[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 25, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16241-16245]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06494]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0170; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-169-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2005-13-
05, which applies to certain Boeing Model 747-400F series airplanes. AD
2005-13-05 currently requires inspections for cracking of the web,
upper chord, and upper chord strap of the upper deck floor beams, and
repair of any cracking. AD 2005-13-05 also requires a preventive
modification of the upper deck floor beams, and repetitive inspections
for cracking after accomplishing the modification. Since we issued AD
2005-13-05, the upper chords of the upper deck floor beams at certain
stations have been determined to be structures that are susceptible to
widespread fatigue damage, and certain airplanes with an initial
modification require a second modification for the airplane to meet its
limit of validity (LOV). This proposed AD would require that second
modification and repetitive inspections for cracking and repair if
necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct fatigue
cracking in certain upper chords of the upper deck floor beam, which
could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane and rapid
decompression or reduced controllability of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 9, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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-2014-
0170; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan Weigand, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6428; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2014-0170;
Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-169-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Structural fatigue damage is progressive. It begins as minute
cracks, and those cracks grow under the action of repeated stresses.
This can happen because of normal operational conditions and design
attributes, or because of isolated situations or incidents such as
material defects, poor fabrication quality, or corrosion pits, dings,
or scratches. Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or
structural design details, or globally. Global fatigue damage is
general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural
details and stress levels. Multiple-site damage is global damage that
occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a
lap splice joining two large skin panels. Global damage can also occur
in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-
site-damage and multiple-element-damage cracks are typically too small
initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods.
Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise
the structural integrity of the airplane, in a condition known as
widespread fatigue damage (WFD). As an airplane ages, WFD will likely
occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough
without any intervention.
    The FAA's WFD final rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became
effective on January 14, 2011. The WFD rule requires certain actions to
prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life
of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these
airplanes that will be certificated in the future. For existing and
future airplanes subject to the WFD rule, the rule requires that design
approval holders (DAHs) establish LOV of the engineering data that
support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the
WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV
is approved.
    The WFD rule (75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) does not require
identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show
that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane
reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend on accomplishment of
future maintenance actions. As stated in the WFD rule, any maintenance
actions necessary to reach the LOV will be mandated by airworthiness
directives through separate rulemaking actions.
    In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to
propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for
their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This
approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides
flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information
development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with
certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
    On June 10, 2005, we issued AD 2005-13-05, Amendment 39-14141 (70
FR 35989, June 22, 2005) for certain Boeing Model 747-400F series
airplanes. AD 2005-13-05 requires initial detailed and open-hole high
frequency eddy current inspections for cracking of the web, upper
chord, and upper chord strap of the upper deck floor beams, and repair
of any cracking. AD 2005-13-05 also requires a preventive modification
of the upper deck floor beams, and repetitive inspections for cracking
after accomplishing the modification. AD 2005-13-05 resulted from
reports of fatigue cracking found on the upper deck floor beam to frame
attachment points. We issued AD 2005-13-05 to prevent fatigue cracks in
the upper chord, upper chord strap, and the web of the upper deck floor
beams and resultant failure of the floor beams.

Actions Since AD 2005-13-05, Amendment 39-14141 (70 FR 35989, June 22,
2005) Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2005-13-05, Amendment 39-14141 (70 FR 35989,
June 22, 2005), we received reports that indicate that the upper chords
of the upper deck floor beams at stations (STA) 340 through 520 have
been determined to be structures that are susceptible to widespread
fatigue damage, and airplanes that had an initial modification done
before 15,000 total flight cycles require a second fastener hole zero-
timing modification for the airplane to meet its LOV.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2443, Revision 2, dated
August 2, 2013. For information on the procedures and compliance times,
see

this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
Docket No. FAA-2014-0170.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2005-
13-05, Amendment 39-14141 (70 FR 35989, June 22, 2005). This proposed
AD would also require accomplishing the actions specified in the
service information described previously.

Difference Between This Proposed AD and Service Information

    The service bulletin specifies to contact the manufacturer for
instructions on how to repair certain conditions, but this proposed AD
would require repairing those conditions in one of the following ways:
     In accordance with a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have
authorized to make those findings.

