[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 246 (Friday, December 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78954-78956]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27965]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD22-12-000]

Joint FERC-DOE Supply Chain Risk Management Technical Conference;
Notice Inviting Post-Technical Conference Comments

    On Wednesday, December 7, 2022, the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission) and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
convened a Joint Supply Chain Risk Management Technical Conference to
discuss supply chain security challenges related to the Bulk-Power
System, ongoing supply chain-related activities, and potential measures
to secure the supply chain for the grid's hardware, software, computer,
and networking equipment.
    All interested persons are invited to file post-technical
conference comments to address issues raised during the technical
conference identified in the Supplemental Notice of Technical
Conference issued on December 6, 2022. For reference, the questions
included in the Supplemental Notice are included below. Commenters need
not answer all of the questions, but are encouraged to organize
responses using the numbering and order in the below questions.
Commenters are also invited to reference material previously filed in
this docket but are encouraged to avoid repetition or replication of
their previous comments. Comments must be submitted on or before 60
days from the date of this Notice.
    Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed electronically
or paper-filed. Electronic filing through https://www.ferc.gov is
preferred. Documents must be filed in acceptable native applications
and print-to-PDF, but not in scanned or picture format. Instructions
are available on the Commission's website: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
    Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing,
documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, submissions sent via
the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Office of the Secretary, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    For more information about this Notice, please contact:

Simon Slobodnik (Technical Information) Office of Energy Reliability,
(202) 502-6707, [email protected]
Alan J. Rukin (Legal Information) Office of General Counsel, (202) 502-
8502, [email protected]

    Dated: December 19, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.

Post Technical Conference Questions

I. Supply Chain Risks Facing the Bulk-Power System

    The U.S. energy sector procures products and services from a
globally distributed, highly complex, and increasingly interconnected
set of supply chains. Information Technology (IT) and Operational
Technology (OT) systems enable increased interconnectivity, process
automation, and remote control. As a result, supply chain risks will
continue to evolve and likely increase. This panel discussed the state
of supply chain risks from a national and geopolitical perspective.
Specifically, the panel explored current supply chain risks to the
security of grid's hardware, software, computer, and networking
equipment and how well-resourced campaigns perpetrated by nation
states, such as the SolarWinds incident, affect supply chain risk for
the electric sector. Panelists discussed the origins of these risks,
their pervasiveness, the possible impacts they could have on Bulk-Power
System reliability, and approaches to mitigating them. The panelists
also discussed challenges associated with supply chain visibility and
covert embedded spyware or other compromising software or hardware in
suppliers' products, parts, or services.
    Please address the following questions:
    1. Describe the types of challenges and risks associated with
globally distributed, highly complex, and increasingly interconnected
supply chains.
    2. Describe the difficulties associated with supply chain
visibility and how origins of products or components may be obscured.
    3. How are foreign-supplied Bulk-Power System components being
manipulated and is there a particular phase in the product lifecycle
where the product is manipulated for nefarious intent?
    4. How are these supply chain challenges and risks currently being
managed?
    5. How has the current geopolitical landscape impacted the energy
sector's ability to manage supply chain challenges and risks?
    6. How can Sector Risk Management Agencies and Regulators promote
and/or incentivize supply chain transparency at the earlier stages of
product development and manufacturing?
    7. Discuss the pathways (e.g., voluntary best practices and
guidelines, mandatory standards) that together could address the
current supply chain challenges and risks?
    8. What actions can government take, both formal regulatory actions
and coordination, to help identify and mitigate risks from the global
supply chain for the energy sector?

II. Current Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) Reliability Standards,
Implementation Challenges, Gaps, and Opportunities for Improvement

    It has now been more than six years since the Commission directed
the development of mandatory Reliability Standards to address supply
chain risks, and more than two years since the first set of those
tandards became effective.\1\ As discussed in Panel 1, supply chain
risks have continued to grow in that time. In light of that evolving
threat, panelists discussed the existing SCRM Reliability Standards,
including: (1) their effectiveness in securing the Bulk-Power System;
(2) lessons learned from implementation of the current SCRM Reliability
Standards; and (3) possible gaps in the currently effective SCRM
Reliability Standards. This panel provided an opportunity to discuss
any Reliability Standards in development, and how these new standards
will help enhance security and help address some of the emerging supply
chain threats.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The SCRM Reliability Standards include: Reliability
Standards CIP-005-7 (Cyber Security--Electronic Security
Perimeter(s)), Requirements R2.4, R2.5, R3; CIP-010-4 (Cyber
Security--Configuration Change Management and Vulnerability
Assessments) Requirement R1.6; CIP-013-2 (Cyber Security--Supply
Chain Risk Management).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please address the following questions:
    1. Are the currently effective SCRM Reliability Standards
sufficient to successfully ensure Bulk-Power System reliability and
security in light of existing and emerging risks?
    2. What requirements in the SCRM Reliability Standards present
implementation challenges for registered entities and for vendors?
    3. How are implementation challenges being addressed for utilities
and for vendors?
    4. Are there alternative methods for implementing the SCRM
Reliability Standards that could eliminate

challenges or enhance effectiveness moving forward?
    5. Based on the current and evolving threat landscape, would the
currently effective SCRM Reliability Standards benefit from additional
mandatory security control requirements and how would these additional
controls improve the security of the Bulk-Power System?
    6. Are there currently effective SCRM criteria or standards that
manufacturers must adhere to in foreign countries that may be prudent
to adopt in the U.S.?

