"richardastrust.com"<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 09/09/2007 01:08 PMTo

Margaret Sheppard/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

bcc

Subject

white goods clarification

For Follow Up:

Urgent Priority

 History:

This message has been replied to.

Margaret

End use clarification:

My intention for HCR188C is to be used in new refrigerators, freezers and new home air conditioning units (window or split unit). To retrofit a used refrigerator or home AC unit is not feasible because of cost.

The average 12,000 BTU home window AC unit is around $200.00 and the average-sized refrigerator is approx $600.00. When one fails, it is cheaper to buy a new one and not fix it.

Risk assessment:

Risk assessment for air condition units is attached. It also gives the workers exposure risk.

with maximum charge size risk for large home AC units.  Attachments "white_goods_amended_Risk.pdf"  and "mesa_Weight_Percent.pdf" answers the rest of this request.  I just received the latter from Don at Mesa Gas - he explains the blending process in a refinery atmosphere. As we discussed this will be the most accurate way to blend my product. When doing this, it is at its highest level of safety device and rules that are applied to the operator. He also tells of the size and type(DOT approved) of cylinders that will be used for the refrigerant and the code.

Please note that I will not bottle in small 1 pound cans.The cylinder sizes here are for certified technicians only - ones that are licensed and have the proper training.  No do-it- yourselfer is likely to purchase 5 pounds only to use just a few ounces.

With EPA clearance, then companies using this product would make training manuals availabe and classes mandatory to their technicians under OSHA rules and regulations. I was told this morning  if HCR188c is not accepted by the EPA, why bother to put together any training manuals or classes. Spoke to a ARI engineer and was told that when approved the MSDS on my product will be the key manual on the training of technicians. That will be the safety guideline that they would follow. MSDS attached

Most of the exposure of HCR188c would be at a factory when they charge the new system.

this is done by computer and on a automatic charging machine.

If there is a failure or warranty, they would just discard it and the store would replace it with a new one. The old one is scrapped. Scrap yards just recycle the unit by removing the refrigerant and can sell it as propane for a barbecue grill. It would be easier to blend the refrigerant from new hydrocarbons. Don has mentioned it would cost more to recycle as a refrigerant again, however, it can be done but the cost factor would be more then purchasing a new unit.

I have used a Robinair EPA-approved reclaimer for HCR188c which has an oil-separator

which separates the compressor oil from HCR188C and recycles HCR188C back into a canister. I found it much more effective to use the recycled refrigerant in a BBQ charcoal burner. It can be reused as a refrigerant but my own personal feeling is that it is such a small amount and that part of the blend might get lost in the process so I would rather have a brand new blend in an air conditioner. Although I've used it over and over many times, the barbecue grill was the best.

Next email

Richard Maruya

phone<PHONE_NUMBER>

fax<PHONE_NUMBER>

cell<PHONE_NUMBER>

e mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This e-mail may contain confidential or privileged information, if you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, then please notify us by return e-mail immediately. Should you have received this e-mail in error then you should not copy this for any purpose nor disclose its contents to any other person.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41977-41978]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17324]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 553-221--Washington]

City of Seattle, WA; Notice of Availability of Environmental
Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission's or FERC's)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380,

Commission staff has reviewed the application for amendment of license
for the Skagit River Project (FERC No. 553) and has prepared an
Environmental Assessment (EA). The project is located on the Skagit
River in Skagit, Snohomish, and Whatcom Counties, Washington.
    The EA contains the Commission staff's analysis of the potential
environmental effects of construction and operation of a proposed
second power tunnel and fish flow measures and concludes that
authorizing the amendment, with appropriate environmental protective
measures would not constitute a major federal action that would
significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
    Copies of the EA are available for review in the Public Reference
Room 2-A of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. The EA may also be viewed on the Commission's
Internet Web site (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. Additional information about the project
is available from the Commission's Web site using the eLibrary link.
For assistance with eLibrary, contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>; for TTY contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 9, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17324 Filed 7-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: Kerry Leifer<PHONE_NUMBER>

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please insert "NA-Remove" and maintain the outline. Please do not change the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace the instructions that appear in green, i.e., "[insert company name]," with the information specific to your action.

TEMPLATE:

Cytec Industries Inc.

[Insert petition number]

	EPA has received a pesticide petition ([insert petition number]) from Cytec Industries Inc.,  5 Garret Mountain Plaza Woodland Park, NJ 07424 proposing, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.

	to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for

	Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-(3-carboxy-1-oxosulfopropyl)- ω-hydroxy, alkyl ethers, disodium salts (CAS Reg. Nos. 68815-56-5, 68954-91-6,  1013906-64-3,  1024612-24-5) (referred to hereinafter as "Disodium Sulfosuccinate Polyethoxylates  or "DSP") under 40 CFR §180.910 when used as an inert ingredient (surfactant) not to exceed 10% in pesticide formulations applied pre- and post-harvest to all raw agricultural commodities.  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d) (2) of FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

	1. Plant metabolism. [NA-Remove. No specific plant metabolism data is available, nor is it required for the establishment of a tolerance exemption.]

	2. Analytical method. [NA-Remove. An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.]

	3. Magnitude of residues. [NA-Remove. Information regarding the nature and magnitude of chemical residues resulting from the use of this inert ingredient is not required for the establishment of a tolerance exemption.]

