine that the deficiencies have been adequately resolved.

(ii) [Reserved]

§ 194.12 Submission of compliance applications.

Unless otherwise specified by the Administrator or the Administrator's authorized representative, 5 copies of any compliance application( s), any accompanying materials, and any amendments thereto shall be submitted in a printed form to the Administrator's authorized representative. In addition, DOE shall submit 10 copies of the complete application in alternative format (e. g., compact disk) or other approved format, as specified by the Administrator's authorized representative.

§ 194.13 Submission of reference materials.

Information may be included by reference into compliance applications( s), provided that the references are clear specific and that unless, otherwise specified by the Administrator or the Administrator's authorized representative, 5 copies of reference information are submitted to the Administrator's authorized representative. Reference materials that are widely available in standard text books or reference books need not to be submitted. Whenever possible, DOE shall submit 10 copies of reference materials in alternative format (e. g., compact disk) or other approved format, as specified by the Administrator's authorized representative.

§ 194.24 Waste characterization.

(c)( 3) Provide information that demonstrates that the use of acceptable knowledge to quantify components in waste for disposal conforms with the quality assurance requirements of §

194.22.


P-18-370-0371 Sanitized Support Documents Index:
 P-18-0370-0371 Sanitized Determination Document (linked)
 P-18-0369 Sanitized CHEM Report (attached)
 P-18-0370 Sanitized CHEM Report (attached)
 P-18-0371 Sanitized CHEM Report (attached)
 P-18-0369 Sanitized ECO Report (attached)
 P-18-0370 Sanitized ECO Report (attached)
 P-18-0371 Sanitized ECO Report (attached)
 P-18-0369-0371 Sanitized ENG Report (attached)
 P-18-0369-0371 Sanitized EXP Report (attached)
 P-18-0369 Sanitized Fate Report (attached)
 P-18-0370 Sanitized Fate Report (attached)
 P-18-0371 Sanitized Fate Report (attached)
 P-18-0369-0371 Sanitized HLTH Report_POST-FOCUS FINAL (attached)


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12399-12401]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04524]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 6

Public Health Service

42 CFR Part 1

Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

42 CFR Part 404

Office of the Inspector General

42 CFR Part 1000

Office of the Secretary

45 CFR Part 8

Administration for Children and Families

45 CFR Parts 200, 300, 403, 1010, and 1300

[Docket No. HHS-OS-2020-0012]
RIN 0991-AC24

Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely;
Administrative Delay of Effective Date

AGENCY: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or
Department) is postponing, pending judicial review, the effective date
of a final rule entitled ``Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory
Evaluations Timely'' (SUNSET final rule) and published in the Federal
Register of January 19, 2021, and a final rule correction published in
the Federal Register of March 23, 2021.

DATES: As of March 4, 2022, the effective date of the SUNSET final rule
published January 19, 2021 (86 FR 5694), which was delayed until March
22, 2022, by an order that took effect as of March 19, 2021 (86 FR
15404, March 23, 2021), is further delayed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 705 for
six months until September 22, 2022.
    As of March 4, 2022, the effective date of the correction published
March 23, 2021 (86 FR 15404), is delayed until September 22, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel J. Barry, Acting General
Counsel, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201; or by email
at [email protected]; or by telephone at 1-877-696-6775.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    The SUNSET final rule, if implemented, would establish a new
process for regulatory review of HHS regulations, which includes the
automatic expiration of regulations under certain circumstances. It was
scheduled to take effect on March 22, 2021. After a lawsuit was filed
on March 9, 2021, seeking to overturn the SUNSET final rule, HHS issued
an Administrative Delay of Effective Date (First Administrative Delay),
which took effect as of March 19, 2021, which postponed the effective
date of the SUNSET final rule, pending judicial review, until March 22,
2022. 86 FR 15404 (Mar. 23, 2021).
    After conducting a thorough review of the SUNSET final rule
including the oral and written comments on its proposal and the
allegations in the lawsuit, HHS published a notice of proposed
rulemaking to withdraw or repeal the SUNSET final rule (Withdrawal
NPRM). 86 FR 59906 (Oct. 29, 2021). The comment period on the
Withdrawal NPRM closed on December 28, 2021. HHS received approximately
80 comments. Some comments were submitted by Plaintiffs in the lawsuit
seeking to overturn the SUNSET final rule, and their comments
incorporated by reference the Complaint they had filed.
    HHS is currently in the process of reviewing the comments and
developing a final rule. For the reasons described below, HHS finds
that the interests of justice require that the SUNSET final rule's
effective date be postponed pending judicial review because: (1) A
postponement will permit HHS to continue and complete its review of the
SUNSET final rule in light of the claims raised in the litigation; (2)
the resolution of the rulemaking will inform the government's position
in this lawsuit; and (3) based on HHS's review of the Complaint, HHS
believes that the Court may find that: (a) Some of Plaintiffs' claims
have merit; (b) Plaintiffs' allegations of harm are credible; and (c)
the balance of equities and the public interest warrant postponement of
the effective date to preserve the status quo while the Court considers
the challenge to the SUNSET final rule.