III. The U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Cyber Sense Program

    Through the Energy Cyber Sense Program, DOE will provide a
comprehensive approach to securing the nation's critical energy
infrastructure and supply chains from cyber threats with this voluntary
program. The Energy Cyber Sense Program will build upon direction in
Section 40122 of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, as well as multiple
requests from industry, leveraging existing programs and technologies,
while also initiating new efforts. Through Energy Cyber Sense, DOE aims
to work with manufacturers and asset owners to discover, mitigate, and
engineer out cyber vulnerabilities in digital components in the Energy
Sector Industrial Base critical supply chains. This program will
provide a better understanding of the impacts and dependencies of
software and systems used in the energy sector; illuminate the digital
provenance of subcomponents in energy systems, hardware, and software;
apply best-in-class testing to discover and address common mode
vulnerabilities; and provide education and awareness, across the sector
and the broader supply chain community to optimize management of supply
chain risks. This panel discussed specific supply chain risks that
Energy Cyber Sense will address, as well as some of the programs and
technologies DOE will bring to bear under the program to address the
risks.
    Please address the following questions:
    1. How are emerging orders, standards, and process guidance, such
as Executive Order 14017, Executive Order 14028, NIST Special
Publication 800-161r1, ISA 62443, Reliability Standard CIP-013-2, and
others, changing how we assess our digital supply chain?
    2. Given the dependence of OT on application-specific hardware, how
could the inclusion and linkage of Hardware Bill of Materials (HBOMs)
with Software Bill of Materials (SBOMs) increase our ability to
accurately and effectively assess and mitigate supply chain risk? To
what degree is this inclusion and linkage of HBOMs with SBOMs taking
place today and what steps should be taken to fill any remaining gaps?
    3. Given that much of the critical technology used in the energy
sector is considered legacy technology, how can manufacturers, vendors,
asset owners and operators, aided by the federal government, national
laboratories, and other organizations, manage the supply chain risk
from legacy technology? How can this risk management be coordinated
with newer technologies that are more likely to receive SBOMs, HBOMs,
and attestations?
    4. Where does testing, for example Cyber Testing for Resilient
Industrial Control Systems (CyTRICS) and third-party testing, fit in
the universe of ``rigorous and predictable mechanisms for ensuring that
products function securely, and as intended?'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Exec. Order No. 14028, 86 FR 26633, 26646 (May 12, 2021)
(The Executive Order declared that the security of software used by
the Federal Government is ``vital to the Federal Government's
ability to perform its critical functions.'' The Executive Order
further cited a ``pressing need to implement more rigorous and
predictable mechanisms for ensuring that products function securely,
and as intended.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. More than ever, developers are building applications on open-
source software libraries. How can developers address the risks
inherent with open-source software and how can asset owners work with
vendors to validate that appropriate open-source risk management
measures have been taken?
    6. U.S. energy systems have significant dependencies on hardware
components, including integrated circuits and semiconductors, most of
which are manufactured outside of the US. What tools and technologies
are needed to understand the provenance of hardware components used in
U.S. energy systems and the risks from foreign manufacture? How will
the newly passed CHIPS and Science Act change the risk landscape? What
is needed in terms of regulation, standards, and other guidance to
strengthen the security of the hardware component supply chain from
cyber and other risks?

IV. Enhancing the Supply Chain Security Posture of the Bulk-Power
System

    This panel discussed forward-looking initiatives that can be used
to improve the supply chain security posture of the Bulk-Power System.
These initiatives could include vendor accreditation programs, product
and service verification, improved internal supply chain security
capability, third party services, and private and public partnerships.
    Vendor accreditation can be established in various ways. One of the
more prominent ways is currently being explored by the North American
Transmission Forum through its Supply Chain Security Assessment model
and the associated questionnaire.\3\ The panel also explored certain
programs and practices used by utilities to verify the authenticity and
effectiveness of products and services. Internal supply chain security
capabilities include hiring people with the appropriate background and
knowledge, while also developing relevant skills internally, through
training on broad supply chain topics and applying them to the specific
needs of the organization. Finally, this panel addressed private and
public partnerships on supply chain security and how they can
facilitate timely access to information that will help better identify
current and future supply chain threats to the Bulk-Power System and
best practices to address those risks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ North American Transmission Forum, Supply Chain Cyber
Security Industry Coordination, https://www.natf.net/industry-initiatives/supply-chain-industry-coordination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Please address the following questions:
    1. What vendor accreditation programs currently exist or are in
development? How can entities vet a vendor in the absence of a vendor
accreditation program?
    2. What are the challenges, benefits, and risks associated with
utilizing third-party services for maintaining a supply chain risk
management program?
    3. What are the best practices and other guidance for security
evaluation of vendors?
    4. What programs and practices are currently in use to ensure
product and service integrity?
    5. What processes are used to test products prior to
implementation?
    6. What is the right balance between vendor and product security
and cost? Is there a point of diminishing returns?
    7. What are effective strategies for recruiting personnel with the
appropriate background and SCRM skills to strengthen internal security
practices? How do you provide the training necessary to further develop
the skills specific to your unique organizational challenges?
    8. What are the best ways to meaningfully assimilate SBOM
information and what subsequent analyses can be done to strengthen
internal security practices?

    9. How can the industry keep informed of the latest supply chain
compromises? How do entities currently respond to these compromises to
keep their systems secure? Are there ways to improve these responses?
What actions can government take, both formal regulatory actions and
coordination, to help keep industry informed of supply chain
compromises and to facilitate effective responses?
    10. What key risk factors do entities need to consider prior to
leveraging third party services and how should those risk factors be
balanced with an entity's organizational policy? What SCRM controls do
you have in place to ensure your systems and products have a reduced
risk of compromise? Please discuss any challenges that you have
experienced as well as successes.
    11. How should government and industry prioritize and coordinate
federal cross-agency and private sector collaboration and activities
regarding SCRM?

[FR Doc. 2022-27965 Filed 12-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION 1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA/ OSWER/ OSW 2. OMB control number b.

None a. 2050 0033 3. Type of information collection ( check one)

a. New collection

b. Revision of a currently approved collection  c. Extension of a currently approved collection

d. Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired

e. Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired

f. Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one)

 a. Regular

b. Emergency

c. Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes  No 6. Requested Expiration Date  a. Three years from the approval date

b. Other 7. Title Facility Ground Water Monitoring Requirements ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) ICR # 0959.12 9. Keywords Ground water Monitoring, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Information Collection Request 10. Abstract Among other things, RCRA requires the protection of ground water from releases of hazardous wastes from land disposal facilities with regulated units ( these include surface impoundments, waste piles, land treatment units, and landfills). Ground water monitoring standards for interim status facilities are found in 40 CFR part 265, subpart F, and for permitted facilities in 40 CFR part 264, subpart F. Both sets of standards require owners or operators that conduct ground water monitoring to report information to the oversight agencies on releases of contaminants and to maintain records of groundwater monitoring data at their facilities.