B. Toxicological Profile

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers including infants and children.

	1. Acute toxicity.  The Disodium Sulfosuccinate Polyethoxylates are not acutely toxic by the oral and dermal routes of exposure under normal use conditions.  They are moderate-to- non-irritating to skin and eyes and are negative-to-weak sensitizers.

	2. Genotoxicty. The Disodium Sulfosuccinate Polyethoxylates showed no evidence of mutagenicity or induction of chromosomal aberrations.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. No data are available regarding the reproductive and developmental toxicity of these compounds; however, no effects were noted on reproductive organs in the repeated dose studies.  In addition, the structures of compounds in this group do not indicate the potential to bind to estrogen receptors.  The lower molecular weight compounds would be expected to be absorbed and metabolized, thereby releasing the alcohol ethoxylate subunit.  The critical study in the review of the alkyl alcohol alkoxylates by EPA was a repeated dose study with a LOAEL of 470 mg/kg/day based on one maternal death, decreased body weight, body weight gain, and food consumption, increased clinical signs (ptosis and hypoactivity), and microscopic changes of the testes and epididymides (testicular atrophy, increased intraluminal exfoliated spermatogenic cells in epididymides, and dilated seminiferous tubules) in parental animals, decreased litter size, and increased post-implantation loss.  Therefore, it is possible that with sufficient exposure and hydrolysis of the ester bond, these endpoints could be part of the hazard profile due to possible metabolites.  However, it is noted that no effects were observed in the rat or dog repeated dose study which would indicate such findings, even when dosed at higher levels.

	4. Subchronic toxicity. In subchronic feeding studies rats and dogs, decreases in body weight and feed efficiency were observed.  The NOAEL in rats was 1% (0.77 g/kg bw/day for males and 0.96 g/kg bw/day for females) and the NOAEL in dogs was 0.5% (0.140 g/kg bw/day).

	5. Chronic toxicity. There is no evidence that the Disodium Sulfosuccinate Polyethoxylates would be a concern for chronic toxicity based on the limited effects observed in the repeated dose studies.  In addition, no concern is noted for carcinogenicity based on the observation that the compounds lack structural alerts for genotoxicity via DNA reactivity (covalent binding) or non-genotoxic mechanisms.  The prediction that the compounds lack of structural alerts is supported by the data (negative findings in genotoxicity assays). In addition, read across to substructures evaluated by EPA does not indicate that the substructures of these compounds have been identified as a concern for genotoxicity or carcinogenicity.

	6. Animal metabolism. Data were not identified on the metabolism of the compounds; however, data regarding metabolism of similar substituted sulfosuccinate compounds indicates that they would be expected to be readily hydrolyzed by carboxylesterases resulting in the corresponding alcohol ethoxylates and the sulfosuccinic acid moiety.  The sulfosuccinic acid would be conjugated with glucuronic acid and/or excreted via the urine.  The alkyl alcohol alkoxylates are expected to be further metabolized through degradation of the ether linkage resulting in the corresponding alkyl alcohol and polyalkoxylate group which would undergo further oxidative degradation and/or excretion.

	7. Metabolite toxicology. Data on the expected hydrolysis products are common to other compound for which EPA has already reviewed.   No concern was noted by EPA regarding the toxicity of dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate and sodium 1,4-dialkyl sulfosuccinates, which would also release sulfosuccinate upon hydrolysis.  Regarding the alkyl alcohol alkoxylates metabolites, EPA has set a cRfD of 1.68 mg/kg bw/day.

	8. Endocrine disruption. No data were identified addressing the endpoint of endocrine disruption.  As noted in the modeling of the compounds, they do not fit the rules for binding to the estrogen receptor (alpha).  In addition, data from the available repeated dose toxicity studies does not indicate a concern for this endpoint.

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. These exposures numbers are modeled after the EPA review of similar surfactants, the Alkyl Alcohol Alkoxylates (AAA), which have similar use patterns to those covered in this petition.   Exposure (mg/kg/day) 100% Crop Treated, 10% Surfactant cPAD 1.40 %cPAD General U.S. Population 0.038302 2.7 Infants (< 1 year old) 0.079416 5.7 Children 1-2 years old 0.124801 8.9 Children 3-5 years old 0.092392 6.6 Children 6-12 years old 0.051062 3.6 Youth 13-19 years old 0.028824 2.1 Adults 20-49 years old 0.028880 2.1 Adults 50+ years old 0.030415 2.2 Females 13-49 years old 0.029078 2.1

	i. Food. The dietary exposure above is the result of modeling to represent residues on food with 100% crop treated.  This is a worst case scenario, since it is expected that a reasonable percent crop treated would be on the order of 1%.

	ii. Drinking water. In their review of similar surfactants, the Alkyl Alcohol Alkoxylates, EPA modeled expected drinking water concentrations and considered that the maximum concentration would be 100 parts per billion.  This result is included in the exposure estimates in the dietary exposure table.  	2. Non-dietary exposure. In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of the FFDCA directs EPA to consider available information concerning exposures from the pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures, including drinking water from ground water or surface water and exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings (residential and other indoor uses). Because this petition is for use in pesticide formulations pre- and post-harvest to crops, the only expected exposure will be dietary.