Explanation of Compliance Time

    The compliance time for the modification specified in this proposed
AD for addressing WFD was established to ensure that discrepant
structure is modified before WFD develops in airplanes. Standard
inspection techniques cannot be relied on to detect WFD before it
becomes a hazard to flight. We will not grant any extensions of the
compliance time to complete any AD-mandated service bulletin related to
WFD without extensive new data that would substantiate and clearly
warrant such an extension.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 13 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per        Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost            Parts cost        product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-modification inspections       11 work-hours x $85   $0.................         $935  $12,155.
 [retained actions from AD 2005-    per hour = $935.
 13-05, Amendment 39-14141 (70 FR
 35989, June 22, 2005).
Modification/inspections done      Up to 524 work-hours  Up to 14,874.......       59,414  772,382.
 during modification [retained      x $85 per hour =
 actions from AD 2005[dash]13-05,   $44,540.
 Amendment 39-14141 (70 FR 35989,
 June 22, 2005).
Post-modification inspections      66 work-hours x $85   0..................        5,610  72,930.
 [retained actions from AD 2005-    per hour = $5,610.
 13-05, Amendment 39-14141 (70 FR
 35989, June 22, 2005).
Zero-Timing Procedure Option 1     71 work-hours x $85   0..................        6,035  Up to 78,455.
 (including inspections)            per hour = $6,035.
 (proposed action).
Zero-Timing Procedure Option 2     103 work-hours x $85  0..................        8,755  Up to 113,815.
 (including inspections)            per hour = $8,755.
 (proposed action).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD. We have no way of determining the number of products that may need
these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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. Amend Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2005-13-
05, Amendment 39-14141 (70 FR 35989, June 22, 2005), and adding the
following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2014-0170; Directorate Identifier
2013-NM-169-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by May 9, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2005-13-05, Amendment 39-14141 (70 FR
35989, June 22, 2005).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-400F series
airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing
Service Bulletin 747-53A2443, Revision 2, dated August 2, 2013.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that the upper
chords of the upper deck floor floor beams at stations (STA) 340
through 520 have been determined to be structures that are
susceptible to widespread fatigue damage, and airplanes that had an
initial modification done before 15,000 total flight cycles require
a second fastener hole zero-timing modification for the airplane to
meet its limit of validity (LOV). We are issuing this AD to detect
and correct fatigue cracking in certain upper chords of the upper
deck floor beam, which could result in reduced structural integrity
of the airplane and rapid decompression or reduced controllability
of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Inspections With Revised Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2005-13-05, Amendment 39-14141 (70 FR 35989, June 22, 2005), with
revised service information. Before the accumulation of 15,000 total
flight cycles, or within 1,000 flight cycles after July 27, 2005
(the effective date of AD 2005-13-05 whichever is later: Accomplish
detailed and open-hole high frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspections for cracking of the web, upper chord, and upper chord
strap of the upper deck floor beams, by doing all the applicable
actions in accordance with Part 3.B.1. of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2443, dated May 9,
2002; or Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-53A2443, Revision 2, dated August 2, 2013. As of the
effective date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2443,
Revision 2, dated August 2, 2013, may be used.

(h) Retained Repair With Revised Service Information and Revised Repair
Approval Language

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2005-13-05, Amendment 39-14141 (70 FR 35989, June 22, 2005), with
revised service information and revised repair approval language. If
any crack is found during any inspection required by paragraph (g)
of this AD: Before further flight, accomplish the actions required
by paragraph (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD.
    (1) Repair in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2443, dated May 9, 2002; or Boeing
Service Bulletin 747-53A2443, Revision 2, dated August 2, 2013;
except where these service bulletins specify to contact Boeing for
appropriate action, before further flight, repair the cracking using
a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (o) of this AD. After the effective date of this AD, only
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2443, Revision 2, dated August 2,
2013, may be used.
    (2) Accomplish the inspections and preventive modification of
the floor beams by doing all the actions in accordance with Part
3.B.2. or Part 3.B.3., as applicable, of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2443, dated May 9,
2002, or Part 2 or Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2443, Revision 2, dated August 2,
2013. If any crack is found during any inspection, before further
flight, repair as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD. After the
effective date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2443,
Revision 2, dated August 2, 2013, may be used.

