[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8325-8328]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03600]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0766; Product Identifier 2017-NM-046-AD; Amendment
39-19203; AD 2018-04-08]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The
Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series
airplanes. This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder (DAH) indicating that the gore web lap splices of the aft
pressure bulkhead are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This
AD requires repetitive inspections of the gore webs, gore web lap
splices, and repair webs, as applicable, of the aft pressure bulkhead,
and applicable on-condition actions. We are issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective April 3, 2018.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 3,
2018.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data
Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA
90740-5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0766.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0766; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this final rule, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The address for the Docket Office
(phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is Docket Management Facility, 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: George Garrido, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 562-627-
5210; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all The Boeing Company
Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 11, 2017 (82 FR
37546). The NPRM was prompted by an evaluation by the DAH indicating
that the gore web lap splices of the aft pressure bulkhead are subject
to WFD. The NPRM proposed to require repetitive inspections of the gore
webs, gore web lap splices, and repair webs, as applicable, of the aft
pressure bulkhead, and applicable on-condition actions.
    We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the gore
webs, gore web lap splices, and repair webs of the aft pressure
bulkhead, which could result in possible rapid decompression and loss
of structural integrity.

Comments

    We 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.

Effect of Winglets on Accomplishment of the Proposed Actions

    Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing the Supplemental
Type Certificate (STC) ST01219SE does not affect the actions specified
in the NPRM.
    We concur with the commenter. We have redesignated paragraph (c) of
the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph
(c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01219SE does not
affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD.
Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is installed, a
``change in product'' alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval
request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR
39.17.

Request To Clarify ``Related AD'' Section

    Boeing recommended that a statement be added to the ``Related AD''
section of the NPRM to provide clarification of the effect of the
proposed AD on the requirements of paragraph (o) of AD 2012-18-13 R1,
Amendment 39-17429 (78 FR 27020, May 9, 2013) (``AD 2012-18-13 R1'').
Boeing asserted that the ``Related AD'' section could be misinterpreted
to imply that the inspections required by the proposed AD are in
addition to the requirements of paragraph (o) of AD 2012-18-13 R1.
    We agree with the commenter's rationale, but the ``Related AD''
section is not included in this final rule. Therefore, no change has
been made.

Request To Address the Termination of AD 2012-18-13 R1

    Boeing requested a clarification that actions required by the
proposed AD terminate the requirements of paragraph (o) of AD 2012-18-
13 R1. Boeing asserted that the actions of Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1355, dated March 10, 2017, supersede the actions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1214, Revision 4, dated December
16, 2011, which are mandated by paragraph (o) of AD 2012-18-13 R1.
    All Nippon Airways (ANA) also requested clarification regarding
termination of the requirements of paragraph (o) of AD 2012-18-13 R1.
ANA stated that, because the compliance time is changed to ``after the
effective date of this AD'' in the proposed AD, the inspections and
corrective actions required by paragraph (o) of AD 2012-18-13 R1 may be
terminated as long as the inspections for Zone 1, as specified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1355, dated March 10, 2017, have
been done within the changed compliance time.
    We agree with the requests for clarification. We have added the
requested terminating action information as paragraph (i) of this AD
and redesignated subsequent paragraphs.

Request To Clarify the Zone 2 Definition

    Boeing requested a clarification of the definition of Zone 2 in the
``Related Service Information under 1 CFR part 51'' paragraph of the
NPRM. Boeing observed that the definition given could be misleading
because it does not specify that Zone 2 contains only the gore web lap
splices outside the apex area.
    We agree and have added the phrase ``outside the apex area'' to the
specified paragraph of this final rule.

Clarification of Compliance Exception

    We have revised the compliance exception in paragraph (j)(1) of
this AD to clarify that where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1355, dated March 10, 2017, uses the phrase ``the original issue
date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires using ``the effective
date of this AD.''

Conclusion

    We 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. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.
    We 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

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1355, dated March
10, 2017. The service information describes procedures for repetitive
inspections of the gore web in Zone 1 (i.e., inspections around
fastener locations in the gore web lap splices and around fastener
locations in the apex area outside the gore web lap splices) and gore
web lap splices in Zone 2 (i.e., inspections around fastener locations
in the gore web lap splices outside the apex area) of the aft pressure
bulkhead, and applicable on-condition actions. The service information
also describes, for airplanes with an existing single gore web repair,
procedures for repetitive inspections of the gore web (i.e.,
inspections around fastener locations in the gore web lap splices) and
repair webs (i.e., inspections around fastener locations in the gore
web lap splices and around fastener locations in the apex area outside
the gore web lap splices); and, for airplanes with an existing all gore
web repair, procedures for repetitive inspections of the repair webs
(i.e., inspections around fastener locations in the repair gore web lap
splices and around fastener locations in the apex area outside the
repair gore web lap splices); and procedures for applicable on-
condition actions. This service information 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