D. Cumulative Effects

	We have not found a common mechanism of toxicity finding as to the Disodium Sulfosuccinate Polyethoxylates and any other substances. DSP may metabolize to Alkyl Alcohol Alkoxylates but with respect to this petition, the exposures to both materials are considered since there is an assumption that 100% of the crops are treated.

E. Safety Determination

      1. U.S. population. Based on these risk assessments, there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to residues of DSP.

	2. Infants and children. Based on these risk assessments there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to residues of DSP.

F. International Tolerances

	Cytec Industries Inc. is not aware of any country requiring a tolerance for the petitioned substances nor have any CODEX Maximum Residue Levels been established for any food crops at this time.

4826-5641-7821, v.  2


[Federal Register: November 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 224)]
[Notices]
[Page 61144-61145]
[DOCID:fr23no09-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[EG09-76-000; EG09-80-000; EG09-81-000; EG09-82-000; EG09-83-000; EG09-
84-000; EG09-85-000; EG09-86-000; EG09-87-000; EG09-88-000; EG09-89-
000]

Sollunar Energy, Inc.; Fowler Ridge II Wind Farm LLC; St. Clair
Power, L.P.; North Hurlburt Wind, LLC; South Hurlburt Wind, LLC;
Horseshoe Bend Wind, LLC; Ashtabula Wind II, LLC; Elk City Wind, LLC;
FPL Energy Stateline II, Inc.; FPL Energy Illinois Wind, LLC; Silver
Sage Windpower, LLC; Notice of Effectiveness of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status

November 16, 2009.
    Take notice that during the month of October 2009, the status of
the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became
effective by

operation of the Commission's regulations at 18 CFR 366.7(a).

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-28013 Filed 11-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 250 (Wednesday, December 31, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78694-78696]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30562]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 29

[Docket No. FAA-2014-1090; Special Conditions No. 29-037-SC]

Special Conditions: Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model
MBB-BK117D-2 Helicopters; Use of 30-Minute Power Rating

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Airbus Helicopters
Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK117 D-2 helicopter. This model helicopter
will have the novel or unusual design feature of a 30-minute power
rating, generally intended to be used for hovering at increased power
for search and rescue missions. The applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for
this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional
safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to
establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH
Model MBB-BK117D-2 Helicopters on December 19, 2014.
    We must receive your comments by March 2, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-1090
using any of the following methods:
    [ssquf] Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
    [ssquf] Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    [ssquf] Hand Delivery of Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m., and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    [ssquf] Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information
the commenter provides. Using the search function of the docket Web
site, anyone can find

and read the electronic form of all comments received into any FAA
docket, including the name of the individual sending the comment (or
signing the comment for an association, business, labor union, etc.).
DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement can be found in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at
http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Docket: You can read the background documents or comments received
at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room @12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m., and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rao Edupuganti, Rotorcraft Standards
Staff, ASW-111, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service,
2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, Texas 76137; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Reason for No Prior Notice and Comment Before Adoption

    The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for public
comment are impractical and contrary to the public interest because the
issuance of a design approval would significantly delay delivery of the
affected aircraft. Therefore, we find that good cause exists for making
these special conditions effective upon issuance.

Comments Invited

    While we did not precede this with a notice of proposed special
conditions, we invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking
by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We will consider comments filed late if it is possible to do
so without incurring expense or delay. We may change these special
conditions based on the comments we receive.

Background and Discussion

    On December 21, 2009, Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH applied
to amend Type Certificate No. H13EU to include the new Model MBB-BK117
D-2. The MBB-BK117 D-2, which is a derivative of the MBB-BK117 C-2
currently approved under Type Certificate No. H13EU, is a Transport
Category, 14 CFR part 29, twin engine conventional helicopter designed
for civil operations. It is certificated with Category A performance
and for day and night operation under visual and instrument flight
rules. It is powered by two Turbomeca Arriel 2E engines with dual
channel Full Authority Digital Engine Control systems and has four main
rotor blades and a maximum gross weight of 8,046 pounds. It has an
integrated modular avionics suite with three 6x8 inch multi-function
displays termed the Common Integrated Global Avionics for Light
Helicopters.
    Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH proposes that the model MBB-
BK117 D-2 use a novel and unusual design feature, which is a 30-minute
power rating, identified in the Turbomeca Arriel 2E Engine Special
Conditions No. 33-009-SC. 14 CFR 1.1 defines ``rated takeoff power'' as
limited in use to no more than 5 minutes for takeoff operation. Thus,
the use of takeoff power for 30 minutes will require special
airworthiness standards, known as special conditions, to address the
use of this 30-minute power rating and its effects on the rotorcraft.
These special conditions will add requirements to the existing
airworthiness standards in 14 CFR 29.1049 (Hover cooling test
procedures), Sec.  29.1305 (Powerplant instruments), and Sec.  29.1521
(Powerplant limitations).
    The following is a summary of the final special conditions:
    In addition to the requirements of Sec.  29.1049 (Hover cooling
test procedures), the aircraft cooling effects due to use of the 30-
minute power rating versus the Takeoff (5-minute) rating must be
accounted for in the testing.
    In addition to the requirements of Sec.  29.1305, Powerplant
Instruments, since this new 30-minute power rating has a 30-minute time
limit associated with its use, the pilot must have the means to
identify:
     When the rated engine power level is achieved,
     When the event begins, and
     When the time interval expires.
    In addition to the requirements of Sec.  29.1521, Powerplant
Limitations, a new 30-minute rating must be limited to no more than 30
minutes per use. This new rating will allow use of power above maximum
continuous power (MCP) for 30 minutes.
    Furthermore, the Model MBB-BK117 D-2 rotorcraft flight manual must
include limitations on use of the 30-minute power rating to state that
continuous use above MCP up to takeoff power is limited to 30 minutes.

