[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 31 (Thursday, February 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10119-10120]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03317]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4517-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

West Virginia; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of West Virginia (FEMA-4517-DR), dated April 3, 2020, and
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on January 20, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Janice P.
Barlow, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this disaster.

    This action terminates the appointment of MaryAnn Tierney as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Robert J. Fenton,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-03317 Filed 2-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 170 (Thursday, September 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 54480]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22393]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4015-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Louisiana; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4015-DR), dated August 18,
2011, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 18, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated August 18, 2011, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Louisiana resulting from flooding during the period of April 25
to July 7, 2011, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant
a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster
exists in the State of Louisiana.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Gerard M. Stolar, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Louisiana have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    The parishes of Assumption, Avoyelles, Concordia, East Carroll,
Lafourche, Madison, Point Coupee, St. Charles, St. James, St.
Landry, St. Martin, St. Mary, Tensas, Terrebonne, and West Feliciana
for Public Assistance.
    All parishes within the State of Louisiana are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-22393 Filed 8-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


SC10079 Memorandum To: Lynne Tudor, Debbi Hart, Deborah Nagle, and Tom Wall, U. S. EPA From: Bob Raucher and Tom Ottem, Stratus Consulting Inc.

Date: July 9, 2002 Subject: Responses to Riverkeeper Follow Up Questions on § 316( b) Phase II Case Study Benefits Analyses TUFTS Follow up Questions in document " followup Question to TUFTS # 1( 6 27 02). doc", dated June 27, 2002 Q1. As you can see, none of the costs or benefits ( in the table below) match up, even when the options are properly ordered. Please explain.

Table from question Option Benefits Costs FR EBA FR EBA FR EBA Proposed 3 $ 703 $ 735 $ 178 $ 283 1 4 $ 1,164 $ 1,223 $ 2,260 $ 3,507 2 6 $ 1,328 $ 1,159 Not costed Not costed 3 1 and 2 $ 849 $ 1,034/ $ 890 $ 585 $ 969/ $ 610 4 3a $ 65 $ 749 $ 191 $ 300 Answer: The benefits differ between the Preamble and the Economic and Benefits Analysis ( EBA) because the benefits in the Preamble were not sample weighted in the same manner as the costs were. The benefits in the Preamble are for 539 in scope facilities, while the corrected benefits in the EBA are for 550 in scope facilities.

The costs of the policy options presented in the Preamble are total private ( post tax) costs. They correspond to the costs presented in Part B of the EBA. The costs presented on page D1 4 of the EBA are total social ( pre tax) costs. Table D1 2 on page D1 3 presents a comparison between the total private ( post tax) costs and the total social ( pre tax) costs of the different policy options analyzed. Stratus Consulting Memorandum ( 7/ 9/ 2002)

Page 2 SC10079 Q2. In addition, since Option 3 in the EBA was calculated for " all plants follow Track I" and " Some Q3. Finally, since the Federal Register contains the proposed regulation and alternative approaches to be commented on,

Answer 3:

to: ° the EBA, Chapter C3 ( docket # DCN 4 0002) ° Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 68, Section IX, pages 17189 17208, ° docket documents DCN 4 2070, DCN 4 2212, and DCN 4 2213, and ° the appendix to this memorandum.

For details on costs please refer to: ° the EBA, Chapters B1 and B2 ( docket # DCN 4 0002), ° Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 68, Section VIII, pages 17181 17189, and ° Stratus Consulting Memorandum ( 7/ 9/ 2002)

Page 3 SC10079 Responses to questions in document titled " Three follow up questions. wpd"

Q1. National benefits appear to be a linear function of case study benefits, with some facilities representing only themselves and some used as the basis for estimating benefits at other plants. Thus it appears that EPA's estimate could be expressed as National impingement losses = A * Salem + B * Tampa + C * Ohio 29 + D * Whiting + E * Pilgrim + F * Brayton Point + G * Contra Costa + H * Pittsburg + I * Monroe + J * Seabrook A similar equation applies to entrainment losses, perhaps with different coefficients.

Please supply the values of coefficients A through J, suitable for reproducing the EBA estimates of impingement and entrainment losses a) at the 539 facilities that answered the survey, and b) at all 550 in scope facilities.

Answer: As suggested in the question, national benefits are calculated as a linear function of the case study benefits. However, the coefficients A through J, as defined above, are not explicitly calculated. Please refer to the detailed explanation in the appendix to this memo for further detail.

Q2. Do impingement figures include estimates of impingement survival? If so, what survival rate does EPA assume? What is the justification for this assumption?

Q3. What is the source of the estimated costs of cooling towers used in the EBA? Were alternative cost estimates examined? Please supply any cost estimates used or considered in this analysis.

Answer: Stratus Consulting Memorandum ( 7/ 9/ 2002)

1. Note that this uses Salem results based on an extrapolation relevant baseline ( without screens) and, therefore, differs from Salem results in the case study ( with screens). Page 4 SC10079 APPENDIX: ADDITIONAL DETAIL ON EXTRAPOLATION The sections below present a detailed explanation of how the case study results are extrapolated to national benefits estimates. To keep this brief, we show the step by step calculations for estimating benefits from reducing impingement at in scope facilities located on non Gulf estuaries.