II. Background

A. The SUNSET Proposed and Final Rules

    On November 4, 2020, HHS published a notice of proposed rulemaking
entitled ``Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations
Timely'' (SUNSET proposed rule). 85 FR 70096. The SUNSET proposed rule
provided that comments could be submitted until December 4, 2020,
except for comments on the portion of the rule amending 42 CFR parts
400-429 and parts 475-499, which were due by January 4, 2021. HHS
received 532 comments total throughout the 60-day comment period, and
the commenters ``generally opposed the proposed rule, although some
commenters supported it.'' 86 FR 5704.
    HHS also held a public hearing on November 23, 2020, to receive
information and views on the proposed rule (Public Hearing). Over
twenty interested parties provided oral comments at the Public Hearing.
See Transcript, Public Hearing on the

Securing Updated and Necessary Statutory Evaluations Timely Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (Nov. 23, 2020) (available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/HHSOS-2020-0012-0501) (Public Hearing
Transcript).
    HHS issued the SUNSET final rule on January 19, 2021. 86 FR 5694.
The substance of the SUNSET proposed and final rules are more fully
described in the First Administrative Delay, and that description is
adopted by reference into this preamble. See 86 FR 15405.

B. The Santa Clara Complaint

    On March 9, 2021, the County of Santa Clara, California Tribal
Families Coalition, National Association of Pediatric Nurse
Practitioners, American Lung Association, Center for Science in the
Public Interest, and Natural Resources Defense Council sued the
Department seeking to overturn the SUNSET final rule under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Complaint, County of Santa Clara v.
HHS, Case No. 5:21-cv-01655-BLF (N.D. Cal.). The substance of the
Complaint is more fully described in the First Administrative Delay,
and that description is adopted by reference into this preamble. See 86
FR 15405.

C. The Administrative Delay of Effective Date and Stay of Litigation.

    On March 9, 2021, HHS issued the First Administrative Delay, which
took effect as of March 19, 2021, which postponed the effective date of
the SUNSET final rule, pending judicial review, until March 22, 2022.
HHS explained that it believed that the Court may find: (a) That some
of Plaintiffs' claims have merit; (b) that Plaintiffs' allegations of
harm are credible; and (c) that the balance of equities and the public
interest warrant postponement of the effective date pending judicial
review. Accordingly, the Department found that the interests of justice
required a postponement in order to preserve the status quo, because,
if the rule took effect while HHS was evaluating the rule in light of
the claims raised in litigation, it could create significant
obligations for HHS, cause confusion for the public, including
Plaintiffs, and may lead to compliance costs as entities, including
Plaintiffs, plan steps necessary to deal with the rule's
implementation. HHS also observed that it was unaware of any benefits
from the implementation of the SUNSET final rule that would be
significantly curtailed from a stay of its effective date. See 86 FR
15404-08.
    With respect to the Santa Clara litigation, the parties requested
that the court stay the case on the ground that HHS was reviewing the
SUNSET final rule in light of Plaintiffs' claims raised in this
litigation and needed additional time to evaluate the claims and its
position before taking further steps in the litigation. The court
granted the stay. Order, County of Santa Clara v. HHS, Case No. 5:21-
cv-01655-BLF (N.D. Cal.) (Apr. 22, 2021). Since that time, the parties
have periodically submitted joint status reports to the court and
requested that the litigation stay be extended, and those requests have
thus far, as of February 1, 2022, been granted.