Type Certification Basis

    Under 14 CFR 21.101, Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH must show
that the MBB-BK117 D-2 model helicopter meets the applicable provisions
of the regulations incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No.
H13EU or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of
application for the change to the type certificate. The regulations
incorporated by reference in the type certificate are commonly referred
to as the ``original type certification basis.'' The regulations
incorporated by reference in Type Certificate No. H13EU are as follows:

1. 14 CFR 21.29 and 14 CFR 29 effective February 1, 1965 plus
Amendments 29-1 through 29-40 for the new or changed parts with respect
to the MBB-BK117 C-2 identified in the document ETYC 1183/09-MHa,
supplemented with requirements from other amendments listed below.
2. 14 CFR 29 requirements with amendment through 29-51 for: 29.25,
29.59, 29.62, 29.67, 29.77, 29.81, 29.85, 29.143, 29.173, 29.175,
29.177, 29.351, 29.397, 29.562, 29.602, 29.865, 29.923, 29.1317,
29.1323, 29.1329, 29.1351, 29.1359, 29.1457, 29.1459, 29.1521, 29.1587,
B29.5, B29.7
3. Equivalent Level Of Safety:
    (a) 14 CFR 29.807 (a)(4) Emergency exits
    (b) 14CFR 29.1305, 29.1351(b)(6), 29.1435(a)(3) Part Time Display
of Vehicle Parameters
    (c) 14 CFR 29.1545(b)(4), 29.1549(b) Airspeed & Powerplant
indication green marking
4. Environmental Standards:
    (a) 14 CFR 36 Appendix H at amendment 36-25
5. The main differences between the MBB-BK117 C-2 and the MBB-BK117 D-2
are as follows:
    (a) Installation of Turbomeca Arriel 2E engines with FADEC control
    (b) New tail section including composite structure and fanned tail
rotor (FENESTRON) with composite blades
    (c) New cockpit indication system using integrated modular
avionics.
    (d) Auto Flight System as a standard configuration of the MBB-BK117
D-2
    (e) Main gearbox modifications to support 30 minute run-dry
capability
    (f) Maximum take-off weight increased to 3650 kg

    In addition, if the regulations incorporated by reference do not
provide adequate standards regarding

the change, the applicant must comply with certain regulations in
effect on the date of application for the change. The FAA has
determined that the Model MBB-BK117 D-2 must also comply with the noise
certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36; and the FAA must issue a
finding of regulatory adequacy under Sec.  611 of Public Law 92-574,
the ``Noise Control Act of 1972.''

Regulatory Basis for Special Conditions

    The Administrator has determined that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (that is, 14 CFR part 29) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the MBB-BK117 D22 model helicopter
because of a novel or unusual design feature. Therefore, special
conditions are prescribed under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.16.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in Sec.  11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on
the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, the special conditions would also apply to the
other model.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The MBB-BK117 D-2 model helicopter will incorporate the following
novel or unusual design feature:
     A 30-minute power rating.

Applicability

    These special conditions are applicable to the Airbus Helicopters
Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK117 D2 helicopter. Should Airbus
Helicopters Deutschland GmbH apply at a later date for an amendment to
the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same
novel or unusual design feature, the special conditions would apply to
that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on the Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH Model MBB-BK117 D-2
helicopter. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 29

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

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

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Airbus Helicopters Deutschland GmbH
Model MBB-BK117 D-2 helicopters. Unless stated otherwise, all
requirements in Sec. Sec.  29.1049, 29.1305 and 29.1521 remain
unchanged.
    Section 29.1049 Hover cooling test procedures. In addition to the
requirements of this section, for rotorcraft with a 30-minute power
rating, the hovering cooling provisions at the 30-minute power rating
must be shown--
    (a) At maximum weight or at the greatest weight at which the
rotorcraft can hover (if less), at sea level, with the power required
to hover but not more than the 30-minute power, in the ground effect in
still air, until at least 5 minutes after the occurrence of the highest
temperature recorded, or until the continuous time limit of the 30-
minute power rating if the highest temperature recorded is not
stabilized before.
    (b) At maximum weight and at the altitude resulting in zero rate of
climb for this configuration, until at least 5 minutes after the
occurrence of the highest temperature recorded, or until the continuous
time limit of the 30-minute power rating if the highest temperature
recorded is not stabilized before.
    Section 29.1305 Powerplant instruments, at Amendment 29-40. In
addition to the requirements of this section, a means must be provided
to indicate to the pilot when the engine is at the 30-minute power
level, when the event begins, and when the time interval expires.
    Section 29.1521 Powerplant limitations, at Amendment 29-41. In
addition to the requirements of this section, use of the 30-minute
power must be limited to no more than 30 minutes per use. The use of
the 30-minute power must also be limited by:
    (1) The maximum rotational speed, which may not be greater than--
    (i) The maximum value determined by the rotor design; or
    (ii) The maximum value demonstrated during the type tests;
    (2) The maximum allowable turbine inlet or turbine outlet gas
temperature (for turbine engines);
    (3) The maximum allowable power or torque for each engine,
considering the power input limitations of the transmission with all
engines operating;
    (4) The maximum allowable power or torque for each engine
considering the power input limitations of the transmission with one
engine inoperative;
    (5) The time limit for the use of the power corresponding to the
limitations established in paragraphs (1) through (4) above; and
    (6) The maximum allowable engine and transmission oil temperatures,
if the time limit established in paragraph (5) above exceeds 2 minutes.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 19, 2014.
Lance T. Gant
Acting Directorate Manager, Rotorcraft Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-30562 Filed 12-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

            DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                    OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                             WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on August 16, 2002

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKETS OST-2000-7738

________________________________________________________________________
_____________

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).

Application of   Delta Air Lines, Inc.   filed  6/27/02   to:

XX  Renew for two years exemption under 49 U.S.C. §40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property and mail
between a point or points in the United States and Tangier, Morocco, and
to integrate this authority with all other Delta services authorized by
existing certificates and exemptions granted by the Department, to the
extent permitted by international agreements.  Delta intends to use this
authority to operate service under a code-share arrangement with Royal
Air Maroc.

Applicant rep:  Robert E. Cohn<PHONE_NUMBER>  DOT Analyst:  Sylvia L.
Moore<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted, subject to conditions (see below)

The above action was effective when taken:   August 16, 2002,  through
 August 16, 2004

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX   The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Morocco.

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

XX  Holder’s Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity

		XX  Standard Exemption Conditions (attached)

		XX  Statement of Authorization approving Delta/Royal Air Maroc
code-share

	                      operations dated October 11, 2000, and conditions
therein

________________________________________________________________________
______________

Conditions:  The route integration authority granted is subject to the
condition that such operations are consistent with the applicable
bilateral aviation agreements.  Furthermore, (a) nothing in the award of
the route integration authority requested should be construed as
conferring upon Delta additional rights (including fifth-freedom
intermediate and/or beyond rights) to serve markets where U.S. carrier
entry is limited unless Delta first notifies the Department of Delta’s
intent to serve such a market and unless and

(See Reverse Side)

2

until the Department has completed any necessary carrier selection
procedures to determine which carrier(s) should be authorized to
exercise such rights; and (b) should there be a request by any carrier
to use the limited-entry route rights that are included in Delta’s
authority by virtue of the route integration authority granted here, but
that are not then being used by Delta, the holding of such authority by
route integration will not be considered as providing any preference for
Delta’s in a competitive carrier selection proceeding to determine
which carrier(s) should be entitled to use the authority at issue.

________________________________________________________________________
_____________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department’s regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) 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, 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 order is available on the World Wide Web
at

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_ aviation.asp

APPENDIX A

U.S. CARRIER

Standard Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of operations authorized by the attached notice, the
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

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

(6)  Comply with the applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration Regulations, including all FAA requirements concerning
security; and

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

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 163 (Monday, August 24, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51173-51174]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20825]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Parts 8 and 197

[Docket No. USCG-1998-3786]
RIN 1625-AA21

Commercial Diving Operations--Reopening of Comment Period

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is reopening for 60 days the comment period
for the notice of proposed rulemaking entitled ``Commercial Diving
Operations,'' published on February 19, 2015. Reopening the comment
period will allow time for the public to review and submit comments on
changes to the applicability of this proposed rule, and on the draft
regulatory analysis documentation that was not available in the docket
during the original comment period. This notice of proposed rulemaking
also provides corrected contact information for those persons
interested in the proposed regulatory incorporation of certain material
by reference, and the reopened comment period facilitates public
comment on the proposed incorporation. Finally, although we are making
no changes to the collection of information proposed in the February
notice of proposed rulemaking, during the reopened comment period the
public may continue to submit additional comments on that proposed
collection. Specific instructions for commenting on the proposed
collection are printed in the ADDRESSES section that follows.

DATES: The comment period for the notice of proposed rulemaking
published on February 19, 2015 (80 FR 9152), is reopened. Comments and
related material must be submitted to the docket by October 23, 2015.
Comments sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on
collection of information must reach OMB on or before October 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments using one of the listed methods, and see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more information on public comments.
     Online--http://www.regulations.gov following Web site
instructions.
     Fax--202-493-2251.
     Mail--Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand deliver--mail address, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Collection of information. You must submit comments on the
collection of information discussed in the notice of proposed
rulemaking at 80 FR 9173 both to the Coast Guard's docket and to the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the White House
Office of Management and Budget. OIRA submissions can be made using one
of the listed methods.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(include
the docket number and ``Attention: Desk Officer for Coast Guard, DHS''
in the subject line of the email).
     Fax--202-395-6566.
     Mail--Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
ATTN: Desk Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.
    Viewing material proposed for incorporation by reference. To make
arrangements to view this material, please call or email Mr. Ken Smith
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice
of proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ken Smith, Project Manager,
U.S. Coast Guard, Headquarters, Vessel and Facility Operating Standards
Division, Commandant (CG-OES-2); telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Public Participation and Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments (or related material) on this
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). We will consider all submissions
and may adjust our final action based on your comments. Comments should
be marked with docket number USCG-1998-3786, and should provide a
reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may provide personal
contact information so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your comments, but please note that all comments will be
posted to the online docket without change and any personal information
you include will be searchable online (see the Federal Register Privacy
Act notice regarding our public dockets, 73 FR 3316, Jan. 17, 2008).
    Mailed or hand-delivered comments should be in an unbound 8\1/2\ x
11 inch format suitable for reproduction. The Docket Management
Facility will acknowledge receipt of mailed comments if you enclose a
stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope with your submission.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM and all public comments are
available in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be
viewed by following the instructions on that Web site. You can also
view the docket online at the Docket Management Facility (see the
address under ADDRESSES) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

