[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 38 (Wednesday, February 26, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11106-11107]
[FR Doc No: 2020-03879]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0043]

TUV SUD America, Inc.: Grant of Expansion of Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to expand
the scope of recognition for TUV SUD America, Inc., as a Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).

DATES: The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on
February 26, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Information regarding this notice is
available from the following sources:
    Press inquiries: Contact Mr. Frank Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office
of Communications; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    General and technical information: Contact Mr. Kevin Robinson,
Director, Office of Technical Programs and Coordination Activities,
Directorate of Technical Support and Emergency Management, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>OSHA's web page includes information about the
NRTL Program (see http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Notice of Final Decision

    OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of
recognition of TUV SUD America, Inc. (TUVAM), as a NRTL. TUVAM's
expansion covers the addition of one recognized testing and
certification site to their NRTL scope of recognition.
    OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets
the requirements in Section 1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal
Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the
organization can perform independent safety testing and certification
of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is
not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of
recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL
to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification.
    The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial
recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following
requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires
that the agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides its preliminary finding and, in the second
notice, the agency provides the final decision on the application.
These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or
modifications of that scope. OSHA maintains an informational web page
for each NRTL that details its scope of recognition. These pages are
available from the agency's website at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html.
    TUVAM submitted an application, dated June 29, 2018 (OSHA-2007-
0043-0027), to expand the recognition to include the addition of one
recognized testing and certification site located at: TUV SUD
Certification and Testing (China) Co. Ltd. Shanghai Branch 3-13, No.
151 Heng Tong Road, Shanghai 200070, P.R. China. OSHA staff performed a
detailed analysis of the application and other pertinent information.
OSHA staff also performed an on-site review of TUV SUD Shanghai's
testing and certification facility on April 19-20, 2019 and recommended
expansion of TUVAM's recognition to include this one site.
    OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing TUVAM's expansion
application in the Federal Register on July 19, 2019 (84 FR 34952). The
agency requested comments by August 5, 2019, but it received no
comments in response to this notice. OSHA now is proceeding with this
final notice to grant expansion of TUVAM's scope of recognition.
    To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to
the TUVAM expansion application, go to www.regulations.gov or contact
the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N-3653,
Washington, DC 20210. Docket No. OSHA-2007-0043 contains all materials
in the record concerning TUVAM's recognition.

II. Final Decision and Order

    OSHA staff examined TUVAM's expansion application, conducted a
detailed on-site assessment, and examined other pertinent information.
Based on review of this evidence, OSHA finds that TUVAM meets the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition, subject to
the specified limitation and conditions. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding
with this final notice to grant TUVAM's scope of recognition. OSHA
limits the expansion of TUVAM's recognition to include the site at
Shanghai, China as listed above. OSHA's recognition of this site limits
TUVAM to performing product testing and certifications only to the test
standards for which the site has the proper capability and programs,
and for test standards in TUVAM's scope of recognition. This limitation
is consistent with the recognition that OSHA grants to other NRTLs that
operate multiple sites.

A. Conditions

    In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7,
TUVAM also must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
    1. TUVAM must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any
change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major
change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the
change(s);
    2. TUVAM must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with
all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
    3. TUVAM must continue to meet the requirements for recognition,
including all previously published conditions on TUVAM's scope of
recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
    Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the
recognition of TUVAM, subject to these limitations and conditions
specified above.

III. Authority and Signature

    Loren Sweatt, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this
notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29
U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012 (77 FR 3912,
Jan. 25, 2012), and 29 CFR 1910.7.

    Signed at Washington, DC, on February 19, 2020.
Loren Sweatt,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety
and Health.
[FR Doc. 2020-03879 Filed 2-25-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 101 (Tuesday, May 27, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30005-30008]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12093]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0618; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-355-AD;
Amendment 39-17844; AD 2014-09-09]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The
Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, -300ER, and 777F series
airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of two in-service
occurrences on Model 737-400 airplanes of total loss of boost pump
pressure of the fuel feed system, followed by loss of fuel system
suction feed capability on one engine, and in-flight shutdown of the
engine. This AD requires revising the maintenance program to
incorporate a revision to the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the
maintenance planning data (MPD) document. We are issuing this AD to
detect and correct failure of the engine fuel suction feed of the fuel
system, which, in the event of total loss of the fuel boost pumps,
could result in dual engine flameout, inability to restart the engines,
and consequent forced landing of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective July 1, 2014.