D. The Withdrawal NPRM

    HHS published the Withdrawal NPRM on October 29, 2021, in which it
proposed to withdraw or repeal the SUNSET final rule in its entirety.
86 FR 59906. In the Withdrawal NPRM, the Department explained that, in
issuing the SUNSET rule, it should have engaged in a more robust
consideration of the comments and should have given greater weight to
the potential harms to stakeholders and the public health. Therefore,
before issuing the Withdrawal NPRM, the Department reexamined the
SUNSET final rule in light of the allegations in the Santa Clara
complaint, the many comments submitted to the SUNSET proposed rule
docket and raised at the Public Hearing, and the current
Administration's policies. That review considered the processes
followed in issuing the SUNSET final rule, its policy goals and
objectives, the projected effects and analysis of impacts in its
implementation, and the legal evaluation of and support for its
provisions, including whether the rule is consistent with all HHS
statutory obligations and its mission to promote and protect the public
health.
    The comment period on the Withdrawal NPRM closed on December 28,
2021, and HHS received approximately 80 comments. HHS is actively
engaged in considering the comments and developing a final rule.

III. Discussion

    Under 5 U.S.C. 705 of the APA, an agency ``may postpone the
effective date of action taken by it, pending judicial review,'' when
the ``agency finds that justice so requires.'' On March 9, 2021, HHS
issued the First Administrative Delay after concluding that the
interests of justice required that the SUNSET final rule be stayed
pending judicial review. For the reasons described in the First
Administrative Delay and as further discussed in this document, the
Department has concluded that the considerations supporting the First
Administrative Delay remain true today, and the interests of justice
require that the effective date of the SUNSET final rule should be
further stayed until September 22, 2022.
    In the First Administrative Delay, the Department explained that it
was taking a fresh and critical look at the SUNSET final rule in light
of the allegations in the Complaint. The Complaint alleged serious
legal vulnerabilities of the rule, and, while HHS did not concede any
of these claims at that time, HHS required additional time to complete
its evaluation of the SUNSET final rule given the pending litigation.
In addition, the Complaint raised the question as to whether the SUNSET
final rule, issued in the final days of the last Administration, is
consistent with the policies and goals of the current Administration,
both in terms of the appropriate role of regulatory oversight of the
health care industry and necessary engagement with the public,
including tribal organizations.
    After further review of the SUNSET final rule, the allegations in
the Complaint, and the comments on the SUNSET proposed rule, we issued
the Withdrawal NPRM in October 2021, in which we discussed our
tentative conclusions for further public comment. Our discussion
included concerns regarding the procedural shortcomings of the SUNSET
rulemaking process, the fundamental errors in its Regulatory Impact
Analysis, and the attendant legal vulnerabilities of the SUNSET final
rule. Our reanalysis of the regulatory impact of this rule, as set
forth in the Withdrawal NPRM, has underscored our belief that the Santa
Clara court could find merit in at least some of Plaintiffs' claims.
    Our review of the approximately 80 comments submitted on the
Withdrawal NPRM is ongoing. A few substantive comments support the
SUNSET final rule while many other substantive comments favor
withdrawal or repeal. As noted, Plaintiffs in the Santa Clara
litigation submitted comments on the Withdrawal NPRM that attached
copies of the Complaint. Accordingly, HHS's consideration of the
Complaint's critique of the SUNSET final rule are part of its ongoing
review.
    The Complaint also alleges that Plaintiffs and others would be
immediately harmed by the SUNSET final rule, if implemented. The
Complaint alleges that the uncertainty resulting from its
implementation impacts the entire healthcare sector, which accounts for
nearly one-fifth of the U.S. economy and secures individual and
community health for