B. Regulatory History and Information

    On February 19, 2015, we published an NPRM entitled ``Commercial
Diving Operations'' (80 FR 9152) that proposed amendments to our
regulations for commercial diving conducted from deepwater ports or
deepwater port safety zones, or in connection with Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) activities, or from vessels that are required to have a
Coast Guard certificate of inspection. The NPRM would revise and update
current regulations to improve safety and to reflect current industry
best practices. The NPRM would also allow the Coast Guard to approve
independent third-party organizations to assist in ensuring compliance
with commercial diving regulations. All comments on the NPRM, including
comments on the proposed collection of information, were due by May 20,
2015. In the course of reviewing comments on the NPRM, we became aware
of several errors on our part.
    First, on page 9175 of the NPRM, our proposed regulatory text for
46 CFR 197.200 contained two unintended changes in the applicability of
subpart B. We do not intend, despite the proposed language for Sec.
197.200(a)(3), to extend applicability to commercial diving operations
involving any vessel operating on the navigable waters of the United
States. Nor do we intend, despite the proposed language for Sec.
197.200(a)(5), to remove from applicability those U.S. vessels engaged
in an OCS activity as defined in 33 CFR part 140, or connected to a
deepwater port as defined in 33 CFR part 150. In a final rule, in Sec.
197.200, we would remove paragraph (a)(3), remove the words ``foreign
flagged'' from paragraph (a)(5), and renumber paragraphs in accordance
with this change. As we stated in Table 2 on page 9156 of the NPRM, our
intentions for Sec.  197.200 are only to add paragraph (d) concerning

foreign vessels, and to improve the clarity of our existing provisions,
without making any other changes to the substance of the applicability
provisions of subpart B.
    Second, we provided incorrect telephone and email contact
information for those wishing to view material proposed for
incorporation by reference on pages 9158 and 9159 of the NPRM. To make
arrangements to view that material, please contact Mr. Ken Smith (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Third, throughout the NPRM comment period that ended May 20, 2015,
the Preliminary Regulatory Analysis and Interim Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis document for the NPRM was unavailable in the rulemaking
docket. We corrected that omission in June 2015, and that document is
currently available at http://www.regulations.gov as docket number
USCG-1998-3786-0195.
    This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: August 18, 2015.
J.G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2015-20825 Filed 8-21-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 204 (Friday, October 21, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 72801]
[FR Doc No: 2016-25457]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Number: PR17-2-000.
    Applicants: Eagle Ford Midstream, LP.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(2) + (g): Petition for
NGPA Section 311 Rate Approval to be effective 10/11/2016; Filing Type:
1310.
    Filed Date: 10/11/2016.
    Accession Number: 20161011-5302.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/1/16.
    284.123(g) Protests Due: 5 p.m. ET 12/12/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-20-000.
    Applicants: Chesapeake Energy Marketing, L.L.C., Core Appalachia
Midstream, LLC.
    Description: Joint Petition of Chesapeake Energy Marketing, L.L.C.
and Core Appalachia Midstream LLC for Limited Waiver and Request for
Expedited Action.
    Filed Date: 10/11/16.
    Accession Number: 20161011-5327.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/18/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-21-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: AIM In-Service Compliance
Filing CP14-96-000 to be effective 11/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20161012-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/24/16.

    Docket Numbers: RP17-22-000.
    Applicants: Viking Gas Transmission Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Update Non-Conforming
Agreements--November 2016 to be effective 11/1/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20161012-5154.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/24/16.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered,
but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP16-1205-001.
    Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Compliance with RP16-1205-000 Order.
    Filed Date: 10/12/16.
    Accession Number: 20161012-5142.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/24/16.

    Any person desiring to protest in any of the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated October 13, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-25457 Filed 10-20-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 35668]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14512]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-1913-000]

RE McKenzie 3 LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
RE McKenzie 3 LLC application for market-based rate authority, with an
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is June 21, 2012.
    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 Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding 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 email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 1, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-14512 Filed 6-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 10)]
[Notices]
[Page 2475]
[DOCID:fr15ja08-43]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos.: 12540-001, 12544-001, 12545-001, 12548-001, 12549-001]

 Hydrodynamics Inc.; Notices of Intent To File License
Applications; Filing of Pre-Application Documents; and Notice of, and
Soliciting Comments on, the Request To Use the Traditional Licensing
Process and To Waive Certain Pre-Filing Consultation Requirements