ADDRESSES: 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 service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2008-
0618; 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 AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, 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: Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a second supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking
(SNPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all
The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR, -300, -300ER, and 777F series
airplanes. The second SNPRM published in the Federal Register on July
30, 2013 (78 FR 45898). The second SNPRM proposed to add Model 777F
series airplanes to the applicability.
    We preceded the second SNPRM with the first SNPRM, which published
in the Federal Register on March 7, 2013 (78 FR 14722). The first SNPRM
proposed to revise the maintenance program to incorporate a revision to
the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the maintenance planning data
(MPD) document.
    We preceded the first SNPRM with a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) that published in the Federal Register on June 6, 2008 (73 FR
32253). The NPRM was prompted by reports of two in-service occurrences
on Model 737-400 airplanes of total loss of boost pump pressure of the
fuel feed system, followed by loss of fuel system suction feed
capability on one engine, and in-flight shutdown of the engine. The
subject area on Model 777 airplanes is almost identical to that area on
Model 737-400 airplanes; therefore, Model 777 airplanes may be subject
to the unsafe condition revealed on Model 737-400 airplanes. The NPRM
proposed to require performing repetitive operational tests of the
engine fuel suction feed of the fuel system, and other related testing
if necessary.
    We are issuing this AD to detect and correct failure of the engine
fuel suction feed of the fuel system, which, in the event of total loss
of the fuel boost pumps, could result in dual engine flameout,
inability to restart the engines, and consequent forced landing of the
airplane.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the second
SNPRM (78 FR 45898, July 30, 2013) and the FAA's response to each
comment. FedEx concurs with the proposed requirements.

Request To Allow the Use of Later Revisions of the Maintenance Planning
Document (MPD)

    United Airlines (UAL) asked that we allow using the latest MPD
revision of

May 2013 for accomplishing the required actions. UAL stated that
paragraph (l) of the second SNPRM (78 FR 45898, July 30, 2013) provides
credit for doing the actions required by paragraph (g) of the second
SNPRM before the effective date of the AD, if the actions were done
using Revision February 2012 of the MPD. UAL suggested that credit for
Revision May 2013 of the MPD also be included in paragraph (l) of the
second SNPRM.
    We agree to give credit for the latest revision of Section 9,
Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and Certification Maintenance
Requirements (CMRs), D622W001-9, which is Revision dated June 2013;
provided the revised ``interval'' specified in Appendix 1 of this AD is
incorporated into the existing maintenance program within 90 days after
the effective date of this AD. We have revised paragraph (i) of this AD
accordingly.

Request To Clarify Reason for the Unsafe Condition

    Boeing asked that we clarify the reason for the unsafe condition
identified in the second SNPRM (78 FR 45898, July 30, 2013). Boeing
asked that we provide additional clarification that there are no
reports of any in-service events on Model 777 airplanes.
    We acknowledge the commenter's concern, but do not find it
necessary to clarify the unsafe condition further. We clarified the
reason for the unsafe condition in the first SNPRM (78 FR 45898, July
30, 2013) per a similar request from Boeing regarding the fact that
there had been no events on Model 777 airplanes. In light of this, we
find that further clarification is not necessary. We have made no
change to the final rule in this regard.

Change to Final Rule

    We removed the on-condition costs specified in the ``Costs of
Compliance'' section of this final rule because there are no on-
condition actions.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 676 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Action                    Labor cost            Cost per product           Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance Program Revision....  1 work-hour x $85    $85 per test................  $57,460, per test.
                                   per hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    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) Is not a ``significant rule'' under 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.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 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):

2014-09-09 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17844; Docket No. FAA-
2008-0618; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-355-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective July 1, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 777-200, -200LR,
-300, -300ER, and 777F series airplanes, certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 2800, Aircraft
Fuel System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of two in-service occurrences on
Model 737-400 airplanes of total loss of boost pump pressure of the
fuel feed system, followed by loss of fuel system suction feed
capability on one engine, and in-flight shutdown of the engine. We
are issuing this AD to detect and correct failure of the engine fuel
suction feed of the fuel system, which, in the event of total loss
of the fuel boost pumps, could result in dual engine flameout,
inability to restart the engines, and consequent forced landing of
the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Maintenance Program Revision

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the
maintenance program to incorporate the airworthiness limitation

(AWL) identified in Appendix 1 of this AD, AWL No. 28-AWL-101,
Engine Fuel Suction Feed Operational Test. The initial compliance
time for accomplishing AWL No. 28-AWL-101 is within 7,500 flight
hours or 3 years after the effective date of this AD, whichever is
first.