hundreds of millions of Americans, and that participants in every
single industry the Department regulates, including Plaintiffs, must
plan their futures and operations without knowing what regulations will
govern their businesses in these notoriously complex regulatory arenas.
See Complaint, ]] 2, 95-122. While HHS does not concede that Plaintiffs
would establish irreparable harm in litigation, HHS agrees that it is
appropriate to postpone the effective date of the SUNSET final rule to
preserve the status quo and to ensure that HHS has time to evaluate the
rule before it takes effect to avoid the possibility of confusion among
the regulated community. All of these potential consequences would be
detrimental to the public health, underscoring that justice requires a
postponement of the SUNSET final rule's effective date pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 705.
    We further conclude that extending the effective date of the SUNSET
final rule will create no countervailing harms because this delay
merely continues the status quo. And because implementation of the
regulatory review framework provided under the SUNSET final rule would
be a complex and lengthy process, any purported benefits from the
retirement of regulations under the new process would not accrue for
several years. Accordingly, given the public health concerns and the
harms from the implementation of the SUNSET final rule alleged by the
Plaintiffs and echoed in the comments to the SUNSET proposed rule and
the Withdrawal NPRM, and the dearth of countervailing harms from
extending the effective date, the balance of equities and the public
interest favor the extension of the stay of the effective date of the
SUNSET final rule to preserve the status quo and allow for judicial
review of its legality before any implementation.
    Accordingly, HHS is issuing this further stay of the effective date
of this final rule pending judicial review. This postponement applies
to all of the regulations established under the SUNSET final rule. As
noted above, the Complaint alleges that the SUNSET final rule suffers
from a variety of defects, including procedural defects related to its
promulgation. The Department believes it is appropriate to review the
entire rule in light of the claims raised in the litigation, which it
continues to actively evaluate in conjunction with its consideration of
the comments to the Withdrawal NPRM and its efforts to develop a final
rule. Thus, this postponement reaches the full rule, consistent with
the Complaint's prayer for relief.

Xavier Becerra,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-04524 Filed 3-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-26-P


Telephone log

12/3/2009

Call from Margaret Sheppard, EPA

To:	Ward Atkinson, SAE International

I returned Mr. Atkinson’s voicemail message.  He wanted to know:

1) When will SAE’s presentation go up?  End of week for posting, next
week available to public.

2) Does EPA need further information?

3) Does EPA require another meeting on the CRP?  I indicated I didn’t
think it necessary.

4) Is the PMN rule out yet?  No.

Mr. Atkinson hopes to be able to share the standards once they are at
the Motor committee level.

Mr. Atkinson mentioned a concern that a number of alternatives listed
under SNAP for MVAC might get retrofitted into cars designed for
HFO-1234yf because of their availability and lower cost (e.g, $2.86/lb
for HFC-1234a, $8-$9/lb for some HCFC blends).


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 56 (Friday, March 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15050-15051]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05847]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC17-93-000.
    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company.
    Description: Request for Approvals Pursuant To Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act of Otter Tail Power Company.
    Filed Date: 3/16/17.
    Accession Number: 20170316-5229.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: EC17-94-000.
    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company.
    Description: Request for Approvals Pursuant to Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act of Otter Tail Power Company.
    Filed Date: 3/16/17.
    Accession Number: 20170316-5233.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: EC17-95-000.
    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company.
    Description: Request for Approvals Pursuant To Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act of Otter Tail Power Company.
    Filed Date: 3/16/17.
    Accession Number: 20170316-5235.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/17.

    Docket Numbers: EC17-96-000.
    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company.
    Description: Request for Approvals Pursuant to Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act of Otter Tail Power Company.
    Filed Date: 3/16/17.
    Accession Number: 20170316-5237.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/6/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG17-79-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Coast Solar Center I, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of EWG Status of Gulf Coast Solar
Center I, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/20/17.
    Accession Number: 20170320-5208.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-80-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Coast Solar Center II, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of EWG Status of Gulf Coast Solar
Center II, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/20/17.
    Accession Number: 20170320-5209.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: EG17-81-000.
    Applicants: Gulf Coast Solar Center III, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of EWG Status of Gulf Coast Solar
Center III, LLC.
    Filed Date: 3/20/17.
    Accession Number: 20170320-5212.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER12-2708-005.
    Applicants: Potomac-Appalachian Highline Transmission, PJM
Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: PATH ROE Compliance Filing re
Opinion 554 in ER09-1256 and ER12-2708 to be effective 1/19/2017.
    Filed Date: 3/20/17.