December 18, 2007.
    a. Type of Filing: Notices of Intent To File License Applications,
Pre-Application Documents, Request To Use the Traditional Licensing
Process, and Request To Waive Certain Pre-Filing Consultation
Requirements.
    b. Project Nos.: 12540, 12544, 12545, 12548, 12549.
    c. Dated Filed: November 27, 2007.
    d. Submitted By: Hydrodynamics Inc.
    e. Names of Projects: Woods, Knights, Johnson, Greenfield, A-Drop.
    f. Location: On the Greenfields Main and South Irrigation Canals,
in Cascade and Teton Counties, Montana. The projects would occupy in
part lands of the United States administered by the Bureau of
Reclamation.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Jason Cohn, Hydrodynamics, 521 East
Peach, Suite 2B, Bozeman, MT 59715;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    i. FERC Contact: Dianne Rodman at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Hydrodynamics filed its request to use the Traditional Licensing
Process (TLP) on November 27, 2007. The filing also included a request
for waiver of certain of the pre-filing consultation requirements in
Sec.  4.38 of the Commission's regulations, specifically: (1) The
requirement that the potential applicant hold a joint meeting with all
pertinent agencies, Indian tribes, and members of the public no earlier
than 30 days from the date of the Commission's approval of the request
to use the TLP, Sec.  4.38(b)(3)(ii)(A); (2) the requirement that the
potential applicant conduct any studies requested during the 60-day
comment period after the joint meeting, Sec.  4.38(b)(5) and Sec.
4.38(c)(1); and (3) the requirement that the potential applicant allow
resource agencies and Indian tribes 90 days in which to review and
comment on the draft license applications, Sec.  4.38(c)(5).
Hydrodynamics provided public notice of its request to use the TLP on
November 20, 2007.
    k. On December 11, 2007, Hydrodynamics clarified that it is
requesting that (1) the meeting it held on December 3, 2007, constitute
the joint meeting required by Sec.  4.38(b)(3)(i)(A)(1); (2) the pre-
application documents (PADs) serve as the draft license applications;
and (3) comments on the draft license applications be due within 60
days of the joint meeting (by February 3, 2008).
    l. Comments on the request to use the TLP and to waive parts of the
Commission's regulations for pre-filing consultation are due to the
Commission and Hydrodynamics within 30 days from the date of this
notice. In accordance with Sec.  5.3(d)(2)(v) of the Commission's
regulations, comments on the request to use the TLP should address, as
appropriate, the following factors: (1) Likelihood of timely license
issuance; (2) complexity of the resource issues; (3) level of
anticipated controversy; (4) relative cost of the TLP compared to the
Integrated Licensing Process; (5) the amount of available information
and potential for significant disputes over studies; and (6) other
factors believed to be pertinent.
    Comments must be filed with the Commission at the following
address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. All filings
with the Commission must include on the first page, the project names
(Woods, Knights, Johnson, Greenfield, and A-Drop Hydroelectric
Projects) and numbers (P-12540, P-12544, P-12545, P-12548, and P-
12549).
    Comments may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18
CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-filing'' link.

    m. With this notice, we are waiving the requirement of 18 CFR
5.8(a) of the Commission's regulations for the Commission to act on
Hydrodynamics' request to use the TLP within 60 days from the notice of
intent.
    n. Hydrodynamics filed PADs for the projects with the Commission,
pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    o. Copies of each of the PADs are available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary''

link. Enter the docket numbers, excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the documents. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Copies are also available for
inspection and reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    p. Register online at http://ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be

notified via e-mail of new filings and issuances related to these or
other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-498 Filed 1-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 48848]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20151]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[FFP Project 43 LLC; Project No. 12931-002]

Notice of Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and
Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On February 1, 2011, FFP Project 43 LLC filed an application,
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study
the feasibility of hydropower on the Mississippi River, in Mississippi
County Arkansas and Tipton County, Tennessee. The sole purpose of a
preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority
to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary
permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-
disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by
others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed Plum Point hydrokinetic project would consist of the
following: (1) Up to 5,900 SmarTurbine generating units installed in
arrays on the bottom of the river; (2) the total capacity of the
installation would be up to 236,000 kilowatts; (3) flexible cables
would convey each arrays power to a metering station; and (4) a
transmission line would interconnect with the power grid. The proposed
project would have an average annual generation of 516,840,000
kilowatt-hours (kWh), which would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Ramya Swaminathan, Free Flow Power Corporation,
239 Causeway Street, Boston, MA 02114; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Michael Spencer,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site 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>call toll-free at (866) 208-
3676; or, for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-
filed. To paper-file, mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-12931-002) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: August 3, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-20151 Filed 8-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 61 (Friday, March 29, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12018-12019]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06097]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0079]