(h) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, and/or Critical Design
Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

    After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of
this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., tests), intervals, or CDCCLs
may be used unless the actions, intervals, or CDCCLs are approved as
an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

(i) Credit for Actions Accomplished in Accordance With Previous Service
Information

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using AWL No. 28-AWL-101, Engine Fuel
Suction Feed Operational Test, of Section D.2., Engine Suction Fuel
System, of Section 9, Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) and
Certification Maintenance Requirements (CMRs), D622W001-9, Revision
February 2012, or Revision June 2013, of the Boeing 777 Maintenance
Planning Data (MPD) Document, provided the revised ``interval''
specified in Appendix 1 of this AD is incorporated into the existing
maintenance program within 90 days after the effective date 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 the Related Information
section 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.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Sue Lucier,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, 1601 Lind Avenue
SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 425-
917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference, 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
206-766-5680; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.

(l) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

Appendix 1 of AD 2014-09-09

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             AWL No.                        Task                   Interval              Applicability                       Description
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28-AWL-101.......................  ALI..................  7,500 FH or 3 years,       ALL..................  Engine Fuel Suction Feed Operational Test.
                                                           whichever is first.
                                                                                An Engine Fuel Suction Feed Operational Test
                                                                                must be accomplished successfully on each
                                                                                engine individually. This test is required
                                                                                in order to protect against engine flameout
                                                                                during suction feed operations, and must
                                                                                meet the following requirements (refer to
                                                                                Boeing AMM 28-22-00):
                                                                                Fuel Tank Quantity Limitations:
                                                                                Engine No. 1
                                                                                a. The Center Tank Fuel Quantity must not
                                                                                exceed 5,000 lbs (2,270 kg).
                                                                                b. The Main Tank No. 1 Fuel Quantity must be
                                                                                between 1,400 lbs-1,600 lbs (600 kg-800
                                                                                kg).
                                                                                NOTE: Excess fuel can be transferred to Main
                                                                                Tank No. 2.
                                                                                Engine No. 2
                                                                                a. The Center Tank Fuel Quantity must not
                                                                                exceed 5,000 lbs (2,270 kg).
                                                                                b. The Main Tank No. 2 Fuel Quantity must be
                                                                                between 1,400 lbs-1,600 lbs (600 kg-800
                                                                                kg).
                                                                                NOTE: Excess fuel can be transferred to Main
                                                                                Tank No. 1.
                                                                                Test Procedural Limitations:
                                                                                1. The Fuel Cross-Feed Valve must be CLOSED.
                                                                                2. The APU Selector Switch must be OFF.
                                                                                3. Idle Engine Warm-up time of minimum two
                                                                                minutes with Boost Pump ON.
                                                                                4. Idle Engine Suction Feed (Boost Pump OFF)
                                                                                operation for a minimum of five minutes.
                                                                                NOTE: APU may be used to start the engines
                                                                                provided the Fuel Tank Quantity and Test
                                                                                Procedural Limitations are met.
                                                                                The test is considered a success if engine
                                                                                operation is maintained during the five-
                                                                                minute period and engine parameters (N1,
                                                                                N2, and Fuel Flow) do not decay relative to
                                                                                those observed with Boost Pump ON.
                                                                                A suction feed system that fails the
                                                                                operational test must be repaired or
                                                                                maintained, and successfully pass the
                                                                                Engine Suction Feed Operational Test prior
                                                                                to further flight.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 18, 2014.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-12093 Filed 5-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 76 (Friday, April 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 23622]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09355]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Xvariant, Inc. (n/k/a China Bionanometer Industries Corp.); Order
of Suspension of Trading

April 17, 2013.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Xvariant, Inc. (n/k/a China Bionanometer Industries Corp.) because it
has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended September 30,
2006.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of the above-listed company. Therefore, it is ordered,
pursuant to Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that
trading in the securities of the above-listed company is suspended for
the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on April 17, 2013, through 11:59 p.m. EDT
on April 30, 2013.