    Accession Number: 20170320-5155.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1248-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amended and Restated Service
Agreements with City of Victorville to be effective 4/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 3/17/17.
    Accession Number: 20170317-5179.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1257-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: DSA for Decade Dairy
Digester Project, SA No. 952 to be effective 5/22/2017.
    Filed Date: 3/20/17.
    Accession Number: 20170320-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1258-000.
    Applicants: Canadian Wood Products-Montreal, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Cancellation filing to be
effective 3/21/2017.
    Filed Date: 3/20/17.
    Accession Number: 20170320-5169.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1259-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of a Joint Use
Agreement to be effective 5/19/2017.
    Filed Date: 3/20/17.
    Accession Number: 20170320-5182.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1260-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Wisconsin Public Service
Corporation's Annual PEB/PBOP Filing to be effective 4/1/2017.
    Filed Date: 3/20/17.
    Accession Number: 20170320-5184.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/17.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-1261-000.
    Applicants: Otter Tail Power Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of Certificate of
Concurrence to be effective 1/25/2017.
    Filed Date: 3/20/17.
    Accession Number: 20170320-5193.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/10/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following public
utility holding company filings:

    Docket Numbers: PH17-12-000.
    Applicants: Macquarie Sierra Investment Holdings, In, Electrodes
Holdings, LLC, Watt Battery Holdings, LLC, Battery Storage Holdings,
LLC, Sparks Battery Holdings, LLC, Sparks Battery Holdings 2, LLC.
    Description: Macquarie Sierra Investment Holdings, Inc., et. al.
submits FERC 65-B Waiver Notification.
    Filed Date: 3/17/17.
    Accession Number: 20170317-5200.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/7/17.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings:

    Docket Numbers: RD17-5-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
    Description: Joint Petition of the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation and Western Electricity Coordinating Council
for Approval of Proposed Regional Reliability Standard VAR-501-WECC-3.
    Filed Date: 3/10/17.
    Accession Number: 20170310-5318.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/19/17.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) 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.
    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>.

    Dated: March 20, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-05847 Filed 3-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 52 (Thursday, March 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14450-14451]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05958]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1840]

Electronic Study Data Submission; Data Standards; Support End
Date for Case Report Tabulation Data Definition Specification Version
1.0

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA or Agency) Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) and Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research (CDER) are announcing the end of support for Version 1.0
of Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium Case Report
Tabulation Data Definition Specification (Define.xml) and an update to
the FDA Data Standards Catalog. Use of Define.xml Version 2.0, which
has been available since March 2013, is the newer standard supported by
FDA. FDA support for Define.xml Version 1.0 will end for studies that
start 12 months after March 15, 2017.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments at any time.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

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

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2014-N-1840 for ``Electronic Study Data Submission; Data Standards;
Support End Date for Case Report Tabulation Data Definition
Specification

Version 1.0.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket and,
except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly
viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fatima Frye, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 1192, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-
796-5333<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Jack Zhang, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7318, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-8187<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On December 17, 2014, FDA published final guidance for industry
``Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format--Standardized
Study Data'' (eStudy Data) posted on FDA's Study Data Standards
Resources Web page at http://www.fda.gov/forindustry/datastandards/studydatastandards/default.htm. The eStudy Data guidance implements the
electronic submission requirements of section 745A(a) of the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 379k-1(a)) for study data
contained in new drug applications, abbreviated new drug applications,
biologics license applications, and investigational new drug
applications submitted to CDER or CBER by specifying the format for
electronic submissions. The eStudy Data guidance states that a Federal
Register notice will specify the transition date for updates to
standards (with the month and day for the transition date corresponding
to March 15).
    The transition date for the end of FDA support for Define.xml
Version 1.0 is March 15, 2017. Therefore, FDA support for Define.xml
Version 1.0 will end for studies that start after March 15, 2018. The
FDA Data Standards Catalog (see http://www.fda.gov/forindustry/datastandards/studydatastandards/default.htm) will be updated to list
March 15, 2018, as the ``date support ends.''

II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the referenced
material at http://www.fda.gov/forindustry/datastandards/studydatastandards/default.htm.

