[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 21 (Wednesday, January 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4487-4489]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01894]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket Nos. FDA-2014-E-2339; FDA-2014-E-2338]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; DUAVEE

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has
determined the regulatory review period for DUAVEE and is publishing
this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the
determination because of the submission of an application to the
Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of
Commerce, for the extension of a patent which claims that human drug
product.

DATES: Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section) are incorrect may submit either
electronic or written comments and ask for a redetermination by April
2, 2018. Furthermore, any interested person may petition FDA for a
determination regarding whether the applicant for extension acted with
due diligence during the regulatory review period by July 30, 2018. See
``Petitions'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for more
information.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late,
untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments
must be submitted on or before April 2, 2018. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until
midnight Eastern Time at the end of April 2, 2018. Comments received by
mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be
considered timely if they are postmarked or the delivery service
acceptance receipt is on or before that date.

Electronic Submissions

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

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2014-E-2339 and FDA-2014-E-2338 for ``Determination of Regulatory
Review Period for Purposes of Patent Extension; DUAVEE.'' Received
comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES), will be
placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at
the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with Sec.  10.20 (21 CFR 10.20) and
other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's
posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18,
2015, or access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory
Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984
(Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term
Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may
be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item
(human drug product, animal drug product, medical device, food
additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA
before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory
review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension
an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the human drug product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Director of USPTO may award
(for example, half the testing phase must be subtracted as well as any
time that may have occurred before the patent was issued), FDA's
determination of the length of a regulatory review period for a human
drug product will include all of the testing phase and approval phase
as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product DUAVEE
(conjugated estrogens/bazedoxifene acetate). DUAVEE is indicated for
treatment of the following conditions in women with a uterus: (1)
Treatment of moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms associated with
menopause and (2) prevention of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Subsequent
to this approval, the USPTO received patent term restoration
applications for DUAVEE (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,998,402 and 6,479,535) from
Wyeth LLC, and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the
patents' eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated
November 3, 2015, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product
had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of
DUAVEE represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of
the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the
product's regulatory review period.

II. Determination of Regulatory Review Period

    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
DUAVEE is 5,683 days. Of this time, 5,317 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 366 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became
effective: March 15, 1998. FDA has verified the Wyeth LLC claim that
March 15, 1998, is the date the investigational new drug application
(IND) became effective.

    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: October 3,
2012. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug
application (NDA) for DUAVEE (NDA 022247) was initially submitted on
October 3, 2012.
    3. The date the application was approved: October 3, 2013. FDA has
verified the applicant's claim that NDA 022247 was approved on October
3, 2013.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO
applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual
period for patent extension. In its application for patent extension,
this applicant seeks 5 years of patent term extension.

III. Petitions

    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under
21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see DATES). Furthermore, as
specified in Sec.  60.30 (21 CFR 60.30), any interested person may
petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant for
extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review period.
To meet its burden, comply with all the requirements of Sec.  60.30,
including but not limited to: Must be timely (see DATES), must be filed
in accordance with Sec.  10.20, must contain sufficient facts to merit
an FDA investigation, and must certify that a true and complete copy of
the petition has been served upon the patent applicant. (See H. Rept.
857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should
be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Submit petitions electronically to https://www.regulations.gov at
Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Submit written petitions (two copies are
required) to the Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: January 24, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-01894 Filed 1-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 62 (Wednesday, April 1, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 17430]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07491]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9925-68-OAR]

Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC): Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces upcoming
public meetings of the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC). The
EPA established the CAAAC on November 19, 1990, to provide independent
advice and counsel to EPA on policy issues associated with
implementation of the Clean Air Act of 1990. The Committee advises on
economic, environmental, technical, scientific and enforcement policy
issues.
    Dates & Addresses: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. App. 2 Section 10(a) (2),
notice is hereby given that the CAAAC will hold its next face-to-face
meeting on April 22, 2015, tentatively from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at
the Crowne Plaza Washington National Airport hotel, 1480 Crystal Drive,
Arlington, VA 22202.
    Inspection of Committee Documents: The committee agenda, confirmed
times for the meetings, and any documents prepared for these meetings
will be publicly available on the CAAAC Web site at http://www.epa.gov/oar/caaac/ prior to the meeting. Thereafter, these documents, together
with CAAAC meeting minutes, will also be available on the CAAAC Web
site or by contacting the Office of Air and Radiation Docket and
requesting information under docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0075. The docket
office can be reached by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FAX: 202-
566-9744.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information about the CAAAC,
please contact Jim Ketcham-Colwill, Interim Designated Federal Officer
(DFO), Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Additional
information about this meeting, CAAAC, and its subcommittees can be
found on the CAAAC Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oar/caaac/.
    For information on access or services for individuals with
disabilities, please contact Lorraine Reddick at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>preferably at least 10 days prior to the
meeting to give EPA as much time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: March 25, 2015.
Jim Ketcham-Colwill,
Interim Designated Federal Officer, Clean Air Act Advisory Committee,
Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2015-07491 Filed 3-31-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23570-23572]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09334]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2015-7301; Special Conditions No. 25-614-SC]

Special Conditions: Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVII-
G500 Airplanes, Pilot Compartment View Requirements With an Enhanced
Flight Vision System

AGENCY:  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:  Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY:  These special conditions are issued for the Gulfstream
Aerospace Corporation (Gulfstream) Model GVII-G500 airplane. This
airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to
the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for
transport category airplanes. This design feature is an enhanced flight
vision system (EFVS) that includes a head-up display (HUD) capable of
displaying forward-looking infrared (FLIR) imagery, intended to be used
for instrument approaches under provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) 91.175(l) and (m). The applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for
this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional
safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to
establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES:  This action is effective on Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation on
April 22, 2016. We must receive your comments by June 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES:  Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-7301
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/ gov/.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Dale Dunford, FAA, Airplane and
Flightcrew Interface Branch, ANM-111, Transport Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice of, and
opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is
impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay
issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected
airplane.
    In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been
subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with
no substantive comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good
cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon
publication in the Federal Register.