All monetary values in the memo are reported in thousands of 2001 dollars.

Per the request of Jim Laity of OMB, this memorandum presents a detailed explanation of how the case study results are extrapolated to national benefits estimates. To keep this brief, we show the step by step calculations for estimating benefits from reducing impingement at in scope facilities located on non Gulf estuaries.

All monetary values in the memo are reported in thousands of 2001 dollars.

1. Extrapolation Based on Flow The first step in the flow ( or MGD) extrapolation is to estimate the national baseline loss for all in scope Estuary NonGulf facilities based on the Salem case study results and average daily flows at all in scope facilities. This flow extrapolation relies on two key pieces of data that are reported in Tables C3 1 and C3 2 in the Economics and Benefits Analysis, and is calculated as follows:

Salem baseline loss estimate middle case reported in Table C3 2; this is the average ( midpoint) of the benefits transfer/ RUM estimate1 $ 703.80 Salem normalized flow ( MGD) % of all in scope Estuary NonGulf flows; calculated from CBI; reported in Table C3 1 4.39480% National flow based estimate of baseline loss from impingement ( for 78 in scope Estuary NonGulf facilities) = Salem loss/ Salem normalized flow $ 16,014.38 The next step is to estimate the values for Table C3 3. In this case, all the case study values are simply reported in the table. The values for " All Other In Scope" facilities are calculated using the percentage of national flow ( by waterbody type) at these facilities. These are the values reported in Table C3 3 of the Economic and Benefits Analysis. Stratus Consulting Memorandum ( 7/ 9/ 2002)

2. Salem, Brayton Point, Contra Costa, and Pittsburg account for 7.1% of flows at non Gulf estuary in scope facilities. Page 5 SC10079 Facility Baseline impingement loss estimate Salem case study result from Table C3 2 $ 704 Brayton Point case study result from Table C3 2 $ 450 Contra Costa case study result from Table C3 2 $ 5,726 Pittsburg case study result from Table C3 2 $ 22,268 All other in scope = national extrapolation estimate * % of flow in all other in scope facilities2 = $ 16,014.38 * 0.92885 $ 14,875 Total ( for 78 in scope Estuary NonGulf facilities) $ 44,022 2. Extrapolation Based on Angling Days The first step in the extrapolation is to estimate the national baseline loss for all in scope Estuary NonGulf facilities based on the Salem case study results and estimated angling activity within a 120 mile radius of the facility. This angling extrapolation relies on two key pieces of data that are reported in Tables C3 1 and C3 2, and is calculated as follows:

Salem baseline loss estimate middle case reported in Table C3 2; this is the average ( midpoint) of the benefits transfer/ RUM estimate $ 703.80 Salem percentage of in scope angling base % of all in scope estuary NonGulf angling days; calculated from 1999 National Survey of Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife Based Recreation; reported in Table C3 1 2.10301% National angling based estimate of baseline loss from impingement ( for 78 in scope Estuary NonGulf facilities) = Salem loss/ Salem normalized flow $ 33,466.32 The next step is to estimate the values for Table C3 3. In this case, all the case study values are simply reported in the table. The values for " All Other In Scope" facilities are calculated using the percentage of national angling days ( by waterbody type) at these facilities. These are the values reported in Table C3 4 of the Economic and Benefits Analysis. Stratus Consulting Memorandum ( 7/ 9/ 2002)

3. Salem, Brayton Point, Contra Costa, and Pittsburg account for 5.1% of the " angling days" associated with inscope facilities in non Gulf estuaries. All other facilities therefore account for 94.9%. Page 6 SC10079 Facility Baseline impingement loss estimate Salem case study result from Table C3 2 $ 704 Brayton Point case study result from Table C3 2 $ 450 Contra Costa case study result from Table C3 2 $ 5,726 Pittsburg case study result from Table C3 2 $ 22,268 All other in scope = national extrapolation estimate * % of angling days at all other in scope facilities3 = $ 33,466.32* 0.94888 $ 31,755 Total ( for 78 in scope Estuary NonGulf facilities) $ 60,903 3. Best Estimate Baseline Loss The calculation of the best estimates varies by water body type. For the Estuary NonGulf, Estuary Gulf, and Freshwater categories, the average of the flow based and angling based extrapolations was used. For the Great Lakes and Ocean categories, the flow based extrapolation was used exclusively. Stratus Consulting Memorandum ( 7/ 9/ 2002)

Page 7 SC10079 Facility Baseline impingement loss estimate Salem case study result from Table C3 2 $ 704 Brayton Point case study result from Table C3 2 $ 450 Contra Costa case study result from Table C3 2 $ 5,726 Pittsburg case study result from Table C3 2 $ 22,268 All other in scope average of middle case values from Tables C3 3 and C3 4 $ 24,835 Total ( for 78 in scope Estuary NonGulf facilities) $ 57,802 4. Benefits There are two steps to calculating benefits from the baseline loss estimates developed in steps 1 3. First, the loss estimates are weighted using sample weights developed by Abt Associates for use in the cost analysis. Second, estimated percent reductions in I& E are applied to the estimated baseline loss ( i. e., benefits equal reductions in loss that are assumed to be directly proportional to the reduction in I& E estimated for each regulatory option).