     Dated: March 10, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-05958 Filed 3-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


Draft Minutes Registration Review Workgroup Meeting Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee Sheraton Crystal City July 16, 2003 Participants: EPA: Jay Ellenberger, Betty Shackleford, Richard Dumas, Vivian Prunier, Margie Fehrenbach Workgroup Members: Cindy Baker, Britt Bailey ( via teleconference), Carolyn Brickey, Patti Bright, Sue Crescenzi, Ted Head, Steve Kellner, Gary Libman ( via teleconference), Therese Murtaugh; Bob Rosenberg, Troy Seidel, Julie Spagnoli, Roberta Spitko, Warren Stickle, Ray McAllister ( substituting for Jay Vroom), George Wichterman, Eric Olson, and Dan Botts.

Minutes of the July 2 teleconference were amended to add the name of Steve Kellner as a participant in the conference.

Lessons Learned from Reregistration ° FIFRA section 4 clearly stated what registrants must do in Phases 2 and 3.

° The reregistration process imposed the same procedure for all ingredients. There was no way to abbreviate the procedure when a pesticide posed very little risk.

° Rules about what constituted the current standard of registration seemed to change while a pesticide was undergoing reregistration. Data gaps should be recognized early in the process. There was a concern that EPA required studies for which there is no clear protocol.

° When a pesticide in the reregistration program was also undergoing Special Review, the RED was delayed until completion of the Special Review. " Speed bumps" that delayed completion of a RED included law suits and disputes over data.

° After the RED for an active ingredient, end use products are reregistered. But follow through has not been systematic. For example, product labels are often not consistent with the RED or with the Agency's labeling policies. Agency doesn't track or report the completion of product reregistration.

° Reregistration was not open enough for non registrants ( particularly public interest groups) to participate early in the process. Early involvement of CDC or others knowledgeable about public health uses of a pesticide would have been helpful. Early involvement of Fish and Wildlife Service regarding endangered species issues and growers or other stakeholders regarding use practices would have been useful. 2 ° Publishing reregistration schedules in advance and a clearly delineating public participation procedure worked well for registrants.

° Suggested it would be helpful to have CDC and the Public Health Corps participate in the Workgroup.

Scope of Registration Review ° What is a Registration Review Decision? Is it an assessment whether a pesticide meets current standards of registration or is it a process that must be pursued until resolution of all issues regarding the continued registration of the pesticide?   If it is the former, the review would focus on changes that have occurred since the last review of the pesticide. Issues identified in the registration review would be pursued under " other provisions of the Act." For example pesticides with risk issues could be referred to special review.   If it is the latter, EPA will not be able to complete registration reviews on 80 chemicals per year.

° What is EPA supposed to review? The options are:   individual end use product on the 15th anniversary of its original registration;   each active ingredient;   groups of chemically related active ingredients, e. g. reregistration cases;   group active ingredients by some other criteria, e. g., chemicals that share a common mechanism of toxicity, or pesticides used for a common purpose such as corn herbicides.

The group favored the chemical case approach, but needed more discussion of how to set the anniversary date for a chemical case as individual members of the case would have different dates of initial registration.

The group suggested that end use products should be considered in registration review but were not certain how to do this.

Should 24( c) registrations, EUPs and section 18 emergency exemptions be included even though these uses are not section 3 registrations?

Participants questioned how to approach registration review of products that contain multiple active ingredients.

° Inclusion of inert ingredients in registration review. Participants offered a range of opinions:   Inert ingredients aren't registered, so they should not be considered in registration review; 3   Consider inert ingredients when reviewing end use products;   Use other procedures to manage issues relating to inert ingredients, e. g., classify the ingredient as a " List One Inert" ( i. e., inert ingredient that must be identified on the product label).

° Update 40CFR Part 158 so registrants know what the requirements are.

° What should be the basis of a decision that a pesticide's registration meets current standards? Participants offered a range of opinions:   A determination that it meets all the requirements of 40 CFR Part 158;   A determination that end use product labels are consistent with the pesticide's current risk assessment and labeling policy;   Focus on what has changed since the last assessment of the pesticide with respect to new data requirements and/ or changes in risk standards. Look at all areas, e. g., even recently completed tolerance assessments, to see if anything has changed.   Registration review is not intended to be a comprehensive review like reregistration or tolerance reassessment.