11. Affected public

a. Individuals or households  b. Business or other for profit

c. Not for profit institutions

d. Farms

e. Federal Government

f. State, Local or Tribal Government Primary affected public: b. Business or other for profit 12. Obligation to respond

a. Voluntary

b. Required to obtain or retain benefits  c. Mandatory Primary obligation to respond: c. Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 824 b. Total annual responses 824 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0 % c. Total annual hours requested 96,913 d. Current OMB inventory 96,913 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 3 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 18,070 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 21,070 d. Current OMB inventory $ 16,757 e. Difference $ 4,313 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment $ 4,313 15. Purpose of information collection

a. Application for benefits

b. Program evaluation

c. General purpose statistics

d. Audit

e. Program planning or management

f. Research  g. Regulatory or compliance Primary purpose of information collection: g. Regulatory or compliance 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply)

 a. Recordkeeping

b. Third party disclosure  c. Reporting

1. On occasion Q 2. Weekly Q 3. Monthly  4. Quarterly Q 5. Semi annually  6. Annually Q 7. Biennually Q 8. Other ( describe )

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes  No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Sara Rasmussen Phone: 703 308 8399 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

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

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

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

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signature of Program Office Official Bob Hall, Director Permits and State Programs Division Office of Solid Waste Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information ( OEI) Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2466-2468]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00330]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 34165; File No. 812-15066]

Symmetry Panoramic Trust and Symmetry Partners, LLC

January 6, 2021.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application for an order pursuant to: (a) Section 6(c)
of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') granting an exemption
from sections 18(f) and 21(b) of the Act; (b) section 12(d)(1)(J) of
the Act granting an exemption from section 12(d)(1) of the Act; (c)
sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act granting an exemption from sections
17(a)(1), 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Act; and (d) section 17(d) of
the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint
arrangements and transactions. Applicants request an order that would
permit certain registered management investment companies to
participate in a joint lending and borrowing facility.
    Applicants: Symmetry Panoramic Trust, a Delaware statutory trust
registered under the Act as an open-end management investment company
with multiple series, and Symmetry Partners, LLC (``Symmetry
Partners''), a Connecticut limited liability company

that is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940.
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on September 4, 2019, and
amended on May 28, 2020, September 4, 2020, and December 18, 2020.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by emailing the Commission's
Secretary at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and serving Applicants with a
copy of the request by email. Hearing requests should be received by
the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on February 1, 2021, and should be
accompanied by proof of service on Applicants, in the form of an
affidavit, or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to Rule
0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing
on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested.
Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification
by emailing the Commission's Secretary at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
ADDRESSES: The Commission<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Applicants: Mark
C. Amorosi, Esq<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(with a copy to Philip R.
McDonald, pmcdonald@SymmetryPartners.com).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura J. Riegel, Senior Counsel, or
Trace W. Rakestraw, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER> (Division of
Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's website by searching for the file number, or an applicant
using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or
by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Summary of the Application:

    1. Applicants request an order that would permit the Applicants to
participate in an interfund lending facility where each Fund could lend
money directly to and borrow money directly from other Funds to cover
unanticipated cash shortfalls, such as unanticipated redemptions or
sales fails.\1\ The Funds will not borrow under the facility for
leverage purposes and the loans' duration will be no more than 7
days.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applicants request that the order apply to the Applicants
and to any registered open-end management investment company or
series thereof for which Symmetry Partners or any successor thereto,
or an investment adviser controlling, controlled by, or under common
control with Symmetry Partners or any successor thereto, serves as
investment adviser (each such investment company or series thereof,
a ``Fund'' and collectively the ``Funds,'' and each such investment
adviser, an ``Adviser''). For purposes of the requested order,
``successor'' is limited to any entity that results from a
reorganization into another jurisdiction or a change in the type of
a business organization.
    \2\ Any Fund, however, will be able to call a loan on one
business day's notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Applicants anticipate that the proposed facility would provide a
borrowing Fund with a source of liquidity at a rate lower than the bank
borrowing rate at times when the cash position of the Fund is
insufficient to meet temporary cash requirements. In addition, Funds
making short-term cash loans directly to other Funds would earn
interest at a rate higher than they otherwise could obtain from
investing their cash in repurchase agreements or certain other short
term money market instruments. Thus, Applicants assert that the
facility would benefit both borrowing and lending Funds.
    3. Applicants agree that any order granting the requested relief
will be subject to the terms and conditions stated in the application.
Among others, the Adviser, through a designated committee, would
administer the facility as a disinterested fiduciary as part of its
duties under the investment advisory and administrative services
agreements with the Funds and would receive no additional fee as
compensation for its services in connection with the administration of
the facility. The facility would be subject to oversight and certain
approvals by the Funds' Board, including, among others, approval of the
interest rate formula and of the method for allocating loans across
Funds, as well as review of the process in place to evaluate the
liquidity implications for the Funds. A Fund's aggregate outstanding
interfund loans will not exceed 15% of its net assets at the time of
the loan, and the Fund's loans to any one Fund will not exceed 5% of
the lending Fund's net assets.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Under certain circumstances, a borrowing Fund will be
required to pledge collateral to secure the loan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Applicants assert that the facility does not raise the concerns
underlying section 12(d)(1) of the Act given that the Funds are part of
the same group of investment companies and there will be no duplicative
costs or fees to the Funds.\4\ Applicants also assert that the proposed
transactions do not raise the concerns underlying sections 17(a)(1),
17(a)(3), 17(d) and 21(b) of the Act as the Funds would not engage in
lending transactions that unfairly benefit insiders or are detrimental
to the Funds. Applicants state that the facility will offer both
reduced borrowing costs and enhanced returns on loaned funds to all
participating Funds and each Fund would have an equal opportunity to
borrow and lend on equal terms based on an interest rate formula that
is objective and verifiable. With respect to the relief from section
17(a)(2) of the Act, Applicants note that any collateral pledged to
secure an interfund loan would be subject to the same conditions
imposed by any other lender to a Fund that imposes conditions on the
quality of or access to collateral for a borrowing (if the lender is
another Fund) or the same or better conditions (in any other
circumstance).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Applicants state that the obligation to repay an interfund
loan could be deemed to constitute a security for the purposes of
sections 17(a)(1) and 12(d)(1) of the Act.
    \5\ Applicants state that any pledge of securities to secure an
interfund loan could constitute a purchase of securities for
purposes of section 17(a)(2) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Applicants also believe that the limited relief from section
18(f)(1) of the Act that is necessary to implement the facility
(because the lending Funds are not banks) is appropriate in light of
the conditions and safeguards described in the application and because
the Funds would remain subject to the requirement of section 18(f)(1)
that all borrowings of the Fund, including combined interfund loans and
bank borrowings, have at least 300% asset coverage.
    6. Section 6(c) of the Act permits the Commission to exempt any
persons or transactions from any provision of the Act if such exemption
is necessary or appropriate in the public interest and consistent with
the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the
policy and provisions of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act
provides that the Commission may exempt any person, security, or
transaction, or any class or classes of persons, securities, or
transactions, from any provision of section 12(d)(1) if the exemption
is consistent with the public interest and the protection of investors.
Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to grant an order
permitting a transaction otherwise prohibited by section 17(a) if it
finds that (a) the terms of the proposed transaction, including the
compensation to be paid or received, are fair and reasonable and do not
involve overreaching on the part of any person concerned; (b) the
proposed transaction is consistent with the policies of each

registered investment company involved; and (c) the proposed
transaction is consistent with the general purposes of the Act. Rule
17d-1(b) under the Act provides that in passing upon an application
filed under the rule, the Commission will consider whether the
participation of the registered investment company in a joint
enterprise, joint arrangement or profit sharing plan on the basis
proposed is consistent with the provisions, policies and purposes of
the Act and the extent to which such participation is on a basis
different from or less advantageous than that of the other
participants.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-00330 Filed 1-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 215 (Monday, November 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68767-68768]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28766]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0689]