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments
we receive.

Background

    On March 29, 2012, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation applied for a
type certificate for their new Model GVII-G500 series airplane. The
Model GVII-G500 series airplane will be a business jet capable of
accommodating up to 19 passengers. It will incorporate a low, swept-
wing design with winglets and a T-tail. The powerplant will consist of
two aft-fuselage-mounted Pratt & Whitney turbofan engines.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.17, Gulfstream must show that the Model GVII-G500 series
airplane meets the applicable provisions of 14 CFR part 25, as amended
by Amendments 25-1 through 25-129.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Model GVII-G500 series airplane
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same or similar
novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would also
apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Model GVII-G500 series airplane must comply with the
fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the
noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36. The FAA must issue
a finding of regulatory adequacy under Sec.  611 of Public Law 92-574,
the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-
certification basis under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplane will incorporate the
following novel or unusual design feature:
    An enhanced flight vision system (EFVS) that includes a head-up
display (HUD) capable of displaying forward-looking infrared (FLIR)
imagery, intended to be used for instrument approaches under provisions
of Sec.  91.175(l) and (m).

Discussion

    The EFVS uses novel technology for which the FAA has no
certification criteria. Furthermore, 14 CFR 25.773, which was not
written in anticipation of such technology, does not permit visual
distortions and reflections that could interfere with the pilot's
compartment view. The video image potentially interferes with the
pilot's ability to see the natural scene in the center of their forward
field of view. Because Sec.  25.773 does not provide for alternatives
or considerations for such a novel system, it is necessary to establish
safety requirements that assure an equivalent level of safety and
effectiveness of the pilot compartment view as intended by this rule.
These special conditions for the EFVS are prescribed under the
provisions of Sec.  21.16. Other applications for certification of such
technology are anticipated in the near future, and magnify the need to
establish FAA safety standards that can be applied consistently for all
such approvals.
    Unlike the pilot's natural forward vision, the EFVS image is
infrared-based, monochrome, 2-dimensional (i.e., providing no depth
perception), and of lower resolution. While the pilot may be readily
able to see around and through small individual stroke-written symbols
on the HUD, the pilot may not be able to see around or through the
image that fills the display without some interference of the outside
view. Nevertheless, the EFVS may be capable of meeting an equivalent
level of safety when considering the combined view of the image and the
outside scene, which is visible to the pilot through the image. It is
essential that the pilot be able to use this combination of image and
natural view of the outside scene as safely and effectively as the
pilot compartment view currently allows without the EFVS image.
    These special conditions provide the unique pilot-compartment view
requirements for the EFVS installation.
    Compliance with these special conditions is required for the EFVS
to be found acceptable, for the following intended functions, in
accordance with Sec.  91.175(l) and (m):
    1. Presenting an image that would aid the pilot during a straight-
in instrument approach.
    2. Enable the pilot to determine the ``enhanced flight
visibility,'' as required by Sec.  91.175(l)(2), for descent and
operation below MDA/DH.
    3. Enable the pilot to use the EFVS imagery to detect and identify
the ``visual references for the intended runway,'' required by Sec.
91.175(l)(3), to continue the approach with vertical