    By the Commission.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-09355 Filed 4-17-13; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 162 (Monday, August 22, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56744-56745]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19944]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

EUROCAE WG-96/RTCA SC-236 Joint Plenary #1 Standards for Wireless
Avionics Intra-Communication System (WAIC) Within 4200-4400 MHz

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of EUROCAE WG-96/RTCA SC-236 Joint Plenary #1 Standards for
Wireless Avionics Intra-Communication System (WAIC) within 4200-4400
MHz.
    Please inform<EMAIL_ADDRESS>of your intention to
attend the meeting. Please inform also<EMAIL_ADDRESS>the
host of the meeting.
    Find information direction & maps: https://goo.gl/maps/rkHxCEfN1sL2.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, September 21st through
Friday, September 23rd 2016.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at: ZAL Zentrum f[uuml]r Angewandte
Luftfahrtforschung ZAL, Hamburg, Hein-Sa[szlig]-Weg 22, 21129 Hamburg,
Germany.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adrian Cioranu at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>+33 1 40 92 79 31 or Rebecca Morrison at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or The RTCA Secretariat, 1150
18th Street NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC 20036, or by telephone at
(202) 833-9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of the EUROCAE WG-96/RTCA SC-236 Joint
Plenary #1 Standards for Wireless Avionics Intra-Communication System
(WAIC) within 4200-4400 MHz. The agenda will include the following:

September 21, 2016 (9:30-17:00), September 22, 2016 (9:00-17:00), and
September 23, 2016 (9:00-13:00)

Welcome/Administrative Duties
1. Presentation of RTCA/EUROCAE Joint Committee Organization and
Coordination
2. IPR/Membership Call-Out and Introductions
3. Acceptance of Meeting Minutes for the First Plenary of SC-236
4. Presentation of the goals of content for the MOPS
5. Discussion of Structure of Joint Committees
6. Break-out into Initial Working Groups
7. Reports of the Plans for the Working Groups
8. Review of Action Items
9. Plan for next meeting
10. Adjourn

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 17, 2016.
Mohannad Dawoud,
Management & Program Analyst, Partnership Contracts Branch, ANG-A17,
NextGen, Procurement Services Division, Federal Aviation
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-19944 Filed 8-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: December 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 237)]
[Notices]
[Page 73468-73469]
[DOCID:fr12de05-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

December 6, 2005.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings.
    Docket Numbers: ER01-2562-003.
    Applicants: Competitive Energy Services, LLC.
    Description: Competitive Energy Services, LLC submits its revised
triennial updated market power analysis as instructed in Commission's
Order issued November 3, 2005.
    Filed Date: November 25, 2005.
    Accession Number: 20051129-0134.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 16, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER02-580-004.
    Applicants: Pawtucket Power Associates Limited Partnership.
    Description: Pawtucket Power Associates L.P. reports that on
November 10, 2005 Maxim Power Inc acquired 100% of the partnership
interests of Pawtucket Power.
    Filed Date: November 28, 2005.
    Accession Number: 20051201-0017.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 19, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-478-007; ER06-200-001; ER03-1326-002; ER05-
534-003; ER05-1262-001; ER03-296-005; ER01-3121-004; ER02-418-003;
ER03-416-006; ER05-332-003; ER06-1-001; ER03-951-005; ER04-94-003;
ER97-2801-009; ER02-417-003; ER05-1146-003; ER05-481-003.
    Applicants: PPM Energy, Inc.; Big Horn Wind Project LLC; Colorado
Green Holdings LLC; Eastern Desert Power LLC; Flat Rock Windpower, LLC;
Flying Cloud Power Partners, LLC; Klamath Energy LLC; Klamath
Generation LLC; Klondike Wind Power LLC; Klondike Wind Power II LLC;
Leaning Juniper Wind Power LLC; Moraine Wind LLC; Mountain View Power
Partners III, LLC; PacifiCorp; Phoenix Wind Power LLC; Shiloh I Wind
Project, LLC Trimont Wind I LLC.
    Description: PPM Energy Inc et al notifies FERC of potential
departure from the characteristics relied upon by FERC in its various
order accepting the

Filing Parties' respective market-based rate tariffs.
    Filed Date: November 22, 2005.
    Accession Number: 20051201-0182.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 13, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-563-056; EL04-102-012.
    Applicants: Devon Power LLC.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. submitted sixth Compliance Report
of updating progress made in the siting, permitting and construction of
transmission and generation upgrades.
    Filed Date: November 28, 2005.
    Accession Number: 20051128-5064.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 19, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-1416-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits compliance filing
providing for a revision to the Service Agreement for Long-Term Firm
Point-to-Point Transmission Service Agreement.
    Filed Date: November 28, 2005.
    Accession Number: 20051129-0219.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 19, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER05-287-002; ER00-1147-000.
    Applicants: Granite Ridge Energy, LLC.
    Description: Granite Ridge Energy, LLC submits a revisions to its
Market-Based Rate Tariff, in compliance with FERC's November 17, 2005
Order.
    Filed Date: November 28, 2005.
    Accession Number: 20051129-0223.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 19, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-145-001.
    Applicants: Commonwealth Electric Company.
    Description: Commonwealth Electric Co submits a substitute
Merchants Way Interconnection Agreement with New England Power Co.
    Filed Date: November 28, 2005.
    Accession Number: 20051129-0163.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 19, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-251-000.
    Applicants: New England Power Company.
    Description: New England Power Co on behalf of Massachusetts
Electric Co., provides notice of cancellation of NEP Rate Schedule No.
438 and MECO Rate Schedule No. 68.
    Filed Date: November 28, 2005.
    Accession Number: 20051129-0218.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 19, 2005.