(i) Retained Modification With Revised Service Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (i) of AD
2005-13-05, Amendment 39-14141 (70 FR 35989, June 22, 2005), with
revised service information. If no crack is found during any
inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD: Accomplish the
actions required by either paragraph (i)(1) or (i)(2) of this AD, at
the time specified.
    (1) Before further flight: Accomplish the inspections and
preventive modification of the floor beam by doing all the actions
in accordance with Part 3.B.2 or Part 3.B.3., as applicable, of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2443,
dated May 9, 2002; or Part 2 or Part 3 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2443, Revision 2,
dated August 2, 2013. If the preventive modification is performed
concurrently with the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this
AD, the upper chord straps must be removed when performing the open-
hole HFEC inspection. If any crack is found during any inspection,
before further flight, repair as required by paragraph (h)(1) of
this AD. After the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Service
Bulletin 747-53A2443, Revision 2, dated August 2, 2013, may be used.
    (2) Before the accumulation of 20,000 total flight cycles, or
within 1,000 flight cycles after July 27, 2005 (the effective date
of AD 2005-13-05, Amendment 39-14141 (70 FR 35989, June 22, 2005),
whichever is later: Accomplish the inspections and preventive
modification of the upper deck floor beams, by doing all the actions
in accordance with Part 3.B.2. or 3.B.3. as applicable, of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2443,
dated May 9, 2002; or Part 2 or Part 3, as applicable, of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2443,
Revision 2, dated August 2, 2013. If any crack is found during any
inspection, before further flight, repair as required by paragraph
(h)(1) of this AD. After the effective date of this AD, only Boeing
Service Bulletin 747-53A2443, Revision 2, dated August 2, 2013, may
be used.

(j) Retained Post-Modification Inspections With Revised Service
Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (j) of AD
2005-13-05, Amendment 39-14141 (70 FR 35989, June 22, 2005), with
revised service information. Within 15,000 flight cycles after
accomplishing the applicable preventive modification required by
paragraph (h)(2), (i)(1), or (i)(2) of this AD: Accomplish the
inspections required by either paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this
AD; if any crack is found during any inspection, before further
flight, repair as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.
    (1) Accomplish detailed and surface HFEC inspections for
cracking of the web, upper chord, and upper chord strap of the upper
deck floor beams, by doing all the applicable actions in accordance
with Part 3.B.4. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 747-53A2443, dated May 9, 2002; or Part 4 of the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2443,
Revision 2, dated August 2, 2013. If no crack is found, repeat the
inspections at intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight cycles. After
the effective date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin 747-
53A2443, Revision 2, dated August 2, 2013, may be used.
    (2) Accomplish detailed and open-hole HFEC inspections for
cracking of the web, upper chord, and strap of the upper deck floor
beams, by doing all the applicable actions in accordance with Part
3.B.5. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin
747-53A2443, dated May 9, 2002; or Part 5 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2443, Revision 2,
dated August 2, 2013. If no crack is found, repeat the inspections
at intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight cycles. After the effective
date of this AD, only Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2443, Revision
2, dated August 2, 2013, may be used.

(k) New Floor Beam Hole Zero-Timing

    Within 20,000 flight cycles after accomplishing the preventive
modification of the Station 340 to Station 520 upper deck floor
beams specified in paragraph (h)(2), (i)(1), or (i)(2) of this AD,
or within 1,000 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later: Accomplish the floor beam hole zero-timing
in accordance with Part 6. of the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2443, Revision 2, dated August 2,
2013.

(l) New Post-Floor Beam Hole Zero-Timing Inspections

    Within 15,000 flight cycles after accomplishing the floor beam
hole zero-timing required by paragraph (k) of this AD: Accomplish
the inspections required by either paragraph (l)(1) or (l)(2) of
this AD; if any cracking is found during any inspection, before
further flight, repair as required by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.
    (1) Accomplish detailed and surface HFEC inspections for
cracking of the web, upper chord, and straps of the Station 340 to
Station 520 upper deck floor beams, by doing all the applicable
actions, in accordance with Part 4 of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2443, Revision 2,
dated August 2, 2013. If no cracking is found, repeat the
inspections at intervals not to exceed 1,000 flight cycles.
    (2) Accomplish detailed and open-hole HFEC inspections for
cracking of the web, upper chord, and straps of the Station 340 to
Station 520 upper deck floor beams, by doing all the applicable
actions, in accordance with Part 5. of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2443, Revision 2,
dated August 2, 2013. If no cracking is found, repeat the
inspections at intervals not to exceed 5,000 flight cycles.