° Mechanisms for keeping a pesticide's registration up to date. Participants identified several approaches for assuring that a pesticide's registration meets current standards:   When it reviews a new use application, the Agency should review the entire label, not just the proposed addition, and insist that all aspects of the label be brought to current standards.   When it reviews a new use application, the Agency should assure that the data supporting the pesticide is consistent with current standards.   When the Agency identifies a new data requirement, or new data requirements are imposed by legislation such as the endocrine disruptor tests, the Agency should conduct special data call ins to acquire the data. Otherwise the data won't be available for the registration review.   The Agency could conduct label improvement programs to bring labels to current standards. Otherwise, labels would have to be updated during ( or as a result of) registration review. This could result in an uneven playing field as the labels of competing products would not be updated until they undergo registration review.   Submit exposure information ( i. e., non guideline data) so that it is available when the pesticide begins its registration review.

Scheduling Registration Reviews ° Participants generally agreed that there should be clear and predictable schedules for registration reviews. Stakeholders need to know when the clock starts.

° Criteria for scheduling registration reviews: 4   Participants generally agreed that setting schedules by date of last comprehensive review would result in a stable, predictable, and largely workable schedule.   Other participants proposed scheduling the worst first. Participants acknowledged that it might be difficult to decide what attributes should be used in deciding which pesticides are " the worst." It was noted that the risks posed by pesticides registered prior to 1985 were addressed in the reregistation and tolerance reassessment programs.   Some participants suggested that pesticides with the oldest and least comprehensive reviews be scheduled first: pesticides with no REDs ( i. e., registered after 1984) and no tolerance reassessment; pesticides with no REDS, but with tolerance reassessment; and pesticides with REDs but no tolerance reassessment.   New testing requirements should be considered in setting priorities for registration review.

° The Workgroup asked the Agency to provide a list of active ingredients, grouped by chemical case and ranked by date of initial registration.

Public Participation in Registration Review ° The registration review process should be clear and understandable. Stakeholders should know when they will be able to participate in the process.

° Information should be publically available on the Agency's website.

° All stakeholders should be able to participate from the outset of the process.

° There should be a clear accounting scheme to show what has been completed.

Action Items ° Cindy Baker will draft a paper on scope of registration review and e mail it to workgroup members.

° Sue Crescenzi will draft a paper on scheduling options and e mail it to workgroup members.

° EPA will provide list of active ingredients ranked by date of initial registration.

Next Meetings ° Teleconference on Monday, August 11 from 2 to 4 p. m. EDT.

° Teleconference on Wednesday, September 24 from 2 to 4 p. m EDT. 5 ° Meeting on Thursday, October 16 from 9 a. m. to 5 p. m. in Crystal City.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 34 (Thursday, February 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 9753]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03384]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

    Docket Numbers: RP20-512-000.
    Applicants: Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates Filing on 2-
11-20 to be effective 3/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/11/20.
    Accession Number: 20200211-5010.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-513-000.
    Applicants: Saavi Energy Solutions, LLC, Sempra Gas & Power
Marketing, LLC.
    Description: Joint Petition For Limited Waiver, et al. of Saavi
Energy Solutions, LLC, et al. under RP20-513.
    Filed Date: 2/10/20.
    Accession Number: 20200210-5199.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/24/20.

    Docket Numbers: RP20-514-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: REX 2020-02-11 Non-Conforming
Negotiated Rate Amendment to be effective 2/12/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/11/20.
    Accession Number: 20200211-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/24/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered,
but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    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>.

    Dated: February 12, 2020.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-03384 Filed 2-19-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 162)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51659-51661]
[DOCID:fr23au10-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0246; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-16-AD;
Amendment 39-16391; AD 2010-17-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. PW617F-E
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:

    A PW617F-E engine powered twin engined aircraft had recently
experienced an uncommanded power reduction on one of its engines.
Investigation showed that the Fuel Filter Bypass Valve poppet in the
Fuel Oil Heat Exchanger (FOHE) on that engine had worn through the
housing seat, allowing unfiltered fuel and debris to contaminate the
Fuel Metering Unit (FMU), resulting in fuel flow drop and subsequent
power reduction.
    Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. issued an Alert Service Bulletin
(ASB) No. PW600-72-A66019 to inspect and replace any discrepant
valve with the same type new valve. The inspection results confirmed
that failure of a worn through poppet is dormant and it can affect
both engines at the same time that could result in an unsafe
condition on PW617F-E powered aircraft.

