[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 5, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25936-25941]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12060]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0666; FRL-9976-39]

Ethoxylated Fatty Acid Methyl Esters; Exemption From the
Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), [alpha]-(1-
oxoalkyl)-[omega]-methoxy-, where the alkyl chain contains a minimum of
6 and a maximum of 18 carbons and the oxyethylene content is 3-13
moles, when used as an inert ingredient (stabilizer and solubilizing
agent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or raw
agricultural commodities after harvest at a concentration not to exceed
25% by weight in the formulation. This related group of compounds are
collectively known as the ethoxylated fatty acid methyl esters
(EFAMEs). BASF Corporation submitted a petition to EPA under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment
of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation
eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for
residues of ethoxylated fatty acid methyl esters when used in
accordance with the terms of the exemption.

DATES: This regulation is effective June 5, 2018. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before August 6, 2018, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0666, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0666 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
August 6, 2018. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0666, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of February 27, 2018 (83 FR 8408) (FRL-
9972-17), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21
U.S.C. 346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-
11023) by BASF Corporation, 100 Park Avenue, Florham Park, NJ 07932.
The petition requested that 40 CFR 180.910 be amended by establishing
an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of
poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), [alpha]-(1-oxoalkyl)-[omega]-methoxy-, where
the alkyl chain contains a minimum of 6 and a maximum of 18 carbons and
the oxyethylene content is 3-13 moles (CAS Reg. Nos. 53100-65-5,
194289-64-0, 34398-00-0, 9006-27-3, 32761-35-6, 53467-81-5, 518299-31-
5, 34397-99-4) when used as an inert ingredient (stabilizer and
solubilizing agent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops
or raw agricultural commodities after harvest at a concentration not to
exceed 25% by weight in the formulation. That document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by BASF Corporation, the petitioner,
which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. No
comments were received in response to the notice of filing that are
relevant to establishment of this exemption.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to
infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue. . . .''
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human
health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to
pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the
inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert
ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures
that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA
is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for ethoxylated fatty acid methyl
esters including exposure resulting from the exemption established by
this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with
ethoxylated fatty acid methyl esters follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. A series of acute toxicology studies have been conducted with
representative EFAMEs. The acute

toxicity study test substance was C6-10 ethoxylated fatty acid methyl
ester (degree of ethoxylation is 10.6 EO). The studies show that the
EFAMEs are practically non-toxic when ingested or inhaled via acute
exposure. Skin and eye irritation studies indicate that the EFAMEs are
slight skin and eye irritants. The skin sensitization potential of the
EFAMEs could not be determined based on the ambiguous result in the
Buehler assay.
    The genotoxicity studies conducted with representative EFAMEs
including bacterial reverse mutation (Ames) test, mouse micronucleus
assay and an in vitro mouse lymphoma assay were negative.
    Repeat dose data are not available for the EFAMEs; however, several
repeat dose studies have been conducted with fatty acid methyl/alkyl
esters and alcohol ethoxylates and these studies can be bridged to the
EFAMEs based upon the structural similarities between EFAMEs and
alcohol ethoxylates which are both nonionic surfactants in which the
surfactant properties of each generally result in similar toxicological
effects, at comparable dose levels) and the structural similarities of
EFAMEs with fatty acid methyl/alkyl esters (both having terminal
methoxy or alkoxy groups bound to a fatty acid or fatty acid
derivative). The NOAEL of 50 mg/kg/day from a chronic rat oral feeding
study is the lowest NOAEL observed and is equal to the lowest NOAEL
seen in the subchronic feeding studies. The lowest LOAEL in the
subchronic studies, as well as the LOAEL in the chronic rat oral
feeding study was established at 250 mg/kg/day based on reduced food
consumption and body weight gain. In a dermal toxicity study no signs
of tumors were observed and the dermal NOAEL was reported to be 300 mg/
kg/day. Most of the 90-day studies reported NOAELs ranging from 50-200
mg/kg/day.
    The NOAELs for reproductive performance of males and females, as
well as offspring toxicity are considered to range from >250 mg/kg/day
to 1,000 mg/kg/day. None of the studies reported adverse reproductive,
developmental, neurotoxic, or immunotoxic effects at dose levels below
the range of >250 mg/kg/day to 1,000 mg/kg/day.
    Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the
adverse effects caused by ethoxylated fatty acid methyl esters as well
as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-
observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be
found at http://www.regulations.gov in the document Ethoxylated Fatty
Acid Methyl Esters (CAS Reg. Nos. 53100-65-5, 194289-64-0, 34398-00-0,
9006-27-3, 32761-35-6, 53467-81-5, 518299-31-5, 34397-99-4); ``Human
Health Risk Assessment and Ecological Effects Assessment to Support
Proposed Exemption from the Requirement of a Tolerance When Used as an
Inert Ingredient'' in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0666.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    An effect attributed to a single dose was not identified in the
toxicology database. The point of departure for chronic dietary
exposures as well as dermal and inhalation exposures is based on a
NOAEL of 50 mg/kg/day from a chronic oral feeding study in rats with
the EFAMEs surrogate chemical, alcohol ethoxylate. In this study, the
LOAEL was 250 mg/kg/day based upon reduced food consumption and body
weight gain and elevated organ-to-body weight ratios. This represents
the lowest NOAEL in the most sensitive species in the toxicity
database. The standard uncertainty factors were applied to account for
interspecies (10X) and intraspecies (10X) variations. The FQPA safety
factor was reduced to 1X to account for completeness of the toxicity
and exposure database and lack of increased prenatal or postnatal
sensitivity as well as a lack of concern for neurotoxicity. A dermal
absorption factor of 100% was used and a default value of 100%
absorption was used for the inhalation absorption factor. The resultant
chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD) is 0.5 mg/kg/day and acceptable
MOEs for residential exposures are >=100.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to ethoxylated fatty acid methyl esters, EPA considered
exposure under the proposed exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance. EPA assessed dietary exposures from ethoxylated fatty acid
methyl esters in food as follows.
    Dietary exposure (food and drinking water) to ethoxylated fatty
acid methyl esters can occur following ingestion of foods with residues
from treated crops. Because no adverse effects attributable to a single
exposure of ethoxylated fatty acid methyl esters are seen in the
toxicity databases, an acute dietary risk assessment is not necessary.
For the chronic dietary risk assessment, EPA used the Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Model software with the Food Commodity Intake Database
(DEEM-FCIDTM, Version 3.16, and food consumption information
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA's) 2003-2008 National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, What We Eat in America
(NHANES/WWEIA). As to residue levels in food, no residue data were
submitted for ethoxylated fatty acid methyl esters. In the absence of
specific residue data, EPA has developed an approach which uses
surrogate information to derive upper bound exposure estimates for the
subject inert ingredient. Upper bound exposure estimates are based on
the highest tolerance for a given commodity from a list of high use
insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. One hundred percent crop
treated was assumed, default processing factors, and tolerance-level
residues for all foods and use limitations of not more than 25% in
pesticide formulations. A complete description of the general approach
taken to assess inert ingredient risks in the absence of residue data
is contained in the memorandum entitled ``Alkyl Amines Polyalkoxylates
(Cluster 4): Acute and Chronic Aggregate (Food and Drinking Water)
Dietary Exposure and Risk Assessments for the Inerts,'' (D361707, S.
Piper, 2/25/09) and can be found at http://www.regulations.gov in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0738.