(m) Exception to Service Information

    Where Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2443, Revision 2, dated
August 2, 2013, specifies a compliance time ``after the revision
date on this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within
the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

(n) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the inspections, repairs, and
modification required by paragraphs (g) through (j) of this AD, if
the corresponding actions were performed before the effective date
of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 747-53A2443, Revision 1,
dated June 25, 2009.

(o) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
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 ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (p)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (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 required by this AD if it is approved by Boeing
Commercial Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA)
that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO to make those
findings. For a repair method to be approved, the repair must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved for AD 2005-13-05, Amendment 39-14141 (70 FR
35989, June 22, 2005), are approved as AMOCs for the corresponding
requirements of paragraphs (g) through (j) (the retained actions) of
this AD.

(p) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Nathan Weigand,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-
3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 17, 2014.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-06494 Filed 3-24-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 209 (Thursday, October 29, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66610-66612]
[FR Doc No: 2015-27480]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0061]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements: Agency
Information Collection Activity

ACTION: Request for public comment on a proposed collection of
information

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatements of previously approved collections. This
document describes one collection of information for which NHTSA
intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by December 28, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket No. NHTSA-2015-
0061 through one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket Management Facility, US
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590 between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submission must include the agency name and
docket number for this proposed collection of information. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulation.gov, including any personal information provided. Please
see the Privacy heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, or the street address listed above. Follow
the online instructions for accessing the dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For access to background documents,
contact Ritchie Huang, Office of Crash Avoidance and Electronic
Controls, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed

collection of information to OMB for approval, it must first publish a
document in the Federal Register providing a 60-day comment period and
otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies
concerning each proposed collection of information. The OMB has
promulgated regulations describing what must be included in such a
document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an agency must
ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected;
    (iv) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following proposed collection of information for which
the agency is seeking approval from OMB:
    OMB Control Number: Not assigned.
    Title: Heavy Vehicle Collision Warning Interfaces
    Form Numbers: None.
    Type of Review: New Information Collection
    Background: Crash warning systems (CWSs) for commercial motor
vehicles have been available for more than 20 years. CWSs can include
features such as forward collision and lane departure warnings and use
a variety of sensor technologies (e.g., radar) to determine the crash
risk of a collision. CWSs are designed to warn the driver to take
action to avoid or mitigate a potential crash.
    CWSs are available as both options from OEMs and as aftermarket/
retrofit devices. While there are certain similarities between
offerings within a particular CWS product class (e.g., forward
collision warning (FCW)), there are also differences in how suppliers
present collision warnings, including the design of visual displays and
auditory alerts. Typically, suppliers will use a combination of visual
and audio modalities to convey a potential crash situation to the
driver. However, their implementations vary across factors such as the
visual interface, auditory alert, and the salience of alerts. While CWS
implementations change and evolve, it is likely that certain warning
interfaces are more effective than others during crash-imminent
situations. This research seeks to examine the impact of CWSs as they
pertain to commercial motor vehicle safety. The primary goal of this
effort is to evaluate CWSs and assess the effectiveness of these
driver-vehicle interfaces for heavy trucks and motorcoaches.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information: The collection of information consists of: (1) An
eligibility questionnaire, (2) a demographic questionnaire, (3) mid
study questionnaires, and (4) post study questionnaire.
    The information to be collected will be used to:
     Eligibility questionnaire(s) will be used to obtain self-
reported eligibility information participants must meet to qualify for
participation in this study (e.g., must hold valid Class A driver's
license to drive a tractor-trailer).
     Demographic questionnaire will be used to obtain
demographic information to confirm that the study group includes
participants from various groups (e.g., age, gender). Other demographic
information will be collected to describe the study sample (e.g., heavy
vehicle operation type and classification).
     Mid-study questionnaires will be used to get information
about drivers' beliefs and attitude towards different driver
distractions and their willingness to perform these types of
distractions in their own vehicle. These questionnaires also serve the
purpose of setting up the true surprise event which is targeted to
elicit a natural response from the driver during a crash warning. Each
driver will complete three mid study questionnaires, one after
experiencing each task.
     Post study questionnaire(s) will be used to get
information about drivers' beliefs and attitude towards the visual and
auditory alerts used in the technology tested, and to identify
potential problems associated with each system. These questionnaires
will also be used to assess perceived distraction potential of the
systems as well as its usefulness. Each driver will complete a post
study questionnaire once, after experiencing the surprise event.
    Respondents: Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee
drivers with a valid Class A commercial driver license.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 50 to 60.
    Estimated Number of Responses: Eligibility screening will consist
of one response containing 26 questions per respondent. Full
participation in the study will include a demographics questionnaire
containing seven questions per participant, three mid-study
questionnaires each containing three questions per participant, and the
post questionnaire containing 12 questions per participant.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 37 minutes per respondent (44 hours
total).
    Estimated Frequency: Onetime for the eligibility, post study, and
demographic questionnaire; three times for the mid study questionnaire.