    Docket Numbers: ER06-267-000; OA06-1-000; TS06-4-000.
    Applicants: Wolverine Creek Energy LLC and Wolverine Creek Goshen
Interconnection LLC.
    Description: Wolverine Creek Goshen Interconnection, LLC and
Wolverine Creek Energy LLC, submit a Common Facilities Agreement with
Ridgeline Airtricity Energy, LLC et al.
    Filed Date: November 18, 2005.
    Accession Number: 20051202-0057.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, December 9, 2005.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov.
 To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet

access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-7232 Filed 12-9-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on November 8, 2005

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2005-22640

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  Sahara Airlines Limited d/b/a Air Sahara 				Date Filed:
October 3, 2005

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to engage in
foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail from points
behind India, via India and intermediate points to a point or points in
the United States and beyond pursuant to a code share arrangement with
American Airlines.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  New authority

Applicant representative:  Moffett B. Roller<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT Analyst:  Shelita A. Smith<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  United Airlines, Inc. (United) filed comments
stating that Air Sahara had filed an abbreviated.  application as
regards Air Sahara’s operations and management.  On October 18, 2005,
Continental Airlines (Continental) filed a reply, to which United
responded on October 21, 2005.   Neither party opposed grant of the
application.  On October 31, 2005, Air Sahara supplemented its
application to include, among other things, additional information on
its operations and management.  We were advised by Air Sahara that
neither United nor Continental had any comment on this supplemental
filing.

DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved							Action date:  November 8, 2005

Effective dates of exemption authority granted:  November 8, 2005 –
November 8, 2007

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity): United
States-India Air Transport Agreement of April 14, 2005

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

  X    Standard exemption conditions (attached)
Foreign air carrier permit   (          )

  X    Code share conditions imposed in Docket OST-2005-22622

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  Based on the
record in this case, we found that Air Sahara is financially and
operationally qualified to perform the services authorized above.  With
respect to the ownership and control of the carrier, all of the shares
of Air Sahara are owned by citizens of India, and all of the members of
the carrier’s Board of Directors are Indian citizens.  However, the
president of Air Sahara is a U.S. citizen, as are two of five vice
presidents (with the remaining vice presidents being two Indian citizens
and one U.K. citizen).  To the extent that a question may exist as to
the ownership and control of the carrier, we find that a waiver of our
ownership and control standard is justified in this case, as there is
nothing in the ownership and control of the carrier that would be
inimical to U.S. aviation policy or interests.  By memorandum dated
November 4, 2005, the FAA advised us that it knew of no reason why we
should act unfavorably on Air Sahara’s application.

Action taken by:  Paul L. Gretch, Director

		   Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant is qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied

all requests in the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke
the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our
discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

 United included with its submission a Motion for Leave to File.  We
grant United’s motion.

05/2004


[Federal Register: June 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 112)]
[Notices]
[Page 28090-28093]
[DOCID:fr12jn09-113]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2009-0092]

Notice of Request for Continuation of Data Collection

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces the Department of Transportation's (DOT) intention to
extend the use of OMB 2105-0557 Applicant Background
Questionnaire.

DATES: Comments on this notice must be received by August 11, 2009.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number DOT-
OST-2009-0092 by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail or Hand Delivery: Docket Management Facility; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West
Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-001, between the hours of
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or you may visit
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590,
between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Perkins, Departmental Office
of Human Resources, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE., Washington, DC 20590, (202)
366-9447.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Applicant Background Questionnaire.
    OMB Control Number: OMB 2105-0557.
    Type of Request: Renewal of a previously approved document.
    Abstract: The purpose of the collection is to standardize the
collection of race, ethnicity, sex, national origin, and disability
status from applicants for positions within all DOT Operating
Administrations. This information will assist the DOT in monitoring
programs and will be the basis for several different reports required
by statute.
    Background: The DOT is required to analyze the civil rights
impact(s) of policies, actions, or decisions that affect Federally
conducted programs and activities, and the DOT workforce. In order to
assess the civil rights impact, data on recruitment, employment, and
diversity must be analyzed in a consistent manner with respect to the
race, ethnicity, sex, national origin, disability status, and age of
applicants and employees.
    The goal of this collection is to provide a method for the
comprehensive collection of race, ethnicity, sex, national origin, and
disability status and thereby reduce the burden on applicants and
employees to provide this type of information.
    Respondents: Employees upon initial hire and applicants for
positions.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 93,000.
    Estimated Total Burden on Respondents: 3 minutes.

    Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility as described; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate of
burden of the proposed collection of information, including the
validity of methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate, automated,
electronic, mechanical or other technology. Comments should be
addressed to the address in the preamble. All responses to this notice
will be summarized and included in the request for Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) approval. All comments will also become a matter of
public record.

    Issued in Washington, DC on June 1, 2009.
Nancy A. Mowry,
Director, Departmental Office of Human Resource Management.
BILLING CODE 4910-9X?-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN12JN09.002

[FR Doc. E9-13823 Filed 6-11-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-9X-C


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 22 (Friday, February 3, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9211-9212]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02288]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2232-653]

Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Recreation Management Plan.
    b. Project No: 2232-653.
    c. Date Filed: November 14, 2016.
    d. Applicant: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Catawba-Wateree Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on the Catawba and Wateree
Rivers in Burke, McDowell, Caldwell, Catawba, Alexander, Iredell,
Mecklenburg, Lincoln, and Gaston counties in North Carolina, and York,
Lancaster, Chester, Fairfield, and Kershaw counties in South Carolina.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: John Crutchfield, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC,
526 S. Church St., Charlotte, NC 28202,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Dr. Tara Perry,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: March 1, 2017.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please
send a paper copy to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. The first page of any
filing should include docket number P-2232-653. Comments emailed to
Commission staff are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: As required by article 407 of the
license, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC requests Commission approval of a
proposed recreation management plan (RMP) for the project. The RMP
includes an inventory of existing project recreation sites, proposed
new sites or enhancements to existing sites, provisions for operation
and maintenance of existing and proposed recreation sites and
facilities, conceptual drawings, maps, an implementation schedule,
evaluation of the need for wildlife viewing platforms, a procedure for
temporary closure of recreation sites, how the needs of persons with
disability and low impact practices are considered in planning and
designing recreation sites, a description of the signage program at the
recreation sites, provisions for trash removal, provisions for
recreation use monitoring over the license term, and the consultation
record.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h)

above. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor must be accompanied
by proof of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared
by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR
385.2010.

    Dated: January 30, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-02288 Filed 2-2-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REGION 8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1595 Wynkoop Street
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Denver, CO   80202-1129
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   www.epa.gov/region8

Ref: 8ARD-PM

Mike Natchees
Director, Air Quality Program
Ute Indian Tribe
P.O. Box 70
Fort Duchesne, Utah  84026

Re:Transmittal of Draft Title V Permit to Operate on the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation
#V-UO-000023-2016.00

Dear Mr. Natchees:

In accordance with 40 CFR 71.8 and 71.11(d)(2), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 is hereby providing notification to all affected states and tribes of the issuance of the draft Clean Air Act Title V Permit to Operate for the following source located on Indian country lands within the Uintah & Ouray Indian Reservation:

      Chipeta Processing, LLC  -  Chipeta Gas Plant

Region 8 is providing a 30-day period, from December 2, 2022 to January 3, 2023, for comment. Electronic copies of the draft permit, Statement of Basis document and supporting materials may be viewed at: http://www.epa.gov/caa-permitting/caa-permit-public-comment-opportunities-region-8.

Comments may be submitted via email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or through https://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID # EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0356).

Should the EPA not accept any or all of these recommendations, you will be notified in writing and will be provided with the reasons for not accepting them. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. MT on Wednesday, January 3, 2023, to be considered in the issuance of the final renewal permit for this facility. If a public hearing is held regarding this permit, you will be sent a copy of the public hearing notice at least 30 days in advance of the hearing date.