    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. For the purpose of the
screening level dietary risk assessment to support this request for an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for ethoxylated fatty
acid methyl esters, a conservative drinking water concentration value
of 100 ppb based on screening level modeling was used to assess the
contribution to drinking water for the chronic dietary risk assessments
for parent compound. These values were directly entered into the
dietary exposure model.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming
pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).
Ethoxylated fatty acid methyl esters may be used as inert ingredients
in products that are registered for specific uses that may result in
residential exposure, such as pesticides used in and around the home.
The Agency conducted a conservative assessment of potential residential
exposure by assessing ethoxylated fatty acid methyl esters in pesticide
formulations (outdoor scenarios) and in disinfectant-type uses (indoor
scenarios). The Agency's assessment of adult residential exposure
combines high-end dermal and inhalation handler exposure from liquids/
trigger sprayer/home garden and indoor hard surface, wiping with a
high-end post application dermal exposure from contact with treated
lawns. The Agency's assessment of children's residential exposure
includes total post-application exposures associated with total
exposures associated with contact with treated lawns and surfaces
(dermal and hand-to-mouth exposures).
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found ethoxylated fatty acid methyl esters to share a
common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and ethoxylated
fatty acid methyl esters does not appear to produce a toxic metabolite
produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance
action, therefore, EPA has assumed that ethoxylated fatty acid methyl
esters does not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other
substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which
chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the
cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    1. In general. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA
shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants
and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity
and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a
different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This
additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the FQPA Safety
Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default
value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when
reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different
factor.
    2. Prenatal and postnatal sensitivity. The toxicity database for
ethoxylated fatty acid methyl esters contains subchronic and
developmental toxicity studies conducted with surrogate chemicals. The
NOAELs for reproductive performance of males and females, as well as
offspring toxicity are considered to range from >250 mg/kg/day to 1,000
mg/kg/day. None of the studies reported effects on the reproductive
system or effects indicative of neurotoxicity.
    The established cRfD will be protective of the observed adverse
effect, decreased body weight gain and food consumption, which was
observed at dose levels much lower than potential adverse effects to
infants or children. In addition, the Agency used conservative exposure
estimates, with 100 percent crop treated, tolerance-level residues,
conservative drinking water modeling numbers, and a conservative
assessment of potential residential exposure for infants and children.
Based on the adequacy of the toxicity database, the conservative nature
of the exposure assessment, and the lack of concern for prenatal and
postnatal sensitivity as well as neurotoxicity, the Agency has
concluded that there is reliable data to determine that infants and
children will be safe if the FQPA SF of 10X is reduced to 1X.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic pesticide exposures are
safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the acute population
adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population adjusted dose (cPAD). The
aPAD and cPAD represent the highest safe exposures, taking into account
all appropriate safety factors (SFs). EPA calculates the aPAD and cPAD
by dividing the POD (i.e. toxicological endpoint) by all applicable
UFs. For linear cancer risks, EPA calculates the probability of
additional cancer cases given the estimated aggregate exposure. Short,
intermediate, and long term aggregate risks are evaluated by comparing
the estimated aggregate food, water, and residential exposure to the
POD to ensure that the MOE called for by the product of all applicable
UFs is not exceeded.
    Although there are no known current residential uses associated
with EFAMEs, a residential exposure assessment was conducted. The level
of concern for residential uses (i.e. non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure) associated with the EFAMEs is low. The level of MOEs for
combined residential exposure is above 100.
    1. Acute risk. An acute aggregate risk assessment takes into
account acute exposure estimates from dietary consumption of food and
drinking water. No adverse effect resulting from a single oral exposure
was identified and no acute dietary endpoint was selected. Therefore,
the EFAMEs are not expected to pose an acute risk.
    2. Chronic risk. Using the exposure assumptions described in this
unit for chronic exposure, EPA has concluded that chronic exposure to
EFAMEs from food and water will utilize 70% of the cPAD for children 1-
2 years old, the population group receiving the greatest exposure.
Generally, a dietary risk estimate that is less than 100% of the cPAD
does not exceed the Agency's risk concerns.
    3. Short- intermediate- and long-term risk. Short- intermediate-
and long-term aggregate exposure takes into account short-,
intermediate- and long- term residential exposure plus chronic exposure
to food and water (considered to be a background exposure level). The
Agency has determined that it is appropriate to aggregate chronic
exposure through food and water with short-, intermediate- and water
with sort-, intermediate- and long-term residential exposures to
EFAMEs. Using the exposure assumptions describe in this unit for short-
term exposures, EPA has concluded the combined respective short-,
intermediate- and long- term food water, and residential exposures
resulted in aggregate margin of exposures (MOE) of 335 for adults and
122 for children. Because EPA's level of

concern for EFAMEs is a MOE of 100 or below, these MOEs are not of
concern.
    4. Aggregate cancer risk for U.S. population. Based on the
discussion in Unit IV. A., EFAMEs is not expected to pose a cancer
risk.
    5. Determination of safety. Based on these risk assessments, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to ethoxylated fatty acid methyl esters residues.

V. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation. EPA is establishing
limitations on the amount of EFAMEs that may be used in pesticide
formulations applied to growing crops. These limitations will be
enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (``FIFRA''), 7 U.S.C. 136
et seq. EPA will not register any pesticide formulation for use on
growing crops or raw agricultural commodities after harvest for sale or
distribution that exceeds 25% by weight of EFAMEs.