Draft Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration
Staff; De Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class
III Designation); Availability; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is extending to January
3, 2012, the comment period for the notice entitled ``Draft Guidance
for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff; De Novo
Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation);
Availability,'' that appeared in the Federal Register of October 3,
2011 (76 FR 61103). In that document, FDA announced the availability of
a draft guidance for industry and FDA staff and requested comments. The
Agency is taking this action due to a discrepancy in the comment period
in the notice as compared to the comment period listed in the guidance
document.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments by January 3, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Melissa Burns, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and
Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave. Bldg. 66, Rm. 1646,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17),
Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville, Pike, Suite 200N,
Rockville, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of October 3, 2011 (76 FR 61103), FDA
published a notice with a 60-day comment period to request comments on
the draft guidance for industry and FDA staff entitled ``De Novo
Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III
Designation).'' Comments on the draft guidance will assist FDA in the
development of a final guidance for industry and FDA staff on the de
novo classification process.
    The Agency received a comment that the 60-day comment period in the
notice was inconsistent with the 90-day comment period in the draft
guidance document. FDA is extending the comment period for the notice
until January 3, 2012. The Agency believes that this extension allows
adequate time for interested persons to submit comments without
significantly delaying action by the Agency.

II. Request for Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no
longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do
so by using the Internet. A search capability for all Center for
Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) guidance documents is available
at http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm. Guidance documents are also available

at http://www.regulations.gov or from the Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research at http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm. To receive ``De
Novo Classification Process (Evaluation of Automatic Class III
Designation)'' from CDRH you may either send an email request to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to receive an electronic copy of the document or
send a fax request to<PHONE_NUMBER> to receive a paper copy. Please
use the document number 1769 to identify the guidance you are
requesting.

    Dated: November 1, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-28766 Filed 11-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: December 1, 2009 (Volume 229, Number 74)]
[Notices]
[Page 62772-62773]
[DOCID:fr01de09-57]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0891; FRL-9087-9]

Human Studies Review Board (HSRB); Notification of a Public
Teleconference to Review Its Draft Report From the October 20-21, 2009
HSRB Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) announces a public
teleconference meeting to discuss its draft HSRB report from the
October 20-21, 2009 HSRB meeting.

DATES: The teleconference will be held on Wednesday, December 16, 2009,
from 10 a.m.-12 p.m. (Eastern Time).
    Location: The meeting will take place via telephone only.
    Meeting Access: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact Lu-Ann Kleibacker at
least 10 business days prior to the meeting using the information under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, so that appropriate arrangements can
be made.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Interested members of the
public may submit relevant written or oral comments for the HSRB to
consider during the advisory process. Additional information concerning
submission of relevant written or oral comments is provided in Unit ID
of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Members of the public who wish to
obtain the call-in number and access code to participate in the
telephone conference, request a current draft copy of the Board's
report or who wish further information may contact Lu-Ann Kleibacker,
EPA, Office of the Science Advisor (8105R), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; or via
telephone/voice mail at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via e-mail at kleibacker.lu-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>General information concerning the EPA HSRB can be found
on the EPA Web site at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/.

ADDRESSES: Submit your written comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0891, by one of the following methods:
    http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Mail: ORD Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode:
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Public Reading Room,
Infoterra Room (Room Number 3334), EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-ORD-
2009-0891. Deliveries are only accepted from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2009-0891. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comments include information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA, without going through http://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet.

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to persons who conduct or assess human studies
on substances regulated by EPA or to persons who are or may be required
to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested,
the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that
may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document and Other
Related Information?

    In addition to using regulations.gov, you may access this Federal
Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the
``Federal Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the index under
the docket number. Even though it will be listed by title in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Copyright
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are electronically available either through
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the ORD Docket, EPA/DC,
Public Reading Room, Infoterra Room (Room Number 3334), 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the ORD Docket is (202) 566-
1752.

C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you use
that support your views.
    4. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    5. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date and Federal
Register citation.

D. How May I Participate in this Meeting?

    You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions
in this section. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that
you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-ORD-2009-0891 in the subject line
on the first page of your request.
    1. Oral comments. Requests to present oral comments will be
accepted up to Wednesday, December 9, 2009. To the extent that time
permits, interested persons who have not pre-registered may be
permitted by the Chair of the HSRB to present oral comments at the
meeting. Each individual or group wishing to make brief oral comments
to the HSRB is strongly advised to submit their request (preferably via
e-mail) to Lu-Ann Kleibacker listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT no later than noon, Eastern Time, December 9, 2009, in order to
be included on the meeting agenda and to provide sufficient time for
the HSRB Chair and HSRB DFO to review the meeting agenda to provide an
appropriate public comment period. The request should identify the name
of the individual making the presentation and the organization (if any)
the individual will represent. Oral comments before the HSRB are
limited to 5 minutes per individual or organization. Please note that
this includes all individuals appearing either as part of, or on behalf
of an organization. While it is our intent to hear a full range of oral
comments on the science and ethics issues under discussion, it is not
our intent to permit organizations to expand the time limitations by
having numerous individuals sign up separately to speak on their
behalf. If additional time is available, public comments may be
possible.
    2. Written comments. Although you may submit written comments at
any time, for the HSRB to have the best opportunity to review and
consider your comments as it deliberates on its report, you should
submit your comments at least 5 business days prior to the beginning of
this teleconference. If you submit comments after this date, those
comments will be provided to the Board members, but you should
recognize that the Board members may not have adequate time to consider
those comments prior to making a decision. Thus, if you plan to submit
written comments, the Agency strongly encourages you to submit such
comments no later than noon, Eastern Time, December 9, 2009. You should
submit your comments using the instructions in Unit 1.C. of this
notice. In addition, the Agency also requests that persons submitting
comments directly to the docket also provide a copy of their comments
to Lu-Ann Kleibacker listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
There is no limit on the length of written comments for consideration
by the HSRB.