    We estimate that this AD affects 281 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
           Action                  Labor cost         Parts cost       Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.................  46 work-hours x $85                $0  $3,910 per inspection  $1,098,710 per
                              per hour = $3,910                      cycle.                 inspection cycle.
                              per inspection cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary on-condition
actions that would be required based on the results of the inspection.
We have no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need
these on-condition actions:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                   Action                                 Labor cost                Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection of previous single gore web       8 work-hours x $85 per hour = $680.              $0            $680
 repair.
Inspection of previous all gore web repair.  10 work-hours x $85 per hour = $850               0             850
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the repairs specified in this AD.

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to
the Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2018-04-08 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-19203; Docket No. FAA-
2017-0766; Product Identifier 2017-NM-046-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective April 3, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2012-18-13 R1, Amendment 39-17429 (78 FR
27020, May 9, 2013) (``AD 2012-18-13 R1'').

(c) Applicability

    (1) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -
200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in
any category.
    (2) Installation of Supplemental Type Certificate (STC)
ST01219SE (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgstc.nsf/0/EBD1CEC7B301293E86257CB30045557A?OpenDocument&Highlight=st01219se)
does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by
this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01219SE is
installed, a ``change in product'' alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the
requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval
holder (DAH) indicating that the gore web lap splices of the aft
pressure bulkhead are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). We
are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking in the gore webs,
gore web lap splices, and repair webs of the aft pressure bulkhead,
which could result in possible rapid decompression and loss of
structural integrity.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions for Group 1 Airplanes

    For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1355, dated March 10, 2017: Within 120 days after
the effective date of this AD, inspect the airplane, using a method
approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph
(k) of this AD.

(h) Actions Required for Compliance

    Except as required by paragraph (j) of this AD: For airplanes
identified as Group 2 in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1355,
dated March 10, 2017, at the applicable times specified in paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1355,
dated March 10, 2017, do all applicable actions identified as
required for compliance (``RC'') in, and in accordance with, the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-
53A1355, dated March 10, 2017.

(i) Termination of Requirements of Paragraph (o) of AD 2012-18-13 R1

    Accomplishment of the initial inspection for Zone 1, defined in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1355, dated March 10, 2017, and
required by paragraph (h) of this AD terminates the requirements of
paragraph (o) of AD 2012-18-13 R1.

 (j) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1355, dated
March 10, 2017, uses the phrase ``the original issue date of this
service bulletin,'' this AD requires using ``the effective date of
this AD.''
    (2) Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1355, dated
March 10, 2017, specifies to contact Boeing for repair instructions,
and specifies that action as ``RC'' (Required for Compliance), this
AD requires repair before further flight using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this
AD.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles ACO 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 local Flight Standards
District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD. Information may
be emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be
approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration
deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the
approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Except as required by paragraph (j)(2) of this AD: For
service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required
for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (k)(4)(i) and
(k)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled 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 RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact George Garrido,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5232; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(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 the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 737-53A1355, dated March 10,
2017.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 14, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-03600 Filed 2-26-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 13, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10165-10166]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03300]

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

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:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-540-000.
    Applicants: Trailblazer Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Revisions to FM, Waiver and Indemnification Sections
to be effective 3/6/2013.
    Filed Date: 2/4/13.
    Accession Number: 20130204-5130.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 2/19/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-541-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: 02/04/13 Negotiated Rates--JP Morgan Ventures Corp
(HUB)--6025-89 to be effective 2/2/2013.
    Filed Date: 2/4/13.
    Accession Number: 20130204-5134.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 2/19/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-542-000.
    Applicants: Equitrans, L.P.
    Description: Equitrans, L.P. submits Petition for partial waiver of
tariff to defer Pipeline Safety Cost Tracker update filing.
    Filed Date: 2/5/13.
    Accession Number: 20130205-5067.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 2/8/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-543-000.
    Applicants: White River Hub, LLC.
    Description: Sec. 6.18 Request to Acquire Released Capacity to be
effective 3/11/2013.
    Filed Date: 2/5/13.
    Accession Number: 20130205-5091.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 2/19/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-544-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: 02/05/13 Negotiated Rates--Sequent Energy Management
(HUB)--3075-89 to be effective 2/4/2013.
    Filed Date: 2/5/13.
    Accession Number: 20130205-5094.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 2/19/13.