VI. Conclusion

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established under 40 CFR 180.910 for poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), [alpha]-
(1-oxoalkyl)-[omega]-methoxy-, where the alkyl chain contains a minimum
of 6 and a maximum of 18 carbons and the oxyethylene content is 3-13
moles (CAS Reg. No. 53100-65-5, 194289-64-0, 4398-00-0, 9006-27-3,
32761-35-6, 53467-81-5, 518299-31-5, and 34397-99-4) when used as an
inert ingredient (stabilizer and solubilizing agent) in pesticide
formulations applied to growing crops or raw agricultural commodities
after harvest at a concentration not to exceed 25% by weight in the
formulation.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition
submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review
under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001); Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997); or Executive Order 13771, entitled ``Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs'' (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017). This action does not contain any information collections subject
to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), nor does it require any special considerations under
Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 11, 2018.
Donna Davis,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Program.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
 2. In Sec.  180.910, add alphabetically the inert ingredient to the
table to read as follows:

Sec.  180.910  Inert ingredients used pre- and post-harvest; exemptions
from the requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Inert ingredients               Limits               Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl),         Not to exceed 25%   Stabilizer,
 [alpha]-(1-oxoalkyl)-[omega]-     by weight in        solubilizing
 methoxy-, where the alkyl chain   pesticide           agent.
 contains a minimum of 6 and a     formulation.
 maximum of 18 carbons and the
 oxyethylene content is 3-13
 moles (CAS Reg. No. 53100-65-5,
 194289-64-0, 34398-00-0, 9006-
 27-3, 32761-35-6, 53467-81-5,
 518299-31-5, and 34397-99-4).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-12060 Filed 6-4-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 129 (Monday, July 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38338-38339]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15795]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. IA-3866/803-00213]

Gruss & Co. Inc.; Notice of Application

July 1, 2014.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of application for an exemptive order under section
202(a)(11)(H) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers
Act'').

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

    Applicant: Gruss & Co. Inc. (``Applicant'').
    Relevant Advisers Act Sections: Exemption requested under section
202(a)(11)(H) of the Advisers Act from section 202(a)(11) of the
Advisers Act.
    Summary of Application: Applicant requests that the Commission
issue an order declaring it to be a person not within the intent of
section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act, which defines the term
``investment adviser.''

DATES: Filing Dates: The application was filed on March 23, 2012, and
amended on March 4, 2014, and April 22, 2014.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the
application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving Applicant with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on July 28, 2014 and should be accompanied by proof of
service on Applicant, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons may request notification of a hearing by writing to
the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Applicant, Gruss & Co. Inc., c/o Martin E.
Lybecker, Perkins Coie LLP, Suite 600, 700 Thirteenth Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vanessa M. Meeks, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6806 or Melissa R. Harke, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained for a fee at the
SEC's Public Reference Branch, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-
0102 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

Applicant's Representations

    1. Applicant is a multi-generational single-family office that
provides services to the family and descendants of Joseph S. Gruss.
Applicant is wholly-owned by Family Clients and is exclusively
controlled (directly or indirectly) by one or more Family Members and/
or Family Entities in compliance with rule 202(a)(11)(G)-1 (``Family
Office Rule''). For purposes of the application, the term ``Gruss
Family'' means the lineal descendants of Joseph S. Gruss, their
spouses, and all of the persons and entities that qualify as Family
Clients as defined in paragraph (d)(4) of the Family Office Rule.
Capitalized terms have the same meaning as defined in the Family Office
Rule.
    2. Applicant provides both advisory and non-advisory services
(collectively, the ``Services''). Any Service provided by the Applicant
that relates to investment advice about securities or may otherwise be
construed as advisory in nature is considered an ``Advisory Service.''
    3. Applicant represents that: (i) Other than the exception
discussed in representation 4 below, each of the persons served by the
Applicant is a Family Client, i.e., Applicant has no clients other than
Family Clients as required by paragraph (b)(1) of the Family Office
Rule, (ii) Applicant is owned and controlled in a manner that complies
in all respects with paragraph (b)(2) of the Family Office Rule, and
(iii) Applicant does not hold itself out to the public as an investment
adviser as required by paragraph (b)(3) of the Family Office Rule. At
the time of the application, Applicant represents that Family Members
account for approximately 79 percent of the natural persons to whom the
Applicant provides Advisory Services.
    4. Applicant provides Services to two sisters of a spouse of a
lineal descendant of Joseph S. Gruss and each sister's respective
spouse and children (collectively, the ``Additional Family Clients'').
    5. The Additional Family Clients do not have an ownership interest
in the Applicant. Applicant represents that the assets beneficially
owned by Family Members and/or Family Entities (excluding the
Additional Family Clients' Family Entities) make up at least 75 percent
of the total assets for which the Applicant provides Advisory Services.
    6. Applicant represents that each of the Additional Family Clients
has important familial ties to and is an integral part of the Gruss
Family. Applicant maintains that including the Additional Family
Clients in the ``family'' simply recognizes and memorializes the
familial ties and intra-familial relationships that already exist, and
have existed for at least 14 years while the assets of the Additional
Family Clients were managed by the Gruss Family.

Applicant's Legal Analysis

    1. Section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act defines the term
``investment adviser'' to mean ``any person who, for compensation,
engages in the business of advising others, either directly or through
publications or writings, as to the value of securities or as to the
advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities, or
who, for compensation and as a part of a regular business, issues or
promulgates analyses or reports concerning securities . . . . ''
    2. Applicant falls within the definition of an investment adviser
under section 202(a)(11). The Family Office Rule provides an exclusion
from the definition of investment adviser for which the Applicant would
be eligible but for the provision of Services to the Additional Family
Clients. Section 203(a) of the Advisers Act requires investment
advisers to register with the Commission. Because the Applicant has
regulatory assets under management of more than $100 million, it is not
prohibited from registering with the Commission under section 203A(a)
of the Advisers Act. Therefore, absent relief, Applicant would be
required to register under section 203(a) of the Advisers Act.
    3. Applicant submits that its relationship with the Additional
Family Clients does not change the nature of the office into that of a
commercial advisory firm. In support of this argument, Applicant notes
that if the sisters were sisters of a lineal descendent of Joseph S.
Gruss, rather than the sisters of a spouse of a lineal descendent,
there would be no question that each of the persons presently being
served by the office would be a Family Member. Applicant states that in
requesting the order, the office is not attempting to expand its
operations or engage in any level of commercial activity to which the
Advisers Act is designed to apply. Indeed, although the Additional
Family Clients do not fall within the definition of Family Member, they
are considered to be, and treated as, members of the Gruss Family, and
the number of natural persons who are not Family Members as a
percentage of the total natural persons to whom the office would
provide Advisory Services if relief were granted would be only