E. Background

    The EPA Human Studies Review Board will be reviewing its draft
report from the October 20-21, 2009, HSRB meeting. The Board may also
discuss planning for future HSRB meetings. Background on the October
20-21, 2009, HSRB meeting can be found at Federal Register 74 190,
50965 (October 2, 2009) and at the HSRB Web site http://www.epa.gov/
osa/hsrb/. The October 20-21, 2009 meeting draft report is now
available. You may obtain electronic copies of this document, and
certain other related documents that might be available electronically,
from the http://www.regulations.gov Web site and the HSRB Internet Home
Page at http://www.epa.gov/osa/hsrb/. For questions on document
availability or if you do not have access to the Internet, consult the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: November 25, 2009.
Kevin Teichman,
Acting EPA Science Advisor.
[FR Doc. E9-28700 Filed 11-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 184 (Tuesday, September 22, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59411-59413]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20748]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0258; Product Identifier 2018-SW-002-AD; Amendment
39-21250; AD 2020-19-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Leonardo S.p.a. Model AW169 helicopters. This AD requires modifying the
weight on wheels (WoW) support installation on the main landing gear
(MLG). This AD was prompted by a report that an inappropriately
tightened WoW support could result in a rotation of the support and
improper WoW switch performance. The actions of this AD are intended to
address an unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective October 27, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain document listed in this AD as of October 27,
2020.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of
Airworthiness, Viale G. Agusta 520, 21017 C. Costa di Samarate (Va)
Italy; telephone +39-0331-225074; fax +39-0331-229046; or at https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/home. You may view the referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest
Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. It is
also available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0258.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2020-0258; or in person at Docket
Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the European Aviation
Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Fuller, AD Program Manager,
Continued Operational Safety Branch, Airworthiness Products Section,
General Aviation and Rotorcraft Unit, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth,
TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to Leonardo S.p.A. Model
AW169 helicopters with left-hand (LH) main landing gear (MLG) assembly,
part number (P/N) 6F3210V00132 or P/N 6F3210V00133, with serial number
(S/N) MN01 through MN84 inclusive, or right-hand (RH) MLG assembly, P/N
6F3210V00232 or P/N 6F3210V00233, with S/N MN01 to MN81, installed. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 16, 2020 (85 FR 14807).
The NPRM proposed to require within 60 hours time-in-service (TIS),
modifying the WoW support installation by:
     Performing a short circuit connection between pin 26 of
connector J343 and pin N of connector J319.
     Cutting lockwire and disconnecting the WoW microswitch
from the WoW support, removing from service nuts and bolts, and
removing the WoW support from the MLG.
     Removing any paint, cleaning areas, and applying Alodine
1132 on cleaned surfaces.
     Applying a 10 mm wide strip of structural glue EA934 on
the WoW support, reinstalling the WoW support on the MLG, adding a
specified torque to the nut, and cleaning off excess glue.
     Curing the glue on the structures, performing a
microswitch adjustment inspection for correct operation of the
microswitch, and marking the MLG nameplate by adding the letter ``B''
at the end of the S/N. The NPRM also proposed prohibiting installing an
affected LH or RH MLG assembly on any helicopter unless it has been
modified in accordance with the proposed AD requirements.
    The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD No. 2017-0255, dated December 22,
2017, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member
States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for
Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters (formerly Finmeccanica Helicopter Division,
AgustaWestland) Model AW169 helicopters, with LH MLG assembly P/N
6F3210V00132 or P/N 6F3210V00133 and S/N MN01 to MN84 inclusive, and/or
a RH MLG assembly P/N 6F3210V00232 or P/N 6F3210V00233 with S/N MN01 to
MN81 inclusive installed, except those with an MLG modified per
Magnaghi Aeronautica S.p.a. Service Bulletin SB-07-2017-AW169.
    EASA advises that an in-service event revealed that an
inappropriately tightened WoW support could result in a rotation of
this support and improper WoW switch performance. EASA advises this
condition, if not corrected, could result in degraded attitude
stabilization, possibly resulting in reduced control of the helicopter.
Accordingly, the EASA AD requires modification of the WoW support
installation by introducing structural glue between the WoW support and
the main fitting of the MLG.
    Additionally, the FAA updated the name Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters
to Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters in this final rule and updated the
contact information to obtain service documentation.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this AD, but the FAA did not receive any comments on the
NPRM.

FAA's Determination

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA of the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is issuing this AD after
evaluating all information provided by EASA and determining the unsafe
condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters
of these same type designs and that air safety and the public interest
require adopting the AD requirements as proposed.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    The EASA AD requires compliance within 60 hours TIS or 3 months,
whichever occurs first, while this AD requires compliance within 60
hours TIS.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Leonardo Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No.
169-047, Revision A, dated February 19, 2018, for Model AW169
helicopters. This service information specifies a WoW support bonding
procedure on in-service helicopters by introducing structural glue
between the WoW support P/N G1019/20-91 and the main fitting P/N G1019/
20-MF 105 to prevent a potential rotation of the support.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 3 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. The FAA estimates that operators may incur the following
costs in order to comply with this AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85
per work-hour.
    Performing the short circuit connection, removing the WoW support
from the MLG, removing any paint and cleaning areas, applying Alodine
and a 10mm strip of structural glue, curing the glue, torqueing the
nut, performing a microswitch adjustment, and marking the MLG nameplate
takes about 8 work-hours and parts cost about $10 for an estimated cost
of $690 per helicopter and $2,070 for the U.S. fleet.

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.
    The FAA is 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 helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as *COM007*follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

2020-19-07 Leonardo S.p.a.: Amendment 39-21250; Docket No. FAA-2020-
0258; Product Identifier 2018-SW-002-AD.

(a) Applicability

    This AD applies to Leonardo S.p.a. Model AW169 helicopters,
certificated in any category, with left-hand (LH) main landing gear
(MLG) assembly, part number (P/N) 6F3210V00132 or P/N 6F3210V00133,
with serial number (S/N) MN01 through MN84 inclusive, or right-hand
(RH) MLG assembly, P/N 6F3210V00232 or P/N 6F3210V00233, with S/N
MN01 to MN81 inclusive, installed. This AD does not apply to
helicopters with an MLG that has been modified in accordance with
Magnaghi Aeronautica S.p.A. Service Bulletin No. SB-07-2017-AW169,
Issue 5, dated November 22, 2017. This AD does not apply to MLG that
have a ``B'' on the end of the serial number.