                                                             Table 1--Estimated Burden Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
                                                             Number of                                       Estimated         Total         annualize
                       Instrument                           respondents    Frequency of      Number of      individual       estimated        cost to
                                                                \1\          responses       questions        burden       burden hours     respondents
                                                                                (minutes)                          \2\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eligibility questionnaire...............................             100               1              26              10              17         $414.80
Demographic questionnaire...............................              60               1               7               2               2           48.80
Mid-study questionnaires................................              60               3               9              10              10          244.00
Post study questionnaire................................              60               1              12              15              15          366.00
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............        44 hours        1,073.60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The number of respondents in this table includes drop-out rates.
\2\ Estimated based on the mean hourly rate for Virginia (all occupations) is $24.40 as reported in the May 2014 Occupational Employment and Wage
  Estimates, Bureau of Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_va.htm.

    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the Department's
performance; (b) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for the
Department to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the
information collection; and (d) ways that the burden could be minimized
without reducing the quality of the collected information. The agency
will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's
clearance of this information collection.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44. U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; 5 CFR part 1320; and 49 CFR 1.95.

Nathaniel Beuse,
Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research.
[FR Doc. 2015-27480 Filed 10-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 50 (Friday, March 14, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14504-14505]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05627]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14345-001]

Rock River Beach, Inc.; Notice of Availability of Environmental
Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC)
regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations part 380 (Order No. 486, 52
FR 47879), the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed Rock River Beach,
Inc.'s application for an original license to continue operating the
unlicensed Rock River Beach Hydroelectric Project (FERC Project No.
14345-001). The 8.0-kilowatt project is located on the Rock River in
Alger County, Michigan. The project does not occupy any federal land.
    Staff prepared an environmental assessment (EA), which analyzes the
potential environmental effects of licensing the project and concludes
that licensing the project, with appropriate protective measures, would
not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the
quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the EA is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free number at 1-866-208-3676, or
for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may also register online at www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings
and issuances related to this or other pending projects. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    Any comments should be filed within 30 days from the date of this
notice. The Commission strongly encourages

electronic filing. Please file the requested information using the
Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any filing should include
docket number P-14345-001.

    Dated: March 7, 2014.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-05627 Filed 3-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 118)]
[Notices]
[Page 35001-35003]
[DOCID:fr21jn10-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC10-725E-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-FERC-725E);
Comment Request; Extension

June 15, 2010.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.

ACTION: Notice of proposed information collection and request for
comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(A)
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A) (2006),
(Pub. L. No. 104-13), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the proposed
information collection described below.