approximately 21 percent. Applicant maintains that, from the
perspective of the Gruss Family, Applicant seeks to continue providing
Advisory Services exclusively to members of a single family.
    4. Applicant also submits that there is no public interest in
requiring the Applicant to be registered under the Advisers Act.
Applicant states that the office is a private organization that was
formed to be the ``family office'' for the Gruss Family, and that the
office does not have any public clients. Applicant maintains that the
office's Advisory Services are tailored exclusively to the needs of the
Gruss Family and the Additional Family Clients. Applicant argues that
the presence of the Additional Family Clients, who have been receiving
Advisory Services from the office for 14 years, does not create any
public interest that would require the office to be registered under
the Advisers Act that is different in any manner than the
considerations that apply to a ``family office'' that complies in all
respects with the Family Office Rule.
    5. Applicant argues that, although the Family Office Rule largely
codified the exemptive orders that the Commission had previously issued
before the enactment of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act, the Commission recognized in proposing the rule that
the exact representations, conditions, or terms contained in every
exemptive order could not be captured in a rule of general
applicability. The Commission noted that family offices would remain
free to seek a Commission exemptive order to advise an individual or
entity that did not meet the proposed family client definition, and
that certain situations may raise unique conflicts and issues that are
more appropriately addressed through an exemptive order process where
the Commission can consider the specific facts and circumstances, than
through a rule of general applicability. Applicant maintains that its
unusual circumstances--providing Services to Family Clients and to the
Additional Family Clients for the past 14 years--have not changed the
nature of the office's operations into that of a commercial advisory
business, and that an exemptive order is appropriate based on the
Applicant's specific facts and circumstances.
    6. For the foregoing reasons, Applicant requests an order declaring
it to be a person not within the intent of section 202(a)(11) of the
Advisers Act. Applicant submits that the order is necessary and
appropriate, in the public interest, consistent with the protection of
investors, and consistent with the purposes fairly intended by the
policy and provisions of the Advisers Act.

Applicant's Conditions

    1. The Applicant will offer and provide Advisory Services only to
Family Clients and to the Additional Family Clients, who will be deemed
to be, and treated as if each were, a Family Client; provided, however,
that the Additional Family Clients will be deemed to be, and treated as
if they were, Family Members for purposes of paragraph (b)(1) and for
purposes of paragraph (d)(4)(vi) of the Family Office Rule.
    2. The Applicant will at all times be wholly-owned by Family
Clients and exclusively controlled (directly or indirectly) by one or
more Family Members and/or Family Entities (excluding the Additional
Family Clients' Family Entities) as defined in paragraph (d)(5) of the
Family Office Rule.
    3. At all times the assets beneficially owned by Family Members
and/or Family Entities (excluding the Additional Family Clients' Family
Entities) will account for at least 75 percent of the assets for which
Applicant provides Advisory Services.
    4. Applicant will comply with all the terms for exclusion from the
definition of investment adviser under the Advisers Act set forth in
the Family Office Rule except for the limited exception requested by
this application.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-15795 Filed 7-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 127 (Monday, July 6, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31939-31940]
[FR Doc No: E9-15729]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2985-006]

MeadWestvaco Corporation; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing, Soliciting Motions To Intervene and Protests, Ready for
Environmental Analysis, and Soliciting Comments, Recommendations,
Preliminary Terms and Conditions, and Preliminary Fishway Prescriptions

June 25, 2009.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: Subsequent Minor License.
    b. Project No.: 2985-006.
    c. Date Filed: April 29, 2009.
    d. Applicant: MeadWestvaco Corporation.
    e. Name of Project: Willow Mill Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Housatonic River in the Town of Stockbridge,
Berkshire County, Massachusetts. The project does not affect Federal
lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Thomas A. Beebe, Senior Engineering Project
Manager, MeadWestvaco, MW Custom Papers, LLC, P.O. Box 188, South Lee,
MA 01260,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Kristen Murphy<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. The deadline for filing motions to intervene and protests,
comments, recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and
preliminary fishway prescriptions is 60 days from the issuance of this
notice; reply comments are due 105 days from the issuance date of this
notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing
documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each
person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an
intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to
the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a
particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document
on that resource agency.
    Motions to intervene, protests, comments, recommendations,
preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions
may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. The
Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link. For a simpler method
of submitting text-only comments, click on ``Quick Comment.''
    k. This application has been accepted for filing and is ready for
environmental analysis.
    l. The existing Willow Mill Project consists of: (1) A 14-foot-
high, 150-foot-wide stone masonry gravity dam; (2) an 11-acre
impoundment; (3) a 10-foot-deep, 18-foot-wide, 50-foot-long rubble and
masonry canal connected to a 10-foot-deep, 18-foot-wide, 260-foot-long
rubble and masonry underground headrace; (4) two 5.5-foot-long, 8-foot
diameter steel penstocks; (5) a 100-kW turbine generating unit; and (6)
a 210-foot-long discharge pipe releasing water back into the Housatonic
River. The turbine generating unit is located in the basement of
MeadWestvaco's paper mill. There are no transmission lines associated
with the project as all of the power is used for internal use at the
Willow Mill.
    The applicant proposes to continue to operate the project in run-
of-river mode with an increase in minimum flow in the 700-foot-long
bypass reach from 1.4 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 122 cfs or inflow,
whichever is less. The applicant

estimates that the total average annual generation, with the proposed
minimum flow, would be approximately 256 megawatt-hours.
    m. A copy of the application is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site at 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. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in item h above.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be
notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene
in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure,
18 CFR 385.210, .211, .214. In determining the appropriate action to
take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments
filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with
the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any
comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or
before the specified comment date for the particular application.
    All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title
``PROTEST'', ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', ``COMMENTS,'' ``REPLY COMMENTS,''
``RECOMMENDATIONS,'' ``PRELIMINARY TERMS AND CONDITIONS,'' or
``PRELIMINARY FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS;'' (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must
set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the
requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the
application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or
motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the
applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.
    o. Procedural Schedule:
    The application will be processed according to the following Hydro
Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as
appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 MILESTONE                           TARGET DATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Filing of interventions, comments,          August 24, 2009
 recommendations, preliminary terms and
 conditions, and fishway prescriptions.
Commission issues EA......................  December 22, 2009
Filing of comments on EA..................  January 21, 2010
Filing of modified terms and conditions...  March 22, 2010
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    p. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    q. A license applicant must file no later than 60 days following
the date of issuance of the notice of acceptance and ready for
environmental analysis provided for in Sec.  5.22: (1) A copy of the
water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for
certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying
agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality
certification.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-15729 Filed 7-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57019-57022]
[FR Doc No: 2022-20188]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2022-0096]

Enhancing the Safety of Vulnerable Road Users at Intersections;
Request for Information

AGENCY: Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice; request for information (RFI).