(b) Unsafe Condition

    This AD defines the unsafe condition as an improperly tightened
weight on wheels (WoW) support resulting in a rotation of the
support and improper WoW switch performance, which if not corrected
could lead to degraded attitude stabilization, and subsequent loss
of control of the helicopter.

(c) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective October 27, 2020.

(d) Compliance

    You are responsible for performing each action required by this
AD within the specified compliance time unless it has already been
accomplished prior to that time.

(e) Required Actions

    (1) Within 60 hours time-in-service, modify the WoW support
installation as follows:
    (i) Perform a short circuit connection between pin 26 of
connector J343 and pin N of connector J319.
    (ii) Cut the lockwire that locks the WoW microswitch and
disconnect the WoW microswitch from the WoW support as depicted in
Figure 1 of Leonardo Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. 169-047,
Revision A, dated February 19, 2018 (ASB 169-047).
    (iii) Unscrew the nut and remove the washer and bolt. Remove
from service the nut and bolt, but replace the washer.
    (iv) Remove the WoW support from the MLG and remove any paint
and clean areas where indicated by Figure 2 in ASB 169-047.
    (v) Apply Alodine 1132 on cleaned areas of WoW support and
landing gear strut leaving a 10 mm wide strip on the WoW support for
structural glue EA934 application.
    (vi) Apply a 10 mm wide strip of structural glue EA934 on the
WoW support and install the WoW support on the MLG using a nut,
bolt, and washer.
    (vii) Torque the nut to 2.5 thru 3.5 Nm. Clean any excess glue
and cure the glue on the structures for one hour at 60 [deg]C/140
[deg]F or eight days at room temperature (22 [deg]C-26 [deg]C/71.6
[deg]F-78.8 [deg]F).
    (viii) Apply liquid jointing compound AMS-S-8802 Type 2 Class B,
or equivalent, to the bolt and nut, as depicted in Figure 3 of ASB
169-047 and perform a microswitch adjustment for correct operation
of the microswitch.
    (ix) Mark the MLG nameplate by adding the letter ``B'' at the
end of the S/N.
    (x) Remove the short circuit connection between pin 26 of
connector J343 and pin N of connector J319 as performed in paragraph
(e)(1)(i) of this AD.
    (2) After the effective date of this AD, do not install on any
helicopter a LH or RH MLG assembly with a P/N and S/N listed in
paragraph (a) of this AD unless it has been modified in accordance
with the requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this AD.

(f) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA, may approve
AMOCs for this AD. Send your proposal to: Matt Fuller, AD Program
Manager, Continued Operational Safety Branch, Airworthiness Products
Section, General Aviation and Rotorcraft Unit, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy.,
Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For operations conducted under a 14 CFR part 119 operating
certificate or under 14 CFR part 91, subpart K, the FAA suggests
that you notify your principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office
or certificate holding district office, before operating any
aircraft complying with this AD through an AMOC.

(g) Additional Information

    The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation Safety
Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) No. 2017-
0255, dated December 22, 2017. You may view the EASA AD on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2020-0258.

(h) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 3200, Landing Gear
System.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this
paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Leonardo Helicopters Alert Service Bulletin No. 169-047,
Revision A, dated February 19, 2018.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters service information
identified in this AD, contact Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters, Emanuele
Bufano, Head of Airworthiness, Viale G. Agusta 520, 21017 C. Costa
di Samarate (Va) Italy; telephone +39-0331-225074; fax +39-0331-
229046; or at https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/home.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of
the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room
6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on September 9, 2020.
Gaetano A. Sciortino,
Deputy Director for Strategic Initiatives, Compliance & Airworthiness
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-20748 Filed 9-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:   I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.   The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues,  but they take time to read through and fully understand as is my right as a consumer and an American.  I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the American public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers and Americans, to provide our feedback.    I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.   I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.

Thank You God bless Have a fine Navy day AO³ (ret) Matthew David Caples.


Date:
February 13, 2020
To:
Phil Mulrine, U.S. EPA
From:
Jeff Coburn
Subject:
Meeting Record for February 12, 2020, Teleconference Meeting between Representatives of American Foundry Society (AFS) and Representatives of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Meeting Attendees:
 Chuck French, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)
 Phil Mulrine, U.S. EPA/OAQPS
 Kevin McGinn, U.S. EPA/OAQPS
 Rochelle Boyd, U.S. EPA/OAQPS
 Jon Averback, U.S. EPA, Office of General Counsel
 Jeff Coburn, RTI (contractor for U.S. EPA/OAQPS)
 Jeff Hannapel, The Policy Group (representing AFS)
 Jeet Radia, McWane (representing AFS)
 Craig Schmeisser, Mad River Strategies (representing AFS)
Purpose of Meeting:
      To better understand two unique comments submitted by AFS (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OQR-2019-0373-0068). The first comment is regarding the emission limit for volatile organic hazardous air pollutants (VOHAP) from cupolas during startup and shutdown. The second item is regarding the compliance time for the proposed startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) revisions.
Discussion:
Issue 1. Compliance with cupola VOHAP limit during startup and shutdown.
	In their comments, AFS had recommended additional revisions to the definition of "off blast" and specific definitions for "cupola startup" and "cupola shutdown." EPA inquired why they thought these definitions were necessary. AFS representatives noted that there were several "preparatory steps" used to get the cupola ready prior to addition of metal. AFS intended these definitions, for example "Cupola Startup means the time beginning when molten metal is first tapped from a cupola that had previously been shut down," to exclude these preparatory steps from the VOHAP emissions limit. EPA noted that an emissions limit must apply whenever there are emissions from the source. AFS representatives expressed concern that the stack temperature during startup would be below 1,300 °F operating limit. Even though this operating limit only applies while the cupola is "on blast," the lower stack temperature may be seen as credible evidence by enforcement personnel that the unit is not meeting the emission limit. Additionally, even though the proposed rule specifies that performance tests be conducted during normal operations, the AFS representatives expressed concern regarding the liability of meeting the cupola VOHAP limit at all times. EPA noted that the emission limitations that apply during startup (or during these preparatory steps) do not have to be the same as the emission limits that apply during normal operation and could be in the form of a work practice standard. The EPA provided some examples startup and shutdown work practice standards and operating limits that that have been developed for other source categories. AFS representatives stated that they would have to confer with their members to see what emission limitation may be applicable for cupola startup and shutdown.
Issue 2. Compliance date for the proposed SSM revisions.
      In their comments, AFS had recommended the compliance date related to the proposed SSM revisions be moved to six months from the date of the final rule. The EPA noted that the SSM provisions have been vacated for several years and requested additional information regarding why more time was needed to implement these revisions. AFS noted that many facilities have SSM plans integrated in their operating and maintenance (O&M) plans and needed time to extract the SSM plan from the O&M plan. Even if the SSM plan do not have to be extracted from the O&M plan (whether integrated or not), the O&M plans must be reviewed and perhaps revised to ensure compliance with the emission limits at all times and to revise recordkeeping and reporting procedures to comply with the proposed recordkeeping and reporting amendments. AFS noted that many facilities report based on their Title V permit, so reporting period ends at the end of the calendar year. They noted that aligning the compliance dates of the SSM revisions with the proposed electronic reporting revisions would help to ensure O&M plans can be revised, with sufficient time or review, and directly address any recordkeeping and reporting revisions.
Next Steps:
      AFS will confer with their members and develop a strawman for emission limitations applicable for cupola startup and shutdown. There is an AFS committee meeting on March 4, 2020, where they will discuss the strawman and decide on final recommendations. AFS is to provide EPA the strawman emission limitations by February 28, 2020 and provide EPA their formal recommendations early the week of Mach 9, 2020.
      AFS will also provide additional details on the revisions required to the O&M plan, the review schedule, and additional detail why an additional 6-month period is needed to comply with the proposed SSM revisions.