DATES: Comments in consideration of the collection of information are
due 60 days after publication of this Notice in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be filed either electronically (eFiled) or in
paper format, and should refer to Docket No. IC10-725E-000. Documents
must be prepared in an acceptable filing format and in compliance with
Commission submission guidelines at http://www.ferc.gov/help/
submission-guide.asp. eFiling instructions are available at: http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. First time users must follow
eRegister instructions at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/
eregistration.asp, to establish a user name and password before
eFiling. The Commission will send an automatic acknowledgement to the
sender's e-mail address upon receipt of eFiled comments. Commenters
making an eFiling should not make a paper filing. Commenters that are
not able to file electronically must send an original and two (2) paper
copies of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    Users interested in receiving automatic notification of activity in
this docket may do so through eSubscription at http://www.ferc.gov/
docs-filing/esubscription.asp. In addition, all comments and FERC
issuances may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely through FERC's
eLibrary at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp, by searching
on Docket No. IC10-725E-000. For user assistance, contact FERC Online
Support by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at: (866)
208-3676 (toll-free) or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller may be reached by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at
(202) 273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information collected by the FERC-725E
(OMB Control No. 1902-0246) is required to implement the statutory
provisions of section 215 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C.
824o). Section 215 of the FPA buttresses the Commission's efforts to
strengthen the reliability of the interstate grid through the grant of
new authority by providing for a system of mandatory Reliability
Standards developed by the Electric Reliability Organization.
Reliability Standards that the ERO proposes to the Commission may
include Reliability Standards that are proposed to the ERO by a
Regional Entity.\1\ A Regional Entity is an entity that has been
approved by the Commission to enforce Reliability Standards under
delegated authority from the ERO.\2\ On June 8, 2008 in an adjudicatory
order, the Commission approved eight regional Reliability Standards
submitted by the ERO that were proposed by the Western Electricity
Coordinating Council (WECC).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(e)(4).
    \2\ 16 U.S.C. 824o(a)(7) and (e)(4).
    \3\ 72 FR 33462, June 18, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    WECC is responsible for coordinating and promoting electric system
reliability. In addition to promoting a reliable electric power system
in the Western Interconnection, WECC supports efficient competitive
power markets, ensures open and non-discriminatory transmission access
among members, and provides a forum for resolving transmission access
disputes plus the coordination of operating and planning activities of
its members. WECC and the eight other regional reliability councils
were formed due to national concern regarding the reliability of the
interconnected bulk power systems, the ability to operate these systems
without widespread failures in electric service and the need to foster
the preservation of reliability through a formal organization. The
eight regional Reliability Standards are translations of existing
reliability criteria and are now binding on the applicable subset of
users, owners and operators of the Bulk Power System in the United
States portion of the Western Interconnection. The Commission's
reporting requirements are found in 18 CFR Part 40.
    The eight proposed Reliability Standards do not require responsible
entities to file information with the Commission. However, the
standards do require responsible entities to file periodic reports with
WECC and to develop and maintain certain information for a specified
period of time, subject to inspection by WECC. WECC-BAL-STD-002-0
requires balancing authorities and reserve sharing groups to submit to
WECC quarterly reports on operating reserves as well as reports after
any instance of non-compliance. WECC-IRO-STD-006-0 requires
transmission operators, balancing authorities and load-serving entities
to document and report to WECC actions taken in response to direction
to mitigate unscheduled flow. The standard also requires transmission
operators to document required actions that are and are not taken by
responsible entities. WECC-PRC-STD-001-1 requires certain transmission
operators to submit to WECC annual certifications of protective
equipment. WECC-PRC-STD-003-1 requires certain transmission operators
to report to WECC any misoperation of relays and remedial action
schemes. WECC-PRC-STD-005-1 requires certain transmission operators to
maintain, in stated form, maintenance and inspection records pertaining
to their transmission facilities. The standard also requires operators
to certify to WECC that the operator is maintaining the required
records. WECC-TOP-STD-007-0 requires certain transmission operators to
submit to WECC quarterly reports on transfer capability data and
compliance as well as reports after an instance of non-compliance.
WECC-VAR-STD-002a-1 and WECC-VAR-STD-002b-1 require certain generators
to submit quarterly reports to WECC on automatic voltage control and
power system stabilizers. All of the foregoing regional Reliability
Standards require the reporting entity to retain relevant data in
electronic form for one year or for a longer period if the data is
relevant to a dispute or potential penalty, except that WECC-PRC-STD-
005-1 requires retention of maintenance and inspection records for five
years and retention of other data for four years.
    The Commission uses the data to participate in North American
Electric Reliability Council's (NERC's) Reliability readiness reviews
of balancing authorities, transmission operators and reliability
coordinators in North America to determine their readiness to maintain
safe and reliable operations. In addition, FERC's Office of Electric
Reliability uses the data to engage in studies and other activities to
assess the longer-term and strategic needs and issues related to power
grid reliability.
    Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the
FERC-725E reporting requirements, with no changes.
    Burden Statement: The estimated annual burden follows.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Average number of    Average  burden
        FERC Data collection              Number of         reponses per         hours  per       Total burden
                                         respondents         respondent           response            hours
                                                   (1)                   (2)               (3)   (1) x (2) x (3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FERC-725E Reporting:
    Balancing Authorities...........                32                     1                20               640
    Generator Operators.............               196                     1                10              1960
    Load-Serving Entities...........               140                     1                10              1490
    Transmission Operators/Owners...                83    1-7 each (total of                40              3320
                                                                         83)
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Record-keeping..................        Balancing Authorities             ................                64
                                              Generator Operators             ................               196
                                            Load-Serving Entities             ................               140
                                      Transmission Owners/Operators           ................               332
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Totals             ................               732
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7,410 Total Annual hours for the Information Collection: 7,410
reporting hours + 732 recordkeeping = 8,142 hours.