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

SUMMARY: Improving the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists, and other
vulnerable road users (VRUs) is of critical importance to achieving the
objectives of DOT's National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS), and DOT's
vision of zero fatalities and serious injuries across our
transportation system. According to data from the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2020 there were 10,626
traffic fatalities in the United States at roadway intersections,
including 1,674 pedestrian and 355 bicyclist fatalities. These
fatalities at intersections represent 27% of the total of 38,824 road
traffic deaths recorded in 2020. Separately, considerable development
efforts have been made into automation technologies over the past two
decades, including in the areas of vehicle automation, machine vision,
perception and sensing, vehicle-to-everything (V2X) communications,
sensor fusion, image and data analysis, artificial intelligence (AI),
path planning, and real-time decision-making. DOT is interested in
receiving comments on the possibility of adapting existing and emerging
automation technologies to accelerate the development of real-time
roadway intersection safety and warning systems for both drivers and
VRUs in a cost-effective manner that will facilitate deployment at
scale.

DATES: Written submissions must be received within 30 days of the
publication of this RFI. DOT will consider comments received after this
time period to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: Please submit any written comments to Docket Number DOT-OST-
2022-0096 electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. Go to https://www.regulations.gov and
select ``Department of Transportation (DOT)'' from the agency menu to
submit or view public comments. Note that, except as provided below,
all submissions received, including any personal information provided,
will be posted without change and will be available to the public on
https://www.regulations.gov. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477) or at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information contact
[email protected]. You may also contact Mr. Timothy A. Klein,
Director, Technology Policy and Outreach, Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Research and Technology<PHONE_NUMBER>) or by email at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOT is committed to the vision of zero
fatalities and serious injuries on our Nation's roadways, and improving
the safety of vulnerable road users (VRUs) at intersections is an
important component of that vision. According to data from NHTSA, in
2020 there were 10,626 traffic fatalities in the United States at
intersections, including 1,674 pedestrians and 355 bicyclists. These
fatalities at intersections represent 27% of the total of 38,824 road
traffic deaths recorded in 2020. Ensuring VRU safety is an urgent issue
as it is essential to allowing pedestrians, bicyclists, wheelchair
users, and others the safe use of roadways in urban and rural
environments in the United States. Reducing crashes at roadway
intersections is an important component of making our streets safer for
all users.
    Considerable development efforts have occurred in automation and
vehicle automation technologies over the past two decades, including in
the areas of machine vision, perception and sensing, vehicle-to-
everything (V2X) communications, sensor fusion, image and data
analysis, artificial intelligence (AI), path planning, and real-time
decision-making on board vehicles. For the purposes of this RFI, these
automation technologies are considered to include but are not limited
to advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS), automated driving systems
(ADS) and associated vehicle connectivity technologies, as well as
other automation technologies that can enhance the safety of VRUs at
roadway intersections. DOT is interested in receiving comments on the
feasibility of adapting these automation technologies to the
application of warning systems that provide real-time safety and
warning alerts for both VRUs and drivers at intersections in a cost-
effective manner that will facilitate the deployment of these systems
at scale. Such safety systems could warn of and mitigate the effects of
an impending crash at an intersection for VRUs and vehicles alike.

A Conceptual VRU and Vehicle Warning System

    The on-vehicle automation technologies currently being developed
for fully automated vehicle operation--including machine vision,
perception, sensor fusion, real-time decision-

making, artificial intelligence and V2X--could be used today to enhance
safety for all road users. Consider the deployment of these
technologies as infrastructure assets at each roadway intersection,
pedestrian crossing, and railroad crossing, in order to alert
approaching vehicles of the approach or incursion of pedestrians,
bicyclists and other VRUs, and vice versa. A conceptual VRU and vehicle
warning system will likely be made up of fixed infrastructure assets
that use robust sensing and computational technologies to perform
optimally across a range of environmental and operational conditions,
including non-line-of-sight (NLOS) conditions. The conceptual
intersection safety system that is described in this RFI should not be
considered as prescriptive, but merely one potential configuration
amongst many possible designs.
    At busy roadway intersections across any particular time period
there will be a large number of vehicle and VRU movements, including
vehicles turning, pedestrians crossing the roadway, bicyclists crossing
the roadway, etc. For the majority of these movements, including those
that involve close interaction between drivers and VRUs, the vehicle-
VRU interaction will proceed without incident. A small fraction of
those interactions might involve near-misses where a vehicle comes
close to colliding with another vehicle or a VRU at a roadway
intersection. A much smaller fraction of those interactions results in
a collision between vehicles and VRUs, resulting in injury or in a
smaller fraction yet, an entirely avoidable pedestrian or VRU fatality.
It is the intent of this RFI to investigate the possibility of
developing new technologies, or new technology and/or system
combinations, to prevent vehicle-VRU crashes while facilitating normal
traffic flows and VRU movements.
    For the purposes of this RFI, VRUs are defined as pedestrians,
bicyclists, and micro-mobility device users, including users of
scooters, e-skateboards, wheelchairs, etc. Vehicles are defined as any
roadway vehicles including passenger cars, trucks, vans, public transit
buses, and commercial vehicles. Equipping each roadway intersection
location today with the requisite machine vision hardware,
computational capability, networking, communications, and safety
alerting and warning technology would likely cost hundreds of thousands
of dollars per roadway intersection. While this concept of repurposing
mobile (vehicle) automation technologies in the fixed domain is not
new, it has not been commercialized or implemented at scale due to the
high system costs involved and the complexities of developing a
standardized and proven safety solution. There is an imperative to
reduce the cost of providing advanced safety systems that can ensure
the safety of all road users at roadway intersections, pedestrian
crossings, trail-roadway crossings, and railroad crossings. A cost
reduction of 10-100x for such a system--down to under $10,000 for the
hardware and software ``stack'' per intersection--would significantly
accelerate the implementation and deployment of these potentially life-
saving road safety technologies. As an example of the potential of cost
reduction in an adjacent domain, LiDAR units for automated vehicles
(AVs) have seen a 100x reduction in cost while progressing from large
roof-mounted electro-mechanical systems to smaller solid-state devices.
    An effective roadway intersection safety system (designated here as
a ``conceptual VRU and vehicle warning system'') will likely require
machine vision, perception or sensing (LiDAR, radar, cameras, acoustics
etc. mounted on stationary structures), sensor fusion, computation,
communications, and warning systems to be developed, tested and
validated, and integrated along with software for vision, sensing, and
decision-making (to include AI). The intention of this RFI is to
ascertain the state of the art of relevant automation technologies, and
the potential for re-purposing existing and emerging technologies for
this stationary intersection safety application. The reduction in the
cost of these life-saving systems by a factor of 10-100x through the
targeted application of automation technologies would allow for the
development of a new, standardized VRU warning system that could
significantly benefit system end-users, including State, local, Tribal
and territorial DOTs and jurisdictions.