    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.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP13-124-003.
    Applicants: Hardy Storage Company, LLC.
    Description: NAESB 2.0 Compliance to be effective 12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/4/13.
    Accession Number: 20130204-5137.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 2/19/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-40-002.
    Applicants: National Grid LNG, LP.
    Description: NAESB v.3.0.0 to be effective 12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/4/13.
    Accession Number: 20130204-5058.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 2/19/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-43-002.
    Applicants: Bluewater Gas Storage, LLC.
    Description: Bluewater Feb 5 NAESB compliance to be effective 12/1/
2012.
    Filed Date: 2/5/13.
    Accession Number: 20130205-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 2/19/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-44-002.
    Applicants: SG Resources Mississippi, L.L.C.
    Description: SG Resources Feb 5 NAESB Compliance to be effective
12/1/2012.
    Filed Date: 2/5/13.
    Accession Number: 20130205-5089.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 2/19/13.

    Docket Numbers: RP13-45-002.
    Applicants: Pine Prairie Energy Center, LLC.
    Description: Pine Prairie Revise NAESB filing to be effective 12/1/
2012.
    Filed Date: 2/5/13.
    Accession Number: 20130205-5090.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. e.t. 2/19/13.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, and service 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 (202) 502-
8659.

    Dated: February 6, 2013.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary
[FR Doc. 2013-03300 Filed 2-12-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 14)]
[Notices]
[Page 4214]
[DOCID:fr23ja09-78]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 30-day notice and request for comments; Revision of a
currently approved collection, OMB Number 1660-0014, FEMA Form--None.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has submitted
the following information collection to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission
describes the nature of the information collection, the categories of
respondents, the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources
used by respondents to respond) and cost, and includes the actual data
collection instruments FEMA will use.

Collection of Information

    Title: Reimbursement for Cost of Fighting Fire on Federal Property.
    OMB Number: 1660-0014.
    Form Number(s): No Forms.
    Abstract: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the
Administrator of the United States Fire Administration (USFA); and the
United States Treasury will use the information to ensure proper
expenditure of Federal funds. Once a claim is received, a copy of FEMA
determination and the claim is forwarded to the Treasury Department.
The Treasury Department will pay for fire services or its parent
jurisdiction for any moneys in the treasurer subject to reimbursement,
to the Federal department or agency under whose jurisdiction the fire
occurred.
    Affected Public: Federal Government; State, Local or Tribal
Government.
    Number of Respondents: 4.
    Estimated Time per Respondent: 1.5 Hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 6 Hours.
    Frequency of Response: On Occasion.
    Comments: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
on the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to Desk Officer for the Department of Homeland Security,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments must
be submitted on or before February 23, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Acting Director,
Records Management Division, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
Mail Drop Room 301, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Samuel C. Smith,
Acting Director, Records Management Division, Office of Management,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
 [FR Doc. E9-1285 Filed 1-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-17-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 79 (Monday, April 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24170-24171]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09529]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0026]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of denials.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its denial of 137 applications from
individuals who requested an exemption from the Federal vision standard
applicable to interstate truck and bus drivers and the reasons for the
denials. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the
vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise
safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions does
not provide a level of safety that will be equivalent to, or greater
than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal vision standard for a renewable 2-year period if it
finds ``such an exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that
is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such an exemption.'' The procedures for requesting an exemption
are set forth in 49 CFR part 381.
    Accordingly, FMCSA evaluated 137 individual exemption requests on
their