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66789-66790]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26557]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-70794; File No. SR-CTA-2013-05]

Consolidated Tape Association; Order Approving the Eighteenth
Substantive Amendment to the Second Restatement of the CTA Plan

October 31, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On September 9, 2013, the Consolidated Tape Association (``CTA'')
Plan participants (``Participants'') \1\ filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') pursuant to Section 11A of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\2\ and Rule 608
thereunder,\3\ a proposal to amend the Second Restatement of the CTA
Plan (``CTA Plan'').\4\ The proposal represents the eighteenth
substantive amendment to the CTA Plan (``Amendment'') and reflects
changes unanimously adopted by the Participants. The Amendment was
published for comment in the Federal Register on September 23, 2013.\5\
No comment letters were received in response to the Notice. The
Amendment would require that odd-lot transactions be reported to the
consolidated tape. The Plan was amended to remove odd-lots from the
list of transactions that are not to be reported for inclusion on the
consolidated tape. This order approves the Amendment to the CTA Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Each participant executed the proposed amendment. The
Participants are: BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS-Y Exchange, Inc.,
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated, Chicago Stock
Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., International Securities
Exchange, LLC, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc., Nasdaq
Stock Market LLC, National Stock Exchange, New York Stock Exchange
LLC, NYSE MKT LLC, and NYSE Arca, Inc.
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \3\ 17 CFR 242.608.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 10787 (May 10,
1974), 39 FR 17799 (declaring the CTA Plan effective). The CTA Plan,
pursuant to which markets collect and disseminate last sale price
information for non-NASDAQ listed securities, is a ``transaction
reporting plan'' under Rule 601 under the Act, 17 CFR 242.601, and a
``national market system plan'' under Rule 608 under the Act, 17 CFR
242.608.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 70428 (September 17,
2013), 78 FR 58362 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    Currently, Section VIII(a) (Responsibility of Exchange
Participants) of the CTA Plan provides that each Participant will
``collect and report to the Processor all last sale price information
to be reported by it relating to transactions in Eligible Securities
taking place on its floor.'' However, Section VI(d) (Transactions not
reported (related messages)) provides a list of transactions that ``are
not to be reported for inclusion on the consolidated tape.'' That list
includes odd-lot transactions. According to the Participants, ``because
odd-lot transactions account for a not insignificant percentage of
trading volume, the Participants have determined that including odd-lot
transactions on the consolidated tape of CTA last sale prices would add
post-trade transparency to the marketplace.'' \6\ Accordingly, the
Amendment proposes to add odd-lot transactions to the consolidated tape
by removing them from Section VI(d)'s list of transactions that are not
to be reported for inclusion on the consolidated tape.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id. at 58363.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Due to the lack of economic significance of many individual odd-lot
orders, the Participants did not propose to include bids and offers for
odd-lots in the best bid and best offer calculations that the
Participants make available under the Consolidated Quotation Plan.
Additionally, the Participants did not propose to include odd-lot
transactions in calculations of last sale prices. Therefore, odd-lot
transactions would not be included in calculations of high and low
prices and would not be subject to the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan \7\
(i.e., the National Market System Plan to Address Extraordinary Market
Volatility). Moreover, including odd-lot transactions on the
consolidated tape would not trigger short sale restrictions or trading
halts. However, odd-lot transactions would be included in calculations
of daily consolidated volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091, 77 FR 33498
(June 6, 2012) (File No. 4-631) (the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan, as
originally approved).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of allocating revenue among the Participants under the
CTA Plan, the Participants would include odd-lot transactions in the
Security Income Allocation for each Eligible Security under Section
XII(a)(ii) (Security Income Allocation) of the CTA

plan. Just as with round lot transactions, an odd-lot transaction with
a dollar value of $5000 or more would constitute one qualified
transaction report and an odd-lot transaction with a dollar value of
less than $5000 would constitute a fraction of a qualified transaction
report that equals the dollar value of the transaction report divided
by $5000. The Participants do not anticipate that this would produce a
significant shift in revenue allocation among the Participants.
According to the Participants, this treatment of odd-lot transactions
for revenue allocation purposes does not require a change to the
language of the CTA Plan.

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the Amendment to
the CTA Plan is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the
rules and regulations thereunder,\8\ and, in particular, Section
11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Act \9\ and Rule 608 thereunder \10\ in that
it is in the public interest and appropriate for the protection of
investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets to assure the
availability to brokers, dealers, and investors of information with
respect to transactions in securities. As the Participants stated in
the proposal, odd-lot transactions comprise a noteworthy percentage of
total trading volume. Thus, including odd-lot transactions on the
consolidated tape will enhance post-trade transparency, as well as
price discovery, and consequently would further the goals of the Act.
The Commission believes that information about odd-lot transactions
would provide important information to investors and other market
participants and therefore represents a positive development in the
provision of market data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In approving the Amendment, the Commission has considered
the proposed Amendment's impact on efficiency, competition, and
capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1)(C)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 11A of the Act,\11\
and the rules thereunder, that the proposed amendment to the CTA Plan
(SR-CTA-2013-05), be, and hereby is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.