guidance to 100 feet height above touchdown-zone elevation.
    Note: The term ``Enhanced Vision System,'' or EVS, commonly refers
to a system comprising a HUD, imaging sensor(s), and avionics
interface(s) that displays the sensor imagery on the HUD and overlays
it with alpha-numeric and symbolic flight information. However, the
term has also been used to refer to systems that display the sensor
imagery, with or without other flight information, on a head-down
display. Therefore, to avoid confusion, the FAA has defined the term
``Enhanced Flight Vision System'' (EFVS) to refer to certain EVS that
meet the requirements of Sec.  91.175(m), in particular the requirement
for a HUD and specified flight information, and the ability to
determine ``enhanced flight visibility.'' Accordingly, an EFVS can be
considered a subset of systems otherwise labeled EVS.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplane. Should Gulfstream apply at a later
date for a change to the type certificate to include another model
incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special
conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature
on one model series of airplane. It is not a rule of general
applicability.
    The substance of these special conditions has been subjected to the
notice and comment period in several prior instances and has been
derived without substantive change from those previously issued. It is
unlikely that prior public comment would result in a significant change
from the substance contained herein. Therefore, because a delay would
significantly affect the certification of the airplane, the FAA has
determined that prior public notice and comment are unnecessary and
impracticable, and good cause exists for adopting these special
conditions upon publication in the Federal Register.
    The FAA is requesting comments to allow interested persons to
submit views that may not have been submitted in response to the prior
opportunities for comment described above.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Gulfstream Model GVII-G500 airplanes.
    1. Enhanced flight vision system (EFVS) imagery on the head-up
display (HUD) must not degrade the safety of flight or interfere with
the effective use of outside visual references for required pilot tasks
during any phase of flight in which it is to be used.
    2. To avoid unacceptable interference with the safe and effective
use of the pilot-compartment view, the EFVS device must meet the
following requirements:
    a. EFVS design must minimize unacceptable display characteristics
or artifacts (e.g. noise, ``burlap'' overlay, running water droplets)
that obscure the desired image of the scene, impair the pilot's ability
to detect and identify visual references, mask flight hazards, distract
the pilot, or otherwise degrade task performance or safety.
    b. Control of EFVS display brightness must be sufficiently
effective, in dynamically changing background (ambient) lighting
conditions, to prevent full or partial blooming of the display that
would distract the pilot, impair the pilot's ability to detect and
identify visual references, mask flight hazards, or otherwise degrade
task performance or safety. If automatic control for image brightness
is not provided, it must be shown that a single manual setting is
satisfactory for the range of lighting conditions encountered during a
time-critical, high-workload phase of flight (e.g., low-visibility
instrument approach).
    c. A readily accessible control must be provided that permits the
pilot to immediately deactivate and reactivate display of the EFVS
image on demand, without removing the pilot's hands from the primary
flight controls (yoke or equivalent) or thrust control.
    d. The EFVS image on the HUD must not impair the pilot's use of
guidance information, or degrade the presentation and pilot awareness
of essential flight information displayed on the HUD, such as alerts,
airspeed, attitude, altitude and direction, approach guidance, wind-
shear guidance, traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) resolution
advisories, and unusual-attitude recovery cues.
    e. The EFVS image and the HUD symbols, which are spatially
referenced to the pitch scale, outside view, and image, must be scaled
and aligned (i.e., conformal) to the external scene and, when
considered singly or in combination, must not be misleading, cause
pilot confusion, or increase workload. There may be airplane attitudes
or cross-wind conditions which cause certain symbols, such as the zero-
pitch line or flight-path vector, to reach field-of-view limits such
that they cannot be positioned conformably with the image and external
scene. In such cases, these symbols may be displayed, but with an
altered appearance which makes the pilot aware that they are no longer
displayed conformably (for example, ``ghosting'').
    f. A HUD system used to display EFVS images must, if previously
certified, continue to meet all of the requirements of the original
approval.
    3. The safety and performance of the pilot tasks associated with
the use of the pilot-compartment view must be not be degraded by the
display of the EFVS image. Pilot tasks which must not be degraded by
the EFVS image include:
    a. Detection, accurate identification, and maneuvering, as
necessary, to avoid traffic, terrain, obstacles, and other hazards of
flight.
    b. Accurate identification and utilization of visual references
required for every task relevant to the phase of flight.
    4. Appropriate limitations must be stated in the Operating
Limitations section of the Airplane Flight Manual to prohibit the use
of the EFVS for functions that have not been found to be acceptable.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 5, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-09334 Filed 4-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: February 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 27)]
[Notices]
[Page 6939-6940]
[DOCID:fr11fe09-103]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59349; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2009-07]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Arca, Inc. Amending Rule
5.4 To Eliminate the $3 Market Price Per Share Requirement

February 3, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on February 2, 2009, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. NYSE Arca has
designated the proposed rule change as constituting a non-controversial
rule change under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ which renders the
proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is
publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change
from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 5.4 to eliminate the $3 market
price per share requirement from the Exchange's requirements for
continued approval for an underlying security and eliminate the
prohibition against listing additional series of options on an
underlying security at any time when the price per share of such
underlying security is less than $3. Changes to the rule text are shown
in the attached Exhibit 5.\4\ A copy of this filing is available on the
Exchange's Web site at http://www.nyse.com, at the Exchange's principal
office and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Commission notes that while provided in Exhibit 5 to the
filing, the text of the proposed rule change is not attached to this
notice but is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public
Reference Room, and at http://www.nyse.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to eliminate the $3
market price per share requirement from the Exchange's requirements for
continued approval for an underlying security from Rule 5.4. In
addition, the rule filing would further amend Rule 5.4 by eliminating
the prohibition against listing additional series of options on an
underlying security at any time when the price per share of such
underlying security is less than $3.
    The Exchange believes that the $3 market price per share
requirement is no longer necessary or appropriate, and states that only
those underlying securities meeting the remaining maintenance listing
criteria set forth in Rule 5.4 will be eligible for continued listing
and the listing of additional option series. The Exchange believes

that the current $3 market price per share requirement could have a
negative effect on investors. For example, in the current volatile
market environment, the Exchange is currently unable to list new series
on underlying securities trading below $3. If there is market demand
for series while the underlying is below $3, the Exchange would be
unable to accommodate such requests and investors would be unable to
hedge their positions with new options series.
    As of January 2, 2009, the Exchange had 209 underlying issues that
had closed below $3 per share, and an additional 176 that had closed
between $3 and $5 per share, out of a total of 2170 underlying classes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, in that it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market and
a national market system and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest, as it provides for the continued listing of options
overlying securities that meet all requirements except for share price.
By continuing the listing, investors will be able to continue managing
risk in these securities.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \5\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
NYSE Arca has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \7\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \8\ permits the Commission to
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. NYSE Arca requests
that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Commission
notes that this proposed rule change is substantially identical to a
proposed rule change that was approved by the Commission after an
opportunity for public comment,\9\ and does not raise any new
substantive issues. The Exchange requests the waiver of the 30-day
operative delay so that the proposed rule change may become effective
and operative on or near the date that the CBOE proposal is operative.
For these reasons, the Commission believes that waiving the 30-day
operative delay \10\ is consistent with the protection of investors and
the public interest and designates the proposal operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \9\ NYSE Arca's proposed rule change is substantially identical
to a proposed rule change by the Chicago Board Options Exchange
(``CBOE'') recently approved by the Commission. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 59336 (February 2, 2009) (SR-CBOE-2008-
127).
    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2009-07 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2009-07. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2009-07 and should
be submitted on or before March 4, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-2772 Filed 2-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 88 (Friday, May 6, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 27425]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10672]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD16-2-000]