Additional Considerations for a VRU and Vehicle Warning System

    The development of an automated VRU and vehicle warning system
should incorporate the use of existing standards and protocols to the
greatest extent possible. System-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-system
communications and networking (V2X), using standard and emerging
protocols, will likely be required (note that ``system'' here can
include fixed infrastructure elements or communication with portable
devices). For instance, smart mobile phone notifications for either
VRUs or approaching vehicles using near-field communications (such as
Bluetooth) might be a useful additional warning technology, beyond
other alerting systems, but the use of smart electronic devices by VRUs
should not be a requirement for the efficacy of an intersection safety
system. Virtual machine vision systems incorporating ``crowd-sourced''
vehicle-based real-time imaging and information sharing (moving and
parked vehicles) could also be of use. Ensuring night-time, low light,
and reduced visibility (e.g., fog, rain, snow) operation will be
critical for such an intersection safety system. It is anticipated that
developers of VRU and vehicle warning systems will benefit from the
collection of large amounts of data and imagery from the operation of a
real-world roadway intersection to develop vision systems and train
machine learning (ML) algorithms. This data could be developed and
shared to accelerate the parallel development of effective solutions.
    Important considerations for any intersection safety technology
include its efficacy of operation while not degrading existing levels
of safety or traffic operation; its ability to be implemented and
deployed at scale; the system cost; consistent and reliable system
operation and performance; operation under all weather, lighting and
environmental conditions; reliability and maintenance requirements;
personnel and training requirements; ease of deployment; ease of
calibration and customization at a specific intersection location; its
potential for rapid commercialization and deployment within 3-5 years;
upgradeability and modularity, and interoperability and data transfer
capability with existing signal operating systems and traffic
management systems, while avoiding technological lock-in.
    It is not anticipated that a single technical solution or system
will be suitable for implementation at all roadway intersections, but
it is anticipated that a single solution can be developed that will
suit a large proportion of the most crash-prone intersections. These
technologies may also serve to enhance the use of Data-Driven Safety
Analysis (DDSA) techniques that can inform State, local, Tribal, and
territorial DOTs in their decision making, and allow them to target the
implementation of infrastructure investments that improve safety and
equity. Once deployed in multiple locations, real-time data sharing
between adjacent or neighboring intersection safety systems could
further improve the safety of local road networks.

General Considerations for the Development of a VRU and Vehicle Warning
System

    First, the addition of a VRU and vehicle warning system should not
degrade the baseline performance of any existing intersection. It is
acknowledged that a hardware and software-based intersection safety
system may have significant additional `soft' costs beyond the cost of
construction (or bill of materials for its constituent components)--
permitting, installation, testing, calibration, operation (although
operation should be fully automated), training, maintenance,
integration with other existing systems, R&D costs, etc. A VRU and
vehicle warning system should ideally leverage existing components,
systems and technologies to the greatest extent possible (including
open, interoperable communications to maximize the accessibility and
safety benefits), should meet all applicable Federal and State
standards, should be suitable both for new installations and retrofits,
and its software should use transparent non-opaque algorithms. Any
system installation, use, operation, and maintenance should be
expeditious and minimally disruptive to the road users. It is
anticipated that determining the performance of any intersection safety
system will require extensive testing in both benign and extreme
environments, including for electromagnetic compatibility, and will
probably require extensive data collection for overall system
development, testing, validation and calibration.

System Components and Hardware and Software Technologies--A Conceptual
Design

    A conceptual design for a VRU and vehicle intersection safety
system would likely require the following elements and would probably
need to account for the associated features or considerations (these
potential design elements should not be considered to be prescriptive,
but merely representative of the current state of the art):
     Sensing and perception. A perception system will likely
require machine vision that includes cameras, LiDAR and radar that
provide a full field of view under all lighting and weather conditions,
and to provide redundancy. The resolution, bandwidth, latency, power
consumption, and cost considerations of the vision and perception
system will be important.
     Sensor fusion, image and data analysis. This will likely
require high computational throughput (of the order of gigapixels per
second), and should utilize industry-standard computational and
networking bus architectures. The real-time image and data analysis
should sense the movement of individual VRUs and vehicles, and be
capable of inferring intent. Privacy protections should be maintained,
and precise timing (derived from global navigation satellite systems
[GNSS] or secondary or back-up sources that can be space- or land-
based) should be used. It is likely that the sensor fusion, image, and
data analysis will require significant levels of AI (and ML) capability
and be capable of high gigabit per second data throughputs.
     Path planning and prediction. The discrete paths of motion
of all vehicles and VRUs in or near the intersection (perhaps as many
as twenty or more items of interest) will likely need to be tracked and
predicted simultaneously in order to determine potential or impending
vehicle-VRU conflicts. This computation, logic and decision-making will
likely need to be performed by a high bandwidth, low latency, high
speed microprocessor-based system located at the intersection (perhaps
in a roadside unit, or RSU). The real-time decision-making process will
need to result in an ``alert or no alert/warning or no warning'' output
that minimizes false positives and false negatives while ultimately
providing safe and actionable warnings to the VRUs and/or approaching
vehicles.
     Data handling and storage. Large quantities of data
(potentially terabytes of data per day per intersection) may be
required to be stored and archived, with attention paid to
anonymization, privacy, and cybersecurity threats. This will likely
include local storage as well as cloud- or edge-based archiving.
     Communications and networking. A roadside unit or other
form of infrastructure (i.e., Access Point, small-cell set-up, or edge-
computer) will likely be required to house the computational hardware
as well as providing full connectivity--perhaps to include 5G
connectivity, V2X, Wi-Fi or other near-field communications, and GPS or
its equivalent (for precision timing). The roadside infrastructure will
likely provide secure interconnection to the intersection traffic
signals (via a signal cabinet) and to a central traffic management
system for that jurisdiction (potentially through a wireless or fiber
optic link).
     Warning system. A VRU and vehicle warning system will
likely require audible alarms, visual alerts, and other more advanced
real-time alerts, such as haptic or projected images, for example. It
will require real-time interconnection with the intersection's traffic
signals, perhaps to adjust signal timing in real-time. The alerting
system will need to be capable of alerting VRUs who are visually or
hearing impaired, and offer ADA-compliant operation.
     Other intersection safety system considerations. A fully
automated system is desired that does not degrade the underlying
existing safety of an intersection, is upgradeable by virtue of a
modular hardware and software design, uses open architectures to the
fullest extent possible, including potentially open-source software,
utilizes industry-accepted software development practices and is
intrinsically cybersecure and maintains data privacy protections.
    This RFI is intended to inform DOT on the status of automation
technologies and other complementary technologies that can be used to
improve or enhance the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists, and other
VRUs at or near roadway intersections. DOT seeks information on the
state of the art, and emerging trends in, perception, machine vision,
sensor fusion, real-time image and data analysis, path planning,
decision-making, connectivity, and warning systems that could be
implemented in real-time at intersections to improve pedestrian and
other VRU safety.