For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant
to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(27).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-26557 Filed 11-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 21, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40205-40208]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14293]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-7261; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-004-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 747-200B, 747-300, 747-400, 747-400D,
and 747-400F series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a
report of cracking in both the aluminum strut side skin, and corrosion
resistant steel (CRES) outer spring beam support fitting. This proposed
AD would require repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspections for cracking in the strut side skin; an open-hole HFEC
inspection for cracking, applicable related investigative and
corrective actions; and a fastener installation modification. We are
proposing this AD to detect and correct cracking of the strut side
skin; such cracking could result in the failure of the outer spring
beam support fitting, which could cause separation of a strut and
engine from the airplane during flight.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 5, 2016.

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 Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box
3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It
is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7261.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
7261; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-7261;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-004-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 have received a report indicating cracking in both the aluminum
strut side skin, and CRES outer spring beam support fitting. This
condition, if not corrected, could result in the failure of the outer
spring beam support fitting, which could cause separation of a strut
and engine from the airplane during flight.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, dated
December 18, 2015. The service information describes procedures for
repetitive high HFEC inspections for cracking in the strut side skin,
an open-hole HFEC inspection for cracking, applicable related
investigative and corrective actions, and a fastener installation
modification. This service information is reasonably available because
the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

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, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service
Information.'' For information on the procedures and compliance times,
see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-7261.
    The phrase ``related investigative actions'' is used in this
proposed AD. ``Related investigative actions'' are follow-on actions
that (1) are related to the primary action, and (2) further investigate
the nature of any condition found. Related investigative actions in an
AD could include, for example, inspections.
    The phrase ``corrective actions'' is used in this proposed AD.
``Corrective actions'' correct or address any condition found.
Corrective actions in an AD could include, for example, repairs.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, dated December 18, 2015,
specifies to contact the manufacturer for certain instructions, but
this proposed AD would require accomplishment of repair methods,
modification deviations, and alteration deviations in one of the
following ways:
     In accordance with a method that we approve; or
     Using data that meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and that have been approved by the Boeing Commercial
Airplanes Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) whom we have
authorized to make those findings.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 320 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
          Action                   Labor cost           Parts cost      Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection...............  291 work-hours x $85 per               $0  $24,735 per           $7,915,200 per
                            hour = $24,735 per                         inspection cycle.     inspection cycle.
                            inspection cycle.
Modification.............  Up to 490 work-hours x             56,414  Up to $98,064.......  Up to $31,380,480.
                            $85 per hour = $41,650.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2016-7261; Directorate Identifier
2016-NM-004-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by August 5, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-200B, 747-300,
747-400, 747-400D, and 747-400F series airplanes, certificated in
any category, equipped with General Electric (GE) CF6-80 series
engines or Pratt & Whitney PW4000 series engines; as identified in
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, dated December 18, 2015.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54; Nacelles/
pylons.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of cracking in both the
aluminum strut side skin, and corrosion resistant steel (CRES) outer
spring beam support fitting. We are issuing this AD to detect and
correct cracking of the strut side skin; such cracking could result
in the failure of the outer spring beam support fitting, which could
cause separation of a strut and engine from the airplane during
flight.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections

    Except as provided by paragraph (i)(1) and (i)(2) of this AD, at
the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, dated
December 18, 2015, do a surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspection for cracking of the strut side skin, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-54A2245, dated December 18, 2015, except as required by
paragraph (i)(3) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter at the
applicable times specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, dated December 18, 2015,
until the actions required by paragraph (h) of this AD are done. If
any cracking is found, do the actions specified in paragraph (h) of
this AD.

(h) Terminating Actions

    Within the applicable compliance time specified in paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245,
dated December 18, 2015, except as provided by paragraphs (i)(1) and
(i)(2) of this AD: Do a fastener hole open-hole HFEC inspection for
cracking, applicable related investigative and corrective actions,
and a fastener installation modification, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-
54A2245, dated December 18, 2015, except as required by paragraph
(i)(3) of this AD. Do all applicable related investigative and
corrective actions before further flight. Doing the actions required
by this paragraph terminates the repetitive inspections required by
paragraph (g) of this AD.

(i) Exceptions to Service Information

    (1) Where Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, dated
December 18, 2015, specifies a compliance time ``after the original
issue date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance
within the specified compliance time after the effective date of
this AD.
    (2) The Condition column in table 1 and table 2 of paragraph
1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245,
dated December 18, 2015, refers to total flight cycles ``at the
original issue date of this service bulletin.'' This AD, however,
applies to the airplanes with the specified total flight cycles as
of the effective date of this AD.
    (3) Although Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-54A2245, dated
December 18, 2015, specifies to contact Boeing for repair
instructions, and specifies that action as ``RC'' (Required for
Compliance), this AD requires repair before further flight using a
method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (j) of this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the
repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) Except as required by paragraph (i)(3) of this AD, for
service information that contains steps that are labeled as Required
for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs (j)(4)(i) and
(j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. An AMOC is required for any deviations to RC steps,
including substeps and identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can

still be done as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an
airworthy condition.

(k) Related Information

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

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on June 3, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-14293 Filed 6-20-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 47 (Friday, March 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14177-14178]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02206]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2021-2054]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; Rolls-Royce
Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (Type Certificate Previously Held by Rolls-
Royce plc)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition by Rolls-Royce
Deutschland LTD & Co KG seeking relief from specific regulatory
requirements. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's
awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process.
Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion or omission of
information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of
the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before April 1, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://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.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara Fitzgerald, Federal Aviation
Administration, Policy Implementation, AIR-613, Strategic Policy
Management Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts
01803-5529;<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on January 29, 2021.
Robert J. Ganley,
Strategic Policy Propulsion Section, Aircraft Certification Service.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2018-0880.
    Petitioner: Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD).
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  33.14 at amendment 33-10 and
Sec.  33.83(d) at amendment 33-17.
    Description of Relief Sought: RRD requests an extension until 30
June 2023, to previously granted temporary Exemption No 18082 from 14
CFR 33.14 and Sec.  33.83(d) for the following RRD engine models: Trent
1000-AE3, Trent 1000-CE3, Trent 1000-D3, Trent 1000-G3, Trent 1000-H3,
Trent 1000-J3, Trent 1000-K3, Trent 1000-L3, Trent 1000-M3, Trent 1000-
N3, Trent 1000-P3, Trent 1000-Q3, Trent 1000-R3, Trent 7000-72, and
Trent 7000-72C. Because of the COVID-19 pandemic and resultant
significant changes to the Trent 1000 fleet usage profile and engine
overhaul capacity during 2020, the date of 31 December 2021, for

restoring compliance with 14 CFR 33.14 and Sec.  33.83(d) can no longer
reasonably be met.

[FR Doc. 2021-02206 Filed 3-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P