4.1 Sample Weighted Benefits There are 550 in scope facilities for this rule making. Of the 550, a total of 539 completed EPA's facility survey. To estimate the costs at all 550 facilities, EPA developed sample weights. To develop benefits estimates that are consistent with the cost estimates, we applied the same weights to our benefits estimates. The weights for all facilities are reported below. Stratus Consulting Memorandum ( 7/ 9/ 2002)

Page 8 SC10079 Facility Waterbody type Weight Salem Estuary  NonGulf 1 Brayton Point Estuary  NonGulf 1.111184516 Contra Costa Estuary  NonGulf 1.225968333 Pittsburg Estuary  NonGulf 1.111184516 All other in scope Estuary  NonGulf 1.065172214 4 Tampa facilities Estuary  Gulf 1 All other in scope Estuary  Gulf 1.000506073 29 Ohio facilities Freshwater 1.008699453 Monroe Freshwater 1.013157895 All other in scope Freshwater 1.009608142 JR Whiting Great Lake 1 All other in scope Great Lake 1 Pilgrim Nuclear Ocean 1.225968333 Seabrook Nuclear Ocean 1 All other in scope Ocean 1.062051309 Applying these weights to the best estimate baseline loss estimates from step 3 yields sampleweighted baseline loss estimates. These are the baseline losses used in calculating benefits from the proposed rule.

Facility Sample weighted impingement baseline loss estimate Salem = $ 704 * 1 $ 704 Brayton Point = $ 450 * 1.111184516 $ 500 Contra Costa = $ 5,726 * 1.225968333 $ 7,020 Pittsburg = $ 22,268 * 1.111184516 $ 24,744 All other in scope = $ 24,835 * 1.065172214 $ 24,835 Total ( for 78 in scope Estuary NonGulf facilities) $ 57,802 Stratus Consulting Memorandum ( 7/ 9/ 2002)

Page 9 SC10079 4.2 Estimated Percent Reductions in I& E To determine the benefits of the rulemaking, EPA estimated the percent reductions in I& E at each facility under the various policy options. In a separate assessment, EPA estimated the percent reduction in impingement and entrainment for each in scope facility, for each regulatory option. Using these estimates, we calculated a weighted average percent reduction for each waterbody type using average daily flow as the weight. These weighted average reductions are presented in Tables C4 1 and C4 3. The estimated reductions for the Estuary NonGulf category are reported below.

To estimate benefits attributable to the rule, we multiplied the estimated percent reduction and the sample weighted baseline loss for each waterbody category. For example, the benefits calculations for impingement reductions in non Gulf estuaries are as follows:

Option Estimated % impingement reduction Estimated benefits (=$ 57,802 * % impingement reduction) Option 1 64.415% $ 37,233 Option 2 47.493% $ 27,452 Option 3 33.204% $ 19,193 Option 3a 25.526% $ 14,754 Option 4 41.390% $ 23,924 Option 5 97.468% $ 56,338 Option 6 84.386% $ 48,777


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA/ OAR/ OTAQ/ CCD 2. OMB control number b. X None a__ __ __ __  __ __ __ __ 2060 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. X New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Vehicle Service Information Web Site Audit 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) 2181.01 9. Keywords vehicle service information, information collection 10. Abstract EPA finalized regulations in June of 2003 ( 68 FR 38427; June 27, 2003) requiring auto manufacturers to launch full text Web sites containing all required service information for 1996 and later model years. In order to assess the effectiveness of the web site provisions of the regulations, EPA believes that input from independent technicians must be of primary consideration. As part of our broader efforts to evaluate the OEM web sites, EPA is initiating a process to gather feedback directly from the technician community on their experiences with the web sites and to communicate those findings directly to the OEMs and the service industry as a whole.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. X Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. X Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. G Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 250 b. Total annual responses 500 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 100 % c. Total hours requested 2,042 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 2,042 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 2,042 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. X_ Regulatory or compliance d. P_ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. Q Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. x Other ( describe) Bi weekly 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Holly Pugliese Phone: 734 214 4288 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 204 (Monday, October 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 53358]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22932]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2018-82]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Corvus
Airlines dba Ravn Alaska

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before November 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0897
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alana Zautner, AIR-673, Federal
Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198,
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected]; or Alphonso
Pendergrass, ARM-200, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, phone
202-267-4713, email [email protected]. This notice is
published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on October 4th, 2018.
Victor Wicklund,
Manager, Transport Standards Branch.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2018-0897.
    Petitioner: Corvus Airlines dba Ravn Alaska.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  25.1309(b) and special
condition no. 25-660-SC, effective on Bombardier May 1, 2017.
    Description of Relief Sought: Corvus is seeking a time-limited
exemption to allow the installation of a Survival Type Emergency
Locator Transmitter (ELT) powered by non-rechargeable lithium batteries
on Bombardier DHC-8-100 series airplanes in order to support extended
overwater operations.

[FR Doc. 2018-22932 Filed 10-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P