Specific Questions

    Responses to this RFI are intended to inform DOT on the status of
technologies that can be used to improve or enhance the safety of
pedestrians, bicyclists, and other VRUs at or near roadway
intersections, including the status of the current technical
development or deployment of those technologies.
    DOT is providing the following questions to prompt feedback and
comments. DOT encourages public comment on any or all of these
questions, and also seeks any other information commenters believe is
relevant.
    DOT is requesting information from all interested entities and
stakeholders, including innovators and technology developers,
researchers and universities, transportation system operators,
transportation-focused groups, organizations and associations, and the
public.
    The questions to which DOT is interested in receiving responses
are:

(A) General Technical Considerations

    1. What is the overall feasibility of developing an effective
intersection safety system for vulnerable road users (VRUs) based on
existing and emerging mobile (vehicle) automation technologies
(including other

complementary technologies) as described in this RFI?
    2. What perception, machine vision, and sensor fusion technologies
(and other sensing modalities or combinations) are best suited to an
effective intersection safety and VRU and vehicle warning system?
    3. What real-time image and data analysis techniques are best
suited to provide the required machine vision and perception for an
effective intersection safety system?
    4. What techniques are most effective in providing real-time
vehicle and VRU path planning and prediction capabilities at fixed
roadway intersections?
    5. What new and emerging technologies can enhance machine-based
decision making at intersections--including determining potential
vehicle-VRU conflicts, incidents, dilemma zones, and encroachment in
real-time?
    6. What is the potential role of AI and/or ML in perception, image
analysis, data analysis and decision-making at intersections, both in
real-time and asynchronously? What is the potential for real-time
learning and group learning across a number of similarly-equipped
intersections?
    7. How could such a system work effectively with all types of VRUs
(pedestrians, bicyclists, wheel-chair users, users of electric
scooters, etc.) and all types of vehicles (cars, trucks, vans, transit
buses, commercial vehicles, etc.)?

(B) System Installation and Deployment

    1. How can the required installation, setup and calibration
requirements for a perception and decision-making based intersection
safety system be minimized?
    2. What pedestrian and VRU alerting and warning methodologies and
systems would be most useful, including for example, visual (or
projected), audible, haptic, connected, other?
    3. What vehicle driver alerting and warning systems would be most
useful, to alert drivers in real-time of impending conflicts at
intersections?
    4. What potential modes of connectivity, such as V2X (V2N, V2P,
V2V, V2I . . . ), cellular or Wi-Fi, for connecting vehicles,
infrastructure, signals, and VRUs, would be most useful and effective
to assure the greatest degree of accessibility for all intersection
users?
    5. What industry standards, best practices, processes, protocols,
and interoperability requirements and capabilities are needed or best
suited for the development of an effective intersection safety system?
    6. How can interfaces with traffic signal controllers and traffic
management systems be best implemented? What data storage and curation
of the system performance history (on-board, at the edge or in the
cloud) are required?
    7. How can issues related to reduced visibility (e.g., night-time,
low light, bad weather) be addressed and mitigated during both the
development and deployment of an effective intersection safety system?
    8. Are there any existing research and development efforts,
deployments, or pilot demonstrations underway that aim to provide some
or all of the capabilities described in this RFI?

(C) Human Factors and Performance Measurement

    1. What human behavioral considerations are most important in the
implementation of an intersection safety system to ensure maximum VRU
and driver compliance with the warnings and alerts provided?
    2. What are the most relevant human factors, cognition and human-
machine interface (HMI) considerations for both VRUs and drivers to
ensure the maximum efficacy of an intersection safety system?
    3. What metrics, key performance indicators, and measures of
success are important for determining the performance and efficacy of
an intersection safety system?
    4. How would testing and validation of an intersection safety
system best be accomplished before full system deployment at active
intersections?
    5. How can a testing and validation plan be devised that would
balance testing and development safety with the ultimate real-world
performance of an intersection safety system?
    6. What performance data would be required to validate the testing
and efficacy of an intersection safety system, and how could that
performance data be generated?
    7. What measurement and statistical approaches are applicable to
real-time decision-making at intersections? How can decision or warning
errors be minimized (e.g., through reducing false positives and/or
false negatives)?

(D) Development Costs and Time to Deployment

    1. What is the potential schedule and cost to develop an effective
intersection safety system? What are the potential future hardware and
software ``stack'' costs for a system that can be deployed at the scale
of (for example) 100,000 commercial installations after 3-5 years of
development?
    2. What equity considerations factor into the potential testing,
implementation, and deployment of an effective intersection safety
system?
    3. What team composition of development, commercialization and
deployment partners would be required to achieve the successful
commercialization and deployment of such a system?
    4. For what proportion of intersections (signalized and/or
unsignalized) would such a system be well-suited? What characteristics
or measures are important in determining whether a specific
intersection is well-suited for the implementation of an effective
intersection safety system? How could such a system be further
developed or adapted for use in rural areas?
    5. What are the installation, calibration, training, maintenance,
and operating considerations for deployment of such a system across its
full life-cycle by a range of potential end-users, including State,
local, Tribal and territorial DOTs, cities and towns?