Review of Cost Submittals by Other Federal Agencies for
Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act; Notice Requesting
Questions and Comments on Fiscal Year 2016 Other Federal Agency Cost
Submissions

    In its Order on Rehearing Consolidating Administrative Annual
Charges Bill Appeals and Modifying Annual Charges Billing Procedures,
109 FERC ] 61,040 (2004) (October 8 Order) the Commission set forth an
annual process for Other Federal Agencies (OFAs) to submit their costs
related to Administering Part I of the Federal Power Act. Pursuant to
the established process, the Director of the Financial Management
Division, Office of the Executive Director, on October 13, 2015, issued
a letter requesting the OFAs to submit their costs by December 31, 2015
using the OFA Cost Submission Form.
    Upon receipt of the agency submissions, the Commission posted the
information in eLibrary, and issued, on March 17, 2016, a notice
announcing the date for a technical conference to review the submitted
costs. On April 7, 2016, the Commission held the technical conference.
Technical conference transcripts, submitted cost forms, and detailed
supporting documents are all available for review under Docket No.
AD16-2. These documents are accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov,
using the ``eLibrary'' link and are available for review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC.
    Interested parties may file specific questions and comments on the
FY 2015 OFA cost submissions with the Commission under Docket No. AD16-
2, no later than May 13, 2016. Once filed, the Commission will forward
the questions and comments to the OFAs for response.
    Anyone with questions pertaining to the technical conference or
this notice should contact Norman Richardson at<PHONE_NUMBER> (via
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Raven A. Rodriguez at (202)
502-6276 (via email at raven.rodriguez@ferc.gov).

    Dated: April 29, 2016.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-10672 Filed 5-5-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 179 (Monday, September 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56986-56988]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22490]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0030]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 32 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions are effective September 16, 2013. The exemptions
expire on September 16, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgement that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on January
17, 2008 (73 FR 3316).

Background

    On July 12, 2013, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the
public (78 FR 41975). That notice listed 32 applicants' case histories.
The 32 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 32 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing requirement
red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 32
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including aphakia, prosthetic eye, central retinal artery
occlusion, strabismic amblyopia, amblyopia, refractive amblyopia, optic
neuropathy, complete loss of vision, anisometropic

amblyopia, toxoplasmosis scar, retinal detachment, corneal scar,
retinal scar, traumatic cataract, macular pucker, cataract, and
coloboma. In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently
developed. Nineteen of the applicants were either born with their
vision impairments or have had them since childhood.
    The thirteen individuals that sustained their vision conditions as
adults have had it for a period of 2 to 36 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 32 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision for careers ranging from 2 to 40
years. In the past 3 years, one of the drivers was involved in 2
crashes and four were convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the July 12, 2013
notice (78 FR 41975).

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    We believe we can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 32 applicants, one of the drivers was involved in 2 crashes and
four were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants
achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 32 applicants listed in the notice of July
12, 2013 (78 FR 41975).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 32

individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions applied to
drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following: (1) That each individual be physically examined every year
(a) by an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in
the better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10) and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2)
that each individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual
medical examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the
annual medical certification to the employer for retention in the
driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's
qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a
copy of the certification when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received seven comments in this proceeding. The comments are
considered and discussed below.
    The seven comments received were all in support of Steven C.
Sheeder receiving a vision exemption.

Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 32 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts Steven L. Albert (PA), Manassah E. Baker (FL), Carl H. Block
(NY), Christopher W. Brim (TN), John W. Camp (GA), Ralph Carr (PA),
Juan Carranco (TX), William Chisley (MD), Westcott G. Clarke (MA),
Jerrald A. Crabtree (WA), John A. Dilts (IN), Phyllis Dodson (IN),
Donnie H. Eagle (WV), Phillip L. Ergovich (MO), Udum Khamsoksavath
(WA), Michael A. Lancette (WI), Alex P. Makhanov (WA), Mitchell Malcolm
(MN), Vincent E. Marsee, Sr. (NC), Phillip P. Mazza (PA), Brandin D.
Meester (ND), Charles Moen (MI), Jerome M. Paintner (ND), Louis A.
Pence (WY), Jeffrey T. Sanders (NC), Michael Schott (NE), Steven C.
Sheeder (IA), Larry C. Smoot, Jr. (CA), David Snellings (MD), Edward A.
Spakousky (OR), Jose L. Torres-Perales (KS), and Adam J. Zappetta (WI)
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), subject to the
requirements cited above (49 CFR 391.64(b)).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

     Issued on: September 9, 2013.
 Larry W. Minor,
 Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-22490 Filed 9-13-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: February 26, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 37)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 8316-8318]
[DOCID:fr26fe07-32]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Chapter I

[Docket No. RM07-9-000]

Assessment of Information Requirements for FERC Financial Forms

Issued February 15, 2007.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
issuing a notice of inquiry into the need for changes or revisions to
the Commission's reporting requirements for FERC Forms Nos. 1, 1-F, 2,
2-A, 3-Q, 6 and 6-Q (Financial Forms). This notice of inquiry follows
informal meetings held by Office of Enforcement (OE) staff with both
filers and users of FERC Forms Nos. 1 and 2 to reexamine the
information in the forms and determine whether these forms should be
modified to improve their usefulness. The notice of inquiry invites all
interested persons to participate in the inquiry and to submit answers
to several specific questions.