    The Commission is seeking comments on the costs to comply with
these requirements. It has projected the average annualized cost to be
$918,480 as shown below:

Reporting = 7,410 hours @ $120/hour = $889,200, Recordkeeping = 732
hours @ $40/hour = $29,280
Total Costs = Reporting ($889,200) + Recordkeeping ($29,280) = $918,480

    The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing,
acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining,
disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways
to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
(4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5)
searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of
information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the
information.
    The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for
professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect
overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to
providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost
for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs
incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs
apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than
any one particular function or activity.
    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic submission of
responses.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-14956 Filed 6-18-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 59 (Tuesday, March 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16593-16594]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06478]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER21-1498-000]

Hawtree Creek Farm Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Hawtree Creek Farm Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.

    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is April 12, 2021.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: March 23, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-06478 Filed 3-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 3 (Monday, January 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 553-554]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28472]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0097; Notice 1]

FCA US, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: FCA US LLC (f/k/a Chrysler Group LLC) ``FCA US'' has
determined that certain model year (MY) 2019 Chrysler Pacifica motor
vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation
Vehicle Trailer Load Carrying Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles
with a GVWR of 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) or Less. FCA US filed a
noncompliance report dated August 27, 2019. FCA US subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on September 20, 2019, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This document announces receipt of FCA US's petition.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is February 5,
2020.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket number and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the
comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also

be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    FCA US has determined that certain MY 2019 Chrysler Pacifica motor
vehicles do not fully comply with paragraphs S4.3(a) and (b) of FMVSS
No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation Vehicle
Trailer Load Carrying Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles with a
GVWR of 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 Pounds) or Less (49 CFR 571.110). FCA
US filed a noncompliance report dated August 27, 2019, pursuant to 49
CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. FCA
US subsequently petitioned NHTSA on September 20, 2019, for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of FCA US's petition, is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercises of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.

II. Vehicles Involved

    Approximately 350 MY 2019 Chrysler Pacifica motor vehicles,
manufactured between October 4, 2018, and July 3, 2019, are potentially
involved.

III. Noncompliance

    FCA US explains that the noncompliance is that the subject vehicles
tire placard label erroneously states the seating capacity as seven
occupants rather than eight occupants, and shows a combined occupant
and cargo weight of 1,150 lbs. rather than 1,240 lbs. as required by
paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraphs S4.3(a) and S4.3(b) of FMVSS No. 110 include the
requirements relevant to this petition. Each vehicle, except for a
trailer or incomplete vehicle, shall show the information specified in
paragraphs S4.3(a), vehicle capacity weight expressed as the combined
weight of occupants and cargo and S4.3(b) designated seated capacity
(expressed in terms of total number of occupants and number of
occupants for each front and rear seat location.