(E) Please Comment on Any Other Issues Relevant to the Development,
Commercialization, and Deployment of an Effective Intersection Safety
System

Confidential Business Information

    Do not submit information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information
(hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information ``CBI'')
to Regulations.gov. Comments submitted through Regulations.gov cannot
be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the website will waive any
CBI claims for the information submitted.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 13, 2022.
Robert C. Hampshire,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2022-20188 Filed 9-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 76 (Tuesday, April 21, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22136-22137]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09002]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 76 / Tuesday, April 21, 2015 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0625; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-09-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. Turboprop
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain serial number GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. M601E-11, M601E-11A, and
M601F turboprop engines with certain part number (P/N) gas generator
turbine (GGT) blades, installed. This proposed AD was prompted by the
determination that certain GGT blades are susceptible to blade failure.
This proposed AD would require removing from service any affected
engine with certain GGT blades installed. We are proposing this AD to
prevent GGT blade failure, which could lead to engine failure and loss
of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 22, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact GE
Aviation Czech s.r.o., Beranov[yacute]ch 65, 199 02 Praha 9--
Let[ncaron]any, Czech Republic; phone: +420 222 538 111; fax: +420 222
538 222. You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
781-238-7125.

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-2015-
0625; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-
647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in
the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Green, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
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-2015-0625;
Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-09-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 based on 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
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
AD 2015-0015, dated January 30, 2015 (referred to hereinafter as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    It has been demonstrated that non-shot peened Gas Generator
Turbine (GGT) blades are susceptible to blade separation in the
shank area due to their reduced fatigue life.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to an in-flight
engine shutdown and, consequently, reduced control of the aeroplane.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-0625.

Related Service Information under 1 CFR Part 51

    GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. has issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB)
No. M601E-11/30, dated December 23, 2014, and ASB No. M601E-11/31,
M601E-11A/18, M601F/28, dated December 23, 2014. The ASBs describe
procedures for removal and replacement of GGT blades that are not shot
peened. This service information is reasonably available; see ADDRESSES
for ways to access this service information.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of the
Czech Republic, and is approved for operation in the United States.
Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the European Community, EASA
has notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe
condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of
the same type design. This proposed AD would require removing from
service any affected engine with GGT blades installed that are not shot
peened.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects one engine installed on
an airplane of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about
64 hours per engine to comply with this proposed AD. The average labor
rate is $85 per hour. Required parts cost about

$28,765 per engine. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $34,205.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this 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 this 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 to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, 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. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. (Type Certificate previously held by WALTER
Engines a.s., Walter a.s., and MOTORLET a.s.): Docket No. FAA-2015-
0625; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-09-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 22, 2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to certain serial number (S/N) GE Aviation Czech
s.r.o. M601E-11, M601E-11A, and M601F turboprop engine models, with
gas generator turbine (GGT) blade, part number (P/N) M601-3372.6 or
M601-3372.51, installed, as follows:
    (1) Model M601E-11: S/Ns 862001, 863008, 894018, 034005, 034006,
034007, 034008, 041003, and 042002.
    (2) Model M601E-11A: S/Ns 042003, 042004, 044001, 044002, and
961001.
    (3) Model M601F: S/Ns 024001, 002001, 003001, 024001, 934001,
934002, 961001.

(d) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the determination that certain GGT
blades are susceptible to blade failure. These blades are identified
as blade P/Ns M601-3372.6 and M601-3372.51, and are installed on an
engine S/N identified in paragraph (c) of this AD. We are issuing
this AD to prevent GGT blade failure, which could lead to engine
failure and loss of the airplane.

(e) Actions and Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done. After the effective date of this AD:
    (1) Do not return to service any affected engine with GGT blade,
P/N M601-3372.6 or M601-3372.51, installed, after 300 hours time in
service or six months, whichever occurs first, after the effective
date of this AD.
    (2) If the affected engines are subsequently disassembled or
overhauled, the non-shot peened GGT blades, P/N M601-3372.6 or M601-
3372.51, are not eligible for installation in any other engine after
removal.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request. You may email your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(g) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Robert Green,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA
01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2015-0015,
dated January 30, 2015, for more information. You may examine the
MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2015-0625.
    (3) GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No.
M601E-11/30, dated December 23, 2014, which is co-published as one
document with M601D-1/31, M601Z/29, and M601T/24, and ASB No. M601E-
11/31, M601E-11A/18, M601F/28, dated December 23, 2014, which is co-
published as one document with M601D-1/32, M601Z/30, M601E/61,
M601T/25, M601FS/12, M601F-22/25, M601F-32/23, and M601E-21/28, are
not incorporated by reference in this AD. The ASBs can be obtained
from GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. using the contact information in
paragraph (g)(4) of this proposed AD.
    (4) For service information identified in this proposed AD,
contact GE Aviation Czech s.r.o., Beranov[yacute]ch 65, 199 02 Praha
9--Let[ncaron]any, Czech Republic; phone: +420 222 538 111; fax:
+420 222 538 222.
    (5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington,
MA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 7, 2015.
Ann C. Mollica,
Acting Directorate Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-09002 Filed 4-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 7, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 48156]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18995]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commissioner and Staff Attendance at North American
Electric Reliability Corporation Meetings

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of the Commission and/or Commission staff may
attend the following meetings:

    North American Electric Reliability Corporation Member
Representatives Committee and Board of Trustees Meetings Board of
Trustees Corporate Governance and Human Resources Committee,
Compliance Committee, Finance and Audit Committee, and Standards
Oversight and Technology Committee Meetings

    Fairmont The Queen Elizabeth, 900 Ren[eacute]-L[eacute]vesque Blvd.
West, Montreal, QC H3B 4A5, Canada.

August 14 (7:30 a.m.--5:30 p.m.) and August 15 (8:00 a.m.--1:00 p.m.),
2013

    Further information regarding these meetings may be found at:
http://www.nerc.com/Pages/Calendar.aspx.
    The discussions at the meetings, which are open to the public, may
address matters at issue in the following Commission proceedings:

Docket No. RC11-5, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. RC13-4, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. RR13-3, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. RR13-6, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. RR13-7, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. RD13-9, North American Electric Reliability Corporation
Docket No. RD13-10, North American Electric Reliability Corporation

    For further information, please contact Jonathan First, 202-502-
8529, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 31, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-18995 Filed 8-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P