We are issuing this AD to prevent uncommanded power reduction, which
could result in the inability to continue safe flight and safe landing.

DATES: This AD becomes effective September 27, 2010. The Director of
the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in this AD as of September 27, 2010.

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: James Lawrence, 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 May 17, 2010 (75 FR
27491). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states that:

    A PW617F-E engine powered twin engined aircraft had recently
experienced an uncommanded power reduction on one of its engines.
Investigation showed that the Fuel Filter Bypass Valve poppet in the
FOHE on that engine had worn through the housing seat, allowing
unfiltered fuel and debris to contaminate the FMU, resulting in fuel
flow drop and subsequent power reduction.
    Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. issued an ASB No. PW600-72-A66019
to inspect and replace any discrepant valve with the same type new
valve. The inspection results confirmed that failure of a worn
through poppet is dormant and it can affect both engines at the same
time that could result in an unsafe condition on PW617F-E powered
aircraft.
    On November 23, 2009, Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. issued an ASB
No. PW600-72-A66021 that introduced a new fuel Filter Bypass Valve
Assembly with an improved design poppet to help alleviate the
subject poppet wear problem. This AD is issued to mandate
replacement of the FOHE fuel filter bypass valve on all PW617F-E
engines as per Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. ASB No. PW600-72-A66021
instructions.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this AD will
affect about 77 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We
also estimate that it will take about 3.5 work-hours per engine to
comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
Required parts will cost about $22,582 per engine. Based on these
figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on U.S. operators to be
$1,761,722.

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

0
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:

2010-17-01 Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (formerly Pratt & Whitney
Canada, Inc.): Amendment 39-16391. Docket No. FAA-2010-0246;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-16-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective
September 27, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. PW617F-E
turbofan engines with fuel/oil heat exchanger (FOHE) part number (P/
N) 35C4540-01 installed. These engines are installed on, but not
limited to, Empresa Brasileira de Aeron[aacute]utica S.A (EMB) 500
airplanes.

Reason

    (d) This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:
    A PW617F-E engine powered twin engined aircraft had recently
experienced an uncommanded power reduction on one of its engines.
Investigation showed that the Fuel Filter Bypass Valve poppet in the
FOHE on that engine had worn through the housing seat, allowing
unfiltered fuel and debris to contaminate the Fuel Metering Unit,
resulting in fuel flow drop and subsequent power reduction.
    Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. issued an Alert Service Bulletin
(ASB) No. PW600-72-A66019 to inspect and replace any discrepant
valve with the same type new valve. The inspection results confirmed
that failure of a worn through poppet is dormant and it can affect
both engines at the same time that could result in an unsafe
condition on PW617F-E powered aircraft.

We are issuing this AD to prevent uncommanded power reduction, which
could result in the inability to continue safe flight and safe
landing.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, replace the FOHE fuel filter bypass
poppet valve with a larger fuel filter bypass poppet valve within 25
hours of the effective date of the AD. Use paragraph 3.A. of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. ASB No.
PW600-72-A66021, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2010, to do the
replacement.

Previous Credit

    (f) A fuel filter bypass poppet valve replacement performed
before the effective date of this AD using Pratt & Whitney Canada
Corp. ASB No. PW600-72-A66021, dated November 23, 2009, satisfies
the replacement requirement of this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (g) 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

    (h) Refer to MCAI Transport Canada Airworthiness Directive CF-
2010-02, dated January 20, 2010, for related information.
    (i) Contact James Lawrence, 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

    (j) You must use Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. ASB No. PW600-72-
A66021, Revision 1, dated January 7, 2010 to do the replacement
required by this AD.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Contact Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp., 1000 Marie-Victorin,
Longueuil, Quebec, Canada, J4G 1A1;

telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Web site: http://
www.pwc.ca.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on July 30, 2010.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-20714 Filed 8-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P