DATES: Comments on this Notice of Inquiry are due on March 28, 2007.
Reply comments are due April 27, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Docket No. RM07-9-000
by one of the following methods:
     Agency Web Site: http://ferc.gov. Follow the instructions

for submitting comments via the eFiling link found in the Comment
Procedures Section of the preamble.
     Mail: Commenters unable to file comments electronically
must mail or hand deliver an original and 14 copies of their comments
to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please refer
to the Comment Procedures Section of the preamble for additional
information on how to file paper comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jane Stelck, Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 200426,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-6648.

Michelle Veloso, Office of Enforcement, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 502-8363.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is
initiating an inquiry into the need for changes or additions to the
financial information reported in quarterly and annual report forms,
FERC Form Nos. 1, 1-F, 2, 2-A, 3-Q, 6 and 6-Q (Financial Forms).
Specifically, the Commission seeks comments on whether the Commission's
annual and quarterly financial forms provide sufficient information to
the public to permit an evaluation of the filers' jurisdictional rates,
and whether these forms should otherwise be modified to improve their
usefulness.

II. Background

    2. The Federal Power Act (FPA), the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the
Interstate Commerce Act (ICA) authorize the Commission to prescribe
annual or other periodic reports to assist the Commission in the
administration of its jurisdictional responsibilities.\1\ FERC Form No.
1, ``Annual Report of Major Electric Utilities, Licensees and Others''
(Form 1), and FERC Form No. 1-F, ``Annual Report for Nonmajor Public
Utilities and Licensees'' (Form 1-F), collect annual financial
information as prescribed in Sec. Sec.  141.1 and 141.2 of the
Commission's regulations.\2\ FERC Form No. 2, ``Annual Report for Major
Natural Gas Companies'' (Form 2), and FERC Form No. 2-A, ``Annual
Report for Nonmajor Natural Gas Companies'' (Form 2-A), collect annual
financial information from natural gas companies subject to the
Commission's jurisdiction, as prescribed in Sec. Sec.  260.1 and 260.2
of the regulations.\3\ FERC Form No. 6, ``Annual Report of Oil Pipeline
Companies'' (Form 6), collects annual financial information from oil
pipeline companies subject to the Commission's jurisdiction, as
prescribed in Sec. Sec.  357.2 and 357.4 of the regulations.\4\ In
2004, the Commission's regulations were revised to require the filing
entities to submit quarterly financial reports to supplement the annual
filings: FERC Form No. 3-Q by electric utilities, licensees and natural
gas companies; and FERC Form No. 6-Q by oil pipeline companies.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See sections 4, 304 and 309 of the Federal Power Act, 16
U.S.C. 797, 825c and 825h (2000); and sections 10(a), 16 of the
Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717i(a) and 717o (2000); and 49 App.
U.S.C. 1-85 (2000).
    \2\ 18 CFR 141.1, 141.2.
    \3\ 18 CFR. 260.1, 260.2.
    \4\ 18 CFR 357.2, 357.4.
    \5\ Quarterly Financial Reporting and Revisions to the Annual
Reports, Order No. 646, 69 FR 9030 (Feb. 26, 2004), FERC Stats. &
Regs. ] 31,158 (2004), as amended by Order No. 646-A, 69 FR 32440
(June 10, 2004), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,163 (2004). See 18 CFR
141.400, 260.300, and 357.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. The Financial Forms provide information that is essential to the
Commission's oversight authority, namely, financial data covering a
company's past performance. The financial statements are prepared in
accordance with the Commission's Uniform Systems of Accounts and
related regulations and provide data that enables the Commission to
develop and monitor cost-based rates, analyze costs of different
services and classes of assets, and compare costs across lines of
business. In addition, the Financial Forms are relied upon by electric
utility, interstate natural gas pipeline and oil pipeline customers,
state commissions, and trade associations to develop and monitor rates.
When the Commission revised its rules to require quarterly financial
reporting, it concluded, based on comments received, that ``the
financial information filed with the Commission represents, in most
cases, the only source of financial data presented in a format and
detail suitable for the Commission to exercise its duties and
responsibilities under the Federal Power, Natural Gas, and Interstate
Commerce Acts.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Order No. 646 at P 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. In the spring of 2006, the Office of Enforcement (OE) assumed
responsibility for all financial forms filed with the Commission, which
routinely reviews and updates the forms' requirements. Accordingly, in
September and October of 2006, OE staff met informally with both filers
and users of Forms 1 and 2 to reexamine the breadth of data collected
by the forms and to determine the need for clarifications, corrections,
deletions or additional information.\7\ In particular with respect to
Form 2, the meetings were also prompted because pleadings filed
recently by certain market participants had questioned the adequacy of
the type and amount of data reported in the forms for purposes of
challenging rates on file for natural gas companies.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ References to Forms 1 and 2, to the extent applicable, also
refer to Forms 1-F, 2-A, 3-Q, 6 and 6-Q.
    \8\ See, e.g., Public Service Commission of New York,
Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and Pennsylvania Office of
Consumer Advocate v. National Fuel Gas Supply Corp., 115 FERC ]
61,299 (2006) (National Fuel) (setting for hearing a complaint filed
by state commissions against National Fuel Gas Supply Corp. alleging
that the company's rates are unjust and unreasonable, based on an
analysis of Form 2 data). See also Panhandle Complainants v.
Southwest Gas Storage Company, 117 FERC ] 61,318 (2006) (Panhandle)
(setting for hearing a complaint filed by customers of Panhandle
Eastern Pipeline Company (PEPL), in which complainants relied on
Form 2-A data for support).