V. Summary of FCA US's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, are
the views and arguments provided by FCA US. They have not been
evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect the views of the Agency.
    FCA US described the subject noncompliance and stated that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
FCA US submitted the following views and arguments in support of the
petition:
    1. While the number of occupants and the calculated weight are
incorrect on the vehicle placard label, the calculated weight for seven
occupants (1,150 lbs.) is below the calculated weight for eight
occupants (1,240 lbs.), and therefore, there is no risk of vehicle
overloading.
    2. All information required for maintaining and/or replacing the
front and rear tires is correct on the vehicle placard of the affected
vehicles. In fact, the recommended cold tire inflation pressures for
both the seven occupants and the eight occupant vehicles are the same.
Therefore, there is no risk of under-inflation.
    3. All other applicable requirements of FMVSS No. 110 have been
met.
    4. The vehicle certification label is correct. Vehicles with seven
occupants and eight occupants share the same Gross Vehicle Weight
Rating (6055 lbs.), and front and rear Gross Axle Weight Rating (2950
lbs. and 3200 lbs., respectively).
    5. The number of seats and the number of safety belts installed in
the vehicle will clearly indicate to a vehicle owner the actual seating
capacity, the rear seating of the affected vehicles contains six seat
belt assemblies, and provides adequate space for six people to occupy
the rear seats. Further, the vehicle in fact does accommodate six
occupants, and not five as labeled.
    6. FCA US is not aware of any crashes, injuries, or customer
complaints associated with this condition.
    7. NHTSA has previously granted inconsequential treatment for FMVSS
110 noncompliance for incorrect vehicle placard seated capacity values.
Examples of the agency granting a similar inconsequentiality petition
for vehicle placard incorrect seated capacity are:
     General Motors, LLC, 79 FR 69557 (November 21, 2014)
     Ford Motor Company, 74 FR 69373 (December 31, 2009)
     BMW of North America, LLC, a Subsidiary of BMW AG, 78 FR
43964 (July 22, 2013)
    FCA US concluded that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition to be
exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required
by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by
49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that FCA US no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, any decision on this petition does not relieve
vehicle distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer
for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after FCA US
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2019-28472 Filed 1-3-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


1CFR Parts 420, 437, and 438 DCN 300 013 SUBJ: HEM Final Limitations for Poultry Subcategory ( Subcategory K)  Existing Sources FROM: Shari Barash TO: MPP Project Record DATE: February 24, 2004 Consistent with other recently promulgated or amended effluent guidelines limitations and standards for other point source categories, 1 EPA excluded all self monitoring oil and grease data analyzed with methods that require freon, an ozone depleting agent, as an extraction solvent. EPA is phasing out these freon based methods and has approved a replacement method, Method 1664, which measures hexane extractable materials ( HEM). EPA has concluded that the freon based methods are unlikely to produce comparable results to Method 1664.

As explained in DCN 300 011, EPA selected Episode 307a as the model facility for the BOD 5 and TSS parameter limitations in the Poultry Subcategory. EPA is unable to base the HEM limitations on data from Episode 307a because EPA's database does not contain any HEM data for Facility 307a.

Thus, to develop the final limitations and standards for HEM, as was done for BOD 5 and TSS, for the Poultry Subcategory, EPA first determined the median HEM effluent concentrations of all of the poultry facilities in its database that utilize Option 2 or Option 2.5 technologies. In response to comments, EPA eliminated all Option 2 and Option 2.5 facilities with a filter or chemical phosphorus removal from the analysis. The Option 2 and Option 2.5 technologies are the same except that Option 2.5 also includes partial denitrification. However, EPA found that no Option 2 facilities had any HEM data, so was left with only Option 2.5 facilities. Since EPA has no basis to conclude that this additional step would have any effect on the HEM effluent concentrations, EPA concluded that it is appropriate to transfer the HEM limitations for the Poultry Subcategory from Option 2.5. Table 1 provides information on the facilities and HEM effluent discharges used to calculate the median HEM effluent concentrations. Based on comments that EPA should use all of the data available to it, EPA used its full effluent database for Option 2 and 2.5 facilities ( i. e., including data from facilities that only provided data reported as summarized monthly averages ) to calculate the HEM LTAs and limitations for the final rule. This ensures that facilities operating the selected technology would be able to achieve the limitations and standards of the final rule. Table 1: Data Used to Establish HEM Limitations in the Poultry Subcategorya Episode Number LTA, mg/ L 1 Day VF 4 Day VF Daily Max Limit, mg/ L Monthly Average Limit, mg/ L 11 5.75 1.93 1.23 26 6.21 2.51 1.37 32 6.13 2.12 1.29 6448 5.93 b b 312 c c c Final Limitation 6.03 2.19 1.30 13.2 7.8 aValues include autocorrelation and were determined using the methods described in Chapter 14 of the final Technical Development Document. bEPA is unable to calculate variability factors for data sets that contain only a single non censored value ( See Chapter 14 of the final Technical Development Document for more details). cAlthough this facility provided EPA with some summary effluent data, the data included boiler blowdown wastewater and is therefore not representative of poultry process wastewaters alone.

The final limitation LTA is the median of the four facilities with usable data, while the final Vfs are the means of the 3 facilities with usable data. This is consistent with EPAs approach in past effluent guidelines.