If you have any questions concerning this draft permit, please contact Charles Buckler, of my staff, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Sincerely,

Monica Morales
                              Acting Director
Air and Radiation Division


1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES Memorandum SUBJECT: Asparagus Benefits Assessment for Disulfoton FROM: Nikhil Mallampalli, Ph. D, Entomologist Herbicide and Insecticide Branch Colwell Cook, Ph. D, Entomologist Herbicide and Insecticide Branch Anthony Gilbert, Economist Economic Analysis Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503C)

THROUGH: David Brassard, Ph. D., Senior Scientist Arnet Jones, Ph. D., Branch Chief Herbicide and Insecticide Branch Biological and Economic Analysis Division (7503C)

TO: Christina Scheltema, Chemical Review Manager Betty Shackleford, Branch Chief Reregistration Branch 3 Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C)

PRP review date: September 5, 2001 Summary of Analysis Disulfoton is a critical pest management tool for asparagus growers in the primary production regions of the country. These regions lie in the Pacific northwest and California, and face large economic losses if populations of the European asparagus aphid are not rigorously and immediately controlled. Management of this insect pest is the primary reason for disulfoton use in this crop. Human health risk modeling suggests that the liquid form of disulfoton may pose risks to mixers, loaders, and applicators. However, all the disulfoton used in the U. S. asparagus crop is applied in liquid form, either aerially or by ground spray rigs. Thus, eliminating these methods of application is likely to result in significant negative impacts on asparagus production in the western U. S. The following analysis provides an overview of U. S. asparagus production, the role of disulfoton in asparagus production, a description of 2 available alternatives to disulfoton, and estimates of the impacts of eliminating aerial application and/ or the liquid forms of disulfoton in this crop. Overview Disulfoton is an organophosphate insecticide used on a wide variety of crops in part because it not only has contact toxicity but is also taken up by plant root systems and remains active against target insects for a relatively long time. HED risk modeling indicates that the liquid form of this chemical may pose hazards to mixer/ loaders and applicators (calculated MOE = 1 35) in asparagus. Therefore, SRRD has asked BEAD to investigate the importance of liquid disulfoton in U. S. asparagus production and the impacts created by restrictions on using the liquid form of this chemical. Re entry and pre harvest intervals are not being considered for regulatory action at this time.

Asparagus, Asparagus officinalis, is a perennial row crop grown primarily in Washington and California, which together account for about 83% of U. S. production of this vegetable. Michigan accounts for approximately 13%, while the rest of the crop is grown in Arizona, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Oregon (7) . Asparagus requires well drained, heavier soil with a relatively alkaline pH, and does best in climates where periods of either cold or drought regularly occur. These periods stimulate dormancy in the plants, and this in turn subsequently produces more vigorous vegetative growth of the plants, and thus higher yields. These conditions are best provided in the midwestern and northwestern parts of the U. S. A total of approximately 76,000 acres of asparagus were grown in the U. S. in 1999 (7) . While asparagus can be planted either with seeds, transplants, or crowns, the most common method is to establish fields is to plant one year old crowns. Crops are harvested no earlier than the second year after planting, so as to allow plants to undergo more vigorous growth. Harvesting of asparagus spears generally begins in mid January in the western U. S. and in early spring in the mid west and east coast areas, and continues through June. Virtually all harvesting is done by hand, on a repetitive basis, every one to five days during the early part of each growing season. This harvesting activity lasts one to two months, depending on the size and productivity of fields. After harvest, remaining spears are allowed to grow out into "ferns" (vegetative growth), during which little to no human presence is required in fields (1, 6) .

Pest insect biology In asparagus, disulfoton is used primarily to control the European asparagus aphid, Brachycorynella ( = Brachycolus) asparagi, an insect specialized to feed only on this plant. B. asparagi was accidentally introduced from Europe in the early 1920s and is a serious pest of this crop in Washington, Oregon and California (1, 6) . It is brought into fields primarily via infested crown brought in from nurseries. Once in fields, aphids overwinter as eggs in old fern debris and cracks in the soil. All life stages occur on edible varieties of asparagus. Eggs hatch in the spring and nymphs crawl onto asparagus spears as they emerge from the soil. During most of the crop's growing season, aphids exist as nymphs, feeding and reproducing asexually. Aphid populations tend to build up under conditions of low rainfall or humidity. Major damage to plants occurs from a toxin injected by aphids during feeding. This toxin causes bushy, stunted, and bluish green growth. This in turn reduces the number of viable spears, due to dessication of the developing crowns. The toxin itself can also cause a delay in bud break and a profusion of small, less valuable spears (1, 6) . Even low populations of this aphid can cause total losses in an asparagus field, and growers often have no choice but to plow out the field and plant again (1, 4, 5) . Other aphid species, including the green peach aphid, and the bean, melon, and potato aphids, can also become problems on asparagus if left uncontrolled, but disulfoton use is thought to keep these pests rare (1, 3) . 3 Role of disulfoton in asparagus production During 1987 1998, a weighted average of 37,000 lb of disulfoton (active ingredient) were applied on asparagus nationwide; of this 96 % was used in California and Washington. The granular form of disulfoton is currently not registered for use on asparagus, (10) so all of these applications may reasonably be considered to be of the liquid form. Virtually all of this use was targeted against the asparagus aphid (1, 3, 4) .