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

    5. During this two-month outreach period, OE staff met with
representatives of natural gas and electric utility companies, state
commissions, trade associations, financial entities, energy data
publishers, federal agencies, and other Commission staff. In addition
to attending the informal meetings, participants were invited to submit
written comments and recommendations. At each session, staff sought the
participants' views on several issues, including: how Forms 1 and 2 are
used; which information is most helpful; whether and what additional
information might be sought; and how burdensome to filers might be
changes made or requirements added to either Form 1 or 2.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The staff outreach did not extend to Form 6 or 6-Q. The
Commission believes, however, that extension of this inquiry to the
oil pipeline financial forms makes sense as many of the concerns
raised with respect to the other forms could apply to the oil
pipeline forms as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Comments on Form 1

    6. Representatives of public utilities who file Form 1 advocated
streamlining the form, i.e., limiting the information collected to only
what is necessary for the Commission to perform its regulatory function
and avoiding the collection of unnecessary additional information. Many
Form 1 filers expressed concern that these extensive reporting
requirements put them at a competitive disadvantage because they apply
only to major public utilities and hydropower licensees, and not to
state and municipal public utilities, rural cooperatives, independent
power producers, exempt wholesale generators and power marketers.
    7. Users of Form 1 data emphasized its importance in monitoring
cost-based rates to ensure that rates are just and reasonable, and in
determining the potential need for a section 206 complaint. More
generally, users complained that the Form 1 filings are often
incomplete or inconsistent and there is a need for greater quality
control and follow-up by Commission staff. Several users focused on the
need for greater clarity in the Form 1 instructions and a need for
upgrades to the software to provide for, among other things, more
standardization of data queries.
    8. Specific suggestions for additional information items to be
collected in Form 1 submitted by the American Public Power Association
include the following: (1) additional cost data needed to complete
formula rate calculations, e.g., a summary schedule of information
provided on transmission line statistics for lines 132 kV or greater;
(2) the standard rate divisor as specified in Order No. 888; \10\ (3)
expansion of existing reporting of individual line and substation
facilities to identify which facilities have been placed under
operation or control of another entity; and, (4) reporting revenue
distributions from regional transmission organizations (RTOs) or
independent system operators (ISOs) with a breakdown of costs and
revenues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-
Discriminatory Transmission Services by Public Utilities; Recovery
of Stranded Costs by Public Utilities and Transmitting Utilities,
Order No. 888, 61 FR 21540 (May 10, 1996), FERC Stats. & Regs. ]
31,036 (1996), order on reh'g, Order No. 888-A, 62 FR 12274 (Mar.
14, 1997), FERC Stats. & Regs. ] 31,048 (1997), order on reh'g,
Order No. 888-B, 81 FERC ] 61,248 (1997), order on reh'g, Order No.
888-C, 82 FERC ] 61,046 (1998), aff'd in relevant part sub nom.
Transmission Access Policy Study Group v. FERC, 225 F.3d 667 (D.C.
Cir. 2000) (TAPS v. FERC), aff'd sub nom. New York v. FERC, 535 U.S.
1 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Comments on Form 2

    9. Representatives of the interstate natural gas pipeline
companies, filers of Form 2, complained that the filing requirements,
including the filing of quarterly information, are burdensome and
collect unnecessary data. These filers also expressed their opinion
that Form 2 is an accounting document that does not include projections
and, therefore, should not be used as a substitute for a cost and
revenue study or be used to gauge earnings.
    10. The users of Form 2 called for more, not less data, and
identified specific areas and accounts they found lacking in detail.
According to these Form 2 users, the lack of detail affects the
reliability of an accurate assessment of pipeline rates. Users of the
data emphasized the significance of the information collected in Form 2
as the primary source for evaluating cost-based rates. They added that
since interstate natural gas pipeline companies are no longer required
to file a periodic restatement of rates, the importance of the
information in Form 2 is particularly significant and constitutes the
only resource available to shippers seeking pipeline rate changes by
filing a complaint.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See supra note 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Specific changes or additional details sought by the users of
Form 2 include: (1) A breakdown of operating revenues; (2) unbundling
of certain accounts; (3) additional detail on cost of service items,
billing determinants, and maximum rate contracts; (4) detail on
pensions and Post Retirement Benefits Other Than Pension (OPEBs); (5)
more detail on employee expenses, employee benefits and executive
compensation; and (6) more affiliate transaction schedules. Other data
and changes requested include: (1) Separation of cost-of-service
components from non-cost-of-service components; (2) requiring a filer
to identify items that it considers rate-base components for ratemaking
purposes; (3) information on construction costs and capitalized costs;
and (4) additional information on deferred taxes and capital structure.
    12. The Industry Coalition \12\ (Coalition) submitted written
comments suggesting specific changes to Form 2, information they
identified as necessary to perform an evaluation of pipeline rates. The
Coalition's specific suggestions include the following: (1) Identify
which components of deferred taxes are included in rate base for cost-
of-service purposes; (2) provide additional information on the entity
whose capital structure is reported on page 218a of the form; (3)
provide detail on gas purchases and sales; (4) provide detail on
miscellaneous gas revenues; (5) provide a calculation of the pipeline's
effective overall state income tax rate; (6) provide detail for
miscellaneous assets; (7) provide detail concerning the total parent
company overhead costs and the amount assigned or allocated to the
pipeline; (8) provide aggregate information on volumes and revenues
associated with discounted services and negotiated rate services; (9)
identify costs and revenues associated with at-risk facilities; and
(10) provide a calculation of the pipeline's earned annual return on
equity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Industry Coalition comprised the following entities:
Natural Gas Supply Association, American Public Gas Association,
Independent Petroleum Association of America, and The Process Gas
Consumers Group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. In addition, many participants commented on the need to limit
delays in filing, and the incompleteness of some information that is
filed. The Commission shares the concern regarding timely filings. The
Commission expects that all Financial Forms will be filed in a timely
manner and will provide all of the requested information.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Concurrently with the issuance of this Notice of Inquiry,
the Commission is issuing a show cause order to financial forms
filers who have been delinquent in making their filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    14. The comments and information received as a result of the
outreach meetings reinforce the significance of this data to the
Commission, and to the public who depend almost solely on the data
reported when they elect to file a complaint under section 5 of the NGA
or section 206 of the FPA. The forms represent more than simply
accounting documents; the information provided is essential to the
public's right to