merit and made a determination that these applicants do not satisfy the
criteria eligibility or meet the terms and conditions of the Federal
exemption program. Each applicant has, prior to this notice, received a
letter of final disposition on the exemption request. Those decision
letters fully outlined the basis for the denial and constitute final
Agency action. The list published in this notice summarizes the
Agency's recent denials as required under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(4) by
periodically publishing names and reasons for denial.
    The following 4 applicants did not have sufficient driving
experience over the past 3 years under normal highway operating
conditions: Bradlee J. Durham, Nolan B. Dykema, Jerry M. Elsberry, Jr.,
James A. Pugh.
    The following 23 applicants had no experience operating a CMV:
Jeret D. Akers, Jose G. Alvarez, Cristian D. Berlingeri, Larry G.
Buchanan, Enedino A. Burgos, Michael E. Carter, Shernard Cook, Benjamin
J. Curtis, Larry L. Davis, Jr., Jesse J. DeRico, Brent I. Gruszka,
Andrei I. Gusakov, Damian Klyza, Miriam Laing, Patrick N. Lancaster,
Daniel F. Large, Curtis G. Myrah, Omar Orozco, Moises A. Portillo,
Samuel C. Rodriguez, Mark J. Smithson, William B. Stiles, Sr., Michael
H. Taylor.
    The following 22 applicants did not have 3 years of experience
driving a CMV on public highways with their vision deficiencies: Osman
M. Adanalic, Christopher L. Bolding, William H. Conley, Fernando
Cuevas, Fred L. Curtis, Kurt D. Davis, Adriano De Vargas, Alex J.
Demaree, Dennis C. Durstine, Howard G. Edgar, Hamid Ferdowsi, Eric S.
Hill, Wayde J. Isbell, Lloyd H. Kiihn, Earl B. Moffatt, Bryan S. Moses,
Ronald R. Regier, John A. Ruggiero, Timothy P. Ryan, Charles E.
Schrecengost, Barney R. Stephens, Larry L. Stewart.
    The following 16 applicants did not have 3 years of recent
experience driving a CMV with the vision deficiency: John F. Armstrong,
Gerald L. Barber, Daniel J. Council, Helmut Danecker, Anthony R.
Dirjan, David N. Groves, Antonio A. Jackson, Herman R. Lee, Jr., Robert
C. Mason, Wayne C. Merry, Sherard L. Orange, Daniel D. Sandoval, Edward
V. Skowronski, Colby T. Smith, Kenneth L. Sutphin, Bryan H. Walker.
    The following 12 applicants did not have sufficient driving
experience during the past 3 years under normal highway operating
conditions: Joshua L. Arnold, Kevin D. Duffy, Thomas M. Hallwig,
Gabriel L. Harrison, Richard K. Hemmingsen, Gerardo Hernandez, Raul T.
Leiva, Nathan M. Magaard, Mark Paugh, Gregory M. Quilling, Chad M.
Smith, Jeffrey L. Tanner.
    The following 2 applicants had their commercial driver's licenses
suspended during the previous 3-year period: Michael J. Achille,
Tydrick D. Brooks.
    The following 3 applicants contributed to an accident(s) while
operating a CMV: Thomas R. Abbott, Timothy L. Bauman, Randy J. Miller.
    The following applicant, Thomas D. Jacobsen, did not hold a license
which allowed operation of vehicles over 26,000 lbs. for all or part of
the previous 3-year period.
    The following applicant, Toby L. Simmons, did not have an
optometrist or ophthalmologist willing to make a statement that they
are able to operate a commercial vehicle from a vision standpoint.
    The following 9 applicants were denied for multiple reasons: Joseph
D. Allen, Dennis M. Coley, Timothy W. Detweiler, Hector O. Flores,
Jonathan M. Gilligan, David P. Mello, Edward R. Slater, Hawthorne B.
Smith, Thomas D. Walsh.
    The following applicant, Christopher D. Boyd, did not have stable
vision for the entire 3-year period.
    The following 13 applicants met the current federal vision
standards. Exemptions are not required for applicants who meet the
current regulations for vision: Hani Abiyounes, Kendall K. Chandler,
Chad A. Curtis, Shorty Ellis, Karl D. Graves, Carl Groves, Alexander J.
Hartelust, Lark M. Hartsock, James E. Jordon, Dorvin R. Neuberger,
Peter J. Niedzwiecki, Raimer A. Paredes-Escano, Timothy T. Tyree.
    The following 3 applicants drove interstate while restricted to
intrastate: Adrienne J. Allen, James L. Jones, Troy A. Stephens.
    The following 19 applicants will not be driving interstate,
interstate commerce, or are not required to carry a DOT medical card:
Gary W. Brockway, Fredrick Brown, Richard C. Brust, Joseph L. Cohea,
Robert L. Damron, James E. Donaldson, Richard Duran, Freddie M.
Henderson, Brian D. Hoover, Ron E. Hullett, Walter J. Jurczak, Keith
Kebschull, Charles J. Kruggel, Lois J. Mahar, Dustin M. Mills, Wilbur
Robinson, Jr., Robert G. Schoenborn, Phillip J. Will, James L. Yingst.
    Finally, the following 8 applicants perform transportation for the
federal government, state, or any political sub-division of the state.
Randy L. Coney, Rodriquez D. Evans, Jose A. Flores, Ira D. Manuelito,
Steven C. Myers, Leif H. Stensrud, Joshua E. Weicht, Aaron E. Zelmer.

    Issued on: April 18, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-09529 Filed 4-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P