In California, Washington, and Oregon, disulfoton is applied using both ground boom or aerial methods. However, in all these regions, aerial applications are by far the more common. In 1999, 65 % of applications in California were aerial (2) . In California, closed mixing/ loading systems are required, but this is not the case in other states where disulfoton is registered for use on asparagus. In Washington and Oregon, an estimated 98 % of applications are aerial (3) . As a result, most of the disulfoton use in these primary asparagus producing areas is in the liquid form. The chemical is applied 1 2 times per year, almost always during the "fern" stage, when virtually no human presence in fields is required. Aerial application is dictated by the mat like growth of asparagus in the fern stage, which must be optimized to ensure good harvests the following season, and by the need to keep the crop well irrigated, which makes the soil wet and unstable. These factors often make the use of ground application equipment impossible, due to the difficulty involved in moving it about and the risk of significantly damaging ferns (3, 4) .

Asparagus farm sizes tend to be larger in California as compared to other regions of the western U. S. production areas. In 1997, 48 % of asparagus farms in California had 100 acres or more of the crop; on average, these farms had 431 acres grown. Overall average farm size was 219 acres (8) . In Washington, no farms are greater than 300 acres; average size was 62 acres ( 9) . The maximum area treated in a day by an aerial applicator has been estimated to be about 75 to 150 acres in Washington, and 150 to 200 acres in California (3, 4) . These estimates were based (by the crop experts contacted) on discussions with aerial applicators in their respective states. This is partly a result of the fact that, even on larger farms, asparagus fields are interspersed with other crops, and applicators do not typically treat all the acreage of a given grower at any one time (3, 4) .

Chemical alternatives For aphid control in asparagus, chlorpyrifos is the only currently registered chemical control alternative available in California. It is also available in Washington, and Oregon, where dimethoate is also an option in this context. Both these insecticides have significant drawbacks in this cropping system, however. Chlorpyrifos is not as effective as disulfoton in eliminating asparagus aphids from fields due to a short residual effect, and may cause outbreaks of other aphid species (1, 3) . Dimethoate also has a very short residual effect (1 day) and thus is also not as good as disulfoton (3) . Biological control agents such as ladybeetles and parasitic wasps occur, but cannot usually keep up with aphid infestations in the western growing regions (3, 4) .

Impact of restricting disulfoton use in asparagus Curtailing aerial or liquid application of disulfoton will be effectively equivalent to eliminating this pesticide in asparagus, since ground application is so difficult and the granular form is not an option 4 for control of the target pest. Given the damage inflicted by the asparagus aphid, this can be expected to result in substantial economic losses to growers in Washington and California. Yearly per acre economic losses in Washington could exceed $700 if disulfoton were eliminated and growers were forced to rely on the other available chemical alternatives (chlorpyrifos and dimethoate). This would translate into aggregate losses to asparagus growers of about $273,000 per year. In California, per acre economic losses could exceed $1000 per season with an aggregate loss to growers of approximately $166,000 per year. This analysis corroborates the results of an earlier study, conducted by Washington State University in 1997. It estimated aggregate losses to the asparagus industry in these states of about $38,000,000 per year, about 40% of gross farm level (preprocessing level) revenue (1) . That study was based on chlorpyrifos and malathion as the chemical alternatives available. The authors estimated that this would end west coast asparagus production in four years at most.

Sources and References 1. Eskelson, S., A. Schreiber, S. E. Crawford, and R. J. Folwell. 1997. Biological and Economic Assessment of the Impact of Pesticide Use on Asparagus. Washington State University Publication No. MISCO193.

2. California Dept of Pesticide Regulation data, courtesy of Linda Herbst, University of California, Davis.

3. Dr. Alan Schreiber, Agriculture Development Group, Pasco, WA.

4. Dr. Robert Mullen, University of California Cooperative Extension Service, Stockton, CA.

5. Ms. Cherie Watte, California Asparagus Commission, Stockton, CA.

6. USDA Crop Profile for Asparagus in California, Feb. 2000.

7. USDA/ NASS Agricultural Statistics 2000.

8. USDA/ NASS Census of Agriculture, California State and County Data. 1997. Vol. 1, part 5.

9. USDA/ NASS Census of Agriculture, Washington State and County Data. 1997. Vol. 1, part 47.

10. Crop Data Management Systems Pesticide database, http:// www. cdms. net/.