examine, monitor, and assess utility and pipeline rates to ensure that
they do not pay excessive or unduly discriminatory rates.
    15. In light of the comments received, both orally and written,
during OE's review of Forms 1 and 2, and in light of the complaints set
for hearing in National Fuel and Panhandle and the importance of the
questions they raise, the Commission believes it is appropriate to
solicit comments on these matters. Although the informal meetings held
as a result of OE's outreach efforts focused on Forms 1 and 2, this
Notice of Inquiry (NOI) solicits comments on the need for changes to
any and all of the Financial Forms filed with the Commission, i.e.,
Form 6 and quarterly submissions, Forms 3-Q and 6-Q. The Commission is
aware that not all participants in the informal review had an
opportunity to submit written comments or to respond to comments
submitted by other parties. This NOI gives those entities, and all
other interested persons, the opportunity to comment formally with the
Commission on any of the issues raised herein. The list is not
exhaustive. Those responding to this NOI should feel free to raise any
other questions or to make any comments which will aid the Commission
in assessing its Financial Forms. After receipt of comments in response
to this NOI, the Commission will determine whether it is appropriate to
propose changes to the financial forms in the context of a formal
rulemaking.

V. Questions

    16. The Commission asks that interested persons respond to the
following general questions.
    (1) Do the annual and quarterly Financial Forms provide sufficient
data for the public to permit an evaluation of the filers'
jurisdictional rates?
    (2) If not, what additional data is needed to conduct such an
evaluation? Please specify the form (or forms) to which your
suggestions pertain.
    (3) Do the financial reports provide sufficient data to the public
to determine revenues attributable to the sale of excess fuel
retention? If not, what additional data is needed to conduct such an
evaluation?
    (4) Is the information included in the financial reports sufficient
to audit formulaic rates?
    (5) Should the Commission require reporting of information on
demand response initiatives (interruptible, load control, etc.),
including demand and peak demand impacts, associated costs and savings,
and the number of advanced meters installed?
    (6) Please explain how this additional data will be useful to users
of the Financial Forms.
    (7) How burdensome would any requirement for additional information
be to filers of Financial Forms?
    (8) Are there specific reporting requirements that are no longer
necessary or unduly burdensome that should be deleted?
    (9) What technical revisions, if any, need to be made to the
Financial Forms? For example, identify any suggested changes in
instructions, desirable software upgrades, and whether there are errors
embedded in the forms which need to be corrected.
    (10) Should the Commission require electric utilities, licensees
and interstate natural gas and oil pipeline companies to provide
notification when their total sales or transactions fall below the
minimum thresholds established in the Commission's regulations such
that they are no longer subject to these filing requirements?
    (11) Should the Commission require a showing of good cause before
granting an extension of time in which to file the required forms?
    (12) Are these concerns of sufficient importance to warrant a
rulemaking and, if so, what rules should the Commission promulgate?
Commenters are encouraged to be as specific as possible.

VI. Comment Procedures

    16. The Commission invites interested persons to submit comments on
these matters and any related matters or alternative proposals that
commenters may wish to discuss. Comments are due March 28, 2007 and
reply comments are due April 27, 2007. Comments and reply comments must
refer to Docket No. RM07-9-000 and must include the commenter's name,
the organization he or she represents, if applicable, and his or her
address.
    17. Comments may be filed electronically via the eFiling link on
the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov. The Commission

accepts most standard word processing formats and commenters may attach
additional files with supporting information in certain other file
formats. Commenters filing electronically do not need to make a paper
filing.
    18. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically
must send an original and 14 copies of their comments to: The Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    19. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files
and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the
Document Availability section below. Commenters on this NOPR are not
required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.

VII. Document Availability

    20. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
Internet through FERC's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov.) and in FERC's

Public Reference Room during normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Eastern time) at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426.
    21. From the Commission's Home Page on the Internet, this
information is available in its eLibrary. The full text of this
document is available in the eLibrary both in PDF and Microsoft Word
format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this
document in eLibrary, type the docket number of this document,
excluding the last three digits, in the docket number field.
    22. User assistance is available for eLibrary and FERC's Web site
during normal business hours from our Help line at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
the Public Reference Room at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    By direction of the Commission.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-3233 Filed 2-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 20, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78863-78864]
[FR Doc No: 2011-32491]

========================================================================
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. 76, No. 244 / Tuesday, December 20, 2011 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0961; Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-22-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Corporation Turboshaft
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 Rolls-Royce Corporation (RRC) 250-C20, -C20B, and -C20R/2
turboshaft engines. This proposed AD was prompted by seven cases
reported of released turbine blades and shrouds, which led to loss of
power and engine in-flight shutdowns (IFSDs). This proposed AD would
require a one-time visual inspection and fluorescent penetrant
inspection (FPI) on certain 3rd and 4th stage turbine wheels for cracks
in the turbine blades. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of
3rd or 4th stage turbine wheel blades which could cause engine failure
and damage to the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 21,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Rolls-
Royce Corporation Customer Support, P.O. Box 420, Indianapolis, IN
46206-0420; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: (317) 230-
3381, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and Web site:
www.rolls-royce.com. You may review copies of the referenced service
information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Tallarovic, Aerospace Engineer,
Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 2300 E. Devon Ave., Des
Plaines, IL 60018; 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 proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-0961;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-22-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We received reports of seven cases of released turbine blades and
shrouds due to fatigue on certain RRC 250-C20, -C20B, and -C20R/2
turboshaft engines. These cases resulted in loss of power and engine
IFSDs. This condition, if not corrected, could result in IFSDs. We are
proposing a one-time visual and FPI on the 3rd stage turbine wheel,
part number (P/N) 23065818, and on the 4th stage turbine wheel, P/N
23055944.
    Since the original approval of these parts, speed avoidance
restrictions have been established for these engines to prevent fatigue
damage. In trying to identify the cause of this failure, RRC conducted
an extensive product review. This product review determined the cause
of the problem and instituted corrective actions. However, latent
damage may still be present. Therefore, this unsafe condition may still
exist.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed RRC Alert Commercial Engine Bulletin (CEB) No. CEB-A-
1407, Revision 1, dated February 7, 2011 and CEB-A-72-4098, Revision 1,
dated February 7, 2011 (combined in one document). Alert CEB-A-1407
describes procedures for performing a one-time visual inspection and
FPI on the 3rd stage turbine wheel, P/N 23065818, and on the 4th stage
turbine wheel, P/N 23055944 for cracks in the turbine blades on the
model 250-C20 and -C20B turboshaft engines. Alert CEB-A-72-4098
describes procedures for performing a one-time visual inspection and
FPI on the 3rd stage turbine wheel, P/N 23065818, and on the 4th stage
turbine wheel, P/N 23055944 for cracks in the turbine blades on the
model 250-C20R/2 turboshaft engine.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 500 RRC C250-C20, -
C20B, and -C20R/2 turboshaft engines installed on aircraft of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 5 hours to perform
a one-time visual inspection and FPI of the 3rd stage turbine wheel and
the 4th stage turbine wheel for cracks in the turbine blades, for each
engine. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. We anticipate no
required parts cost. Based on these figures, we estimate the total cost
of the AD to U.S. operators to be $212,500.

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, 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

    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]

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

Rolls-Royce Corporation (Formerly Allison Engine Company and Allison
Gas Turbine Division of General Motors): Docket No. FAA-2011-0961;
Directorate Identifier 2011-NE-22-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by February 21, 2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies only to Rolls-Royce Corporation 250-C20, -C20B,
and -C20R/2 turboshaft engines with 3rd stage turbine wheel, part
number (P/N) 23065818, and 4th stage turbine wheel, P/N 23055944.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by seven cases reported of released turbine
blades and shrouds, which led to loss of power and engine in-flight
shutdowns. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of 3rd or 4th
stage turbine wheel blades which could cause engine failure and
damage to the airplane.

(e) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.
    (1) Remove the 3rd stage turbine wheel, P/N 23065818, and the
4th stage turbine wheel, P/N 23055944, at the next 1,750-hour
overhaul.
    (2) Perform a one-time visual inspection and a fluorescent
penetrant inspection on the 3rd and 4th stage turbine wheels for
cracks at the trailing edge of the turbine blades near the fillet at
the rim.
    (3) If any cracks in the trailing edge near the rim are
detected, do not return the wheel to service.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, may
approve AMOCs for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19
to make your request.

(g) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact John Tallarovic,
Aerospace Engineer, Chicago Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, 2300
E. Devon Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
(847) 294-7834; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Rolls-Royce Corporation Alert Commercial Engine Bulletin No.
CEB-A-1407, Revision 1, dated February 7, 2011 and CEB-A-72-4098,
Revision 1, dated February 7, 2011 (combined in one document)
pertain to the subject of this AD.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Rolls-Royce Corporation Customer Support, P.O. Box 420,
Indianapolis, IN 46206-0420; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or (317) 230-
2720; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and Web site: www.rolls-royce.com. You may review copies
of the referenced service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on December 14, 2011.
Thomas A. Boudreau,
Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-32491 Filed 12-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 3)]
[Notices]
[Page 883]
[DOCID:fr06ja10-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activity Seeking OMB Approval

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) revision of a current
information collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day
comment period soliciting comments on the following collection of
information was published on October 16, 2009, vol. 74, no. 199, pages
53311-53312. The FAA Aviation Research and Development Grants Program
establishes uniform policies and procedures for the award and
administration of research grants to colleges, universities, not for
profit organizations, and profit organizations for security research.

DATES: Please submit comments by February 5, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Aviation Research Grants Program.
    Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved
collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0559.
    Forms(s): SF-3881, 9550-5. SF-269, SF-270, SF-272, SF-424.
    Affected Public: An estimated 100 Respondents.
    Frequency: This information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 6.5 hours per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 650 hours annually.
    Abstract: The FAA Aviation Research and Development Grants Program
establishes uniform policies and procedures for the award and
administration of research grants to colleges, universities, not for
profit organizations, and profit organizations for security research.
This program implements OMB Circular A-110, Public Law 101-508, Section
9205 and 9208 and Public Law 101-604, Section 107(d).

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed information collection to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Comments should be
addressed to the attention of the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/FAA, and sent via electronic mail to oira_
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>, or mailed to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington,
DC 20503.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 28, 2009.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. E9-31293 Filed 1-5-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M