Hours of Service of Drivers: PJ Helicopters, Inc.; Application
for Exemption

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

ACTION: Notice of application for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it has received an application from PJ
Helicopters, Inc. (PJH) requesting an exemption from two provisions of
the hours-of-service (HOS) regulations for its ground support equipment
operators. PJH requested relief from the 14-hour rule and the
requirement that drivers have 10 consecutive hours off-duty at the end
of the work shift. The exemption would allow PJH's ground support
equipment operators a 16-hour window within which to complete all
driving, and enable these operators to use an 8-consecutive hour off
duty break, combined with at least two other off duty hours during the
16-hour window within which driving would be completed, in lieu of
taking 10 consecutive hours off duty. If granted, the exemption would
cover PJH's CMV operators only when they are responding to or returning
from an active incident as requested by an officer of a public agency
or public utility. PJH believes that granting these exemptions will
have no adverse safety impacts while its ground support equipment
operators are responding to said incidents. FMCSA requests public
comment on PJH's application for exemptions.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 29, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Number FMCSA-2019-0079 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. See the
Public Participation and Request for Comments section below for further
information.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Each submission must include the Agency name and the docket number
for this notice. Note that DOT posts all comments received without
change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
included in a comment. Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The on-line FDMS is available 24 hours each
day, 365 days each year.
    Privacy Act: 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 www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
notice, please contact Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and Carrier
Operations Division; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email: [email protected].
If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    FMCSA encourages you to participate by submitting comments and
related materials.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (FMCSA-2019-0079), indicate the specific section of this
document to which the comment applies, and provide a reason for
suggestions or recommendations. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so the Agency can contact you if it has questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov and put
the docket number, ``FMCSA-2019-0079'' in the ``Keyword'' box, and
click ``Search.'' When the new screen appears, click on ``Comment
Now!'' button and type your comment into the text box in the following
screen. Choose whether you are submitting your comment as an individual
or on behalf of a third party and then submit. If you submit your
comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no
larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic
filing. If you submit comments by mail and would like to know that they
reached the facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard
or envelope. FMCSA will consider all comments and material received
during the comment period and may grant or not grant this application
based on your comments.

II. Legal Basis

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period (up to 5
years) and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Request for Exemption

    The exemption application from PJ Helicopters, Inc. (PJH) states
that the company has been serving the utility helicopter industry as an
emergency response company for over 45 years. Most of its customers are
firefighting

agencies, law enforcement agencies, and public utilities. PJH's
customers require timely responses and long hours when dealing with
emergency-related incidents. PJH's helicopters must be fueled and
serviced in a timely fashion by PJH's ground support crews. PJH is
requesting an exemption from 49 CFR 395.3(a)(1) and 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2),
for all of its ground support equipment operators.
    The requested exemption would apply to approximately 32 ground
support equipment operators who all possess commercial driver's
licenses with applicable endorsements, including the operation of tank
vehicle combinations. A ground support equipment operator is an
individual specially trained to work around helicopters performing
refueling, rigging, reloading and maintenance duties. PJH states in its
application that if its ground crew cannot legally support the
helicopter for the duration of the requirements, the firefighters, law
enforcement and linemen will not have air support and resources at
remote locations. This in turn, results in communities being under
greater threat from fires, lawless individuals and destabilized
electrical grids.
    The first exemption, if granted, would allow PJH's ground support
equipment operators to drive up until the end of the 16th hour after
coming on duty instead of 14 hours. PJH states that is an emergency
response company contracted to agencies focused on public safety, and
that there currently are no exemption provisions in the Part 395 HOS
regulations for private companies that assist in emergency efforts.
PJH's Federal and State government contracts specify that ground
support equipment operators must be available for a maximum of 14
hours. On a typical day, at 6:00 a.m., the commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) is dispatched 100 miles away to a remote landing area. Upon
arrival, the unit stays at the dispatched location to support efforts
in extinguishing a fire until 8:30 p.m. The unit is then released by
the agency to travel to the nearest lodging 1.5 hours away. This would
result in the driver arriving at 10:00 p.m., and at this point, the
driver is in violation of the ``14-hour rule'' in 49 CFR 395.3(a)(2).
In summary, at the end of the day, when the helicopter is finished
flying, a mechanic is required to inspect and repair the aircraft as
needed. With a long flight day and these added duties, a PJH mechanic
is most certainly going to exceed the ``14-hour rule'' when finished
with maintenance duties and travelling between the helicopter and the
place of lodging. Without the requested 16-hour exemption, PJH's ground
crew must be released earlier in the day to get back to the place of
lodging before reaching the ``14-hour rule'' limit, which decreases the
availability of the aircraft by a minimum of 14 total hours each week.
    PJH's second exemption request is intended to work in conjunction
with the first request and would enable its ground support equipment
operators to have only 8, instead of 10, consecutive hours off duty
before coming on duty again. Relating to the scenario detailed above,
in complying with the current ``14-hour rule,'' PJH's employees also
cannot go on duty to drive until 8:00 a.m. the next morning, at the
earliest, after a required 10 consecutive hour rest break. As is
typical with these operations, if the helicopter was dispatched at 6:00
a.m. to another fire, which resulted in a 3-hour drive time, the PJH
driver would not arrive until 11:30 a.m. at the earliest. Depending on
the helicopter model's fuel capacity and burn rate, the average
helicopter can only fly for 2 hours. Due to the driver's duty
limitations, the helicopter would be unable to support emergency
incidents for at least 3.5 hours until the fuel truck arrives to
refuel. If the driver in this example--a not uncommon one--was able to
utilize the proposed exemption request of 8 consecutive hours off duty
instead of 10, the helicopter would have been available to fight fires
for an additional 2 hours the second day, and the PJH driver would not
be in violation of the Federal HOS regulations. As a part of this
exemption request, PJH's ``ground crew members'' would be required to
have had 8 uninterrupted hours off duty [instead of 10] before driving
again, provided they have had at least 2 hours off duty during that 16-
hour period PJH they also requested, and are responding to or returning
from an active incident as requested by an officer of a public agency
or public utility.
    PJH states that the ground crew members' schedules are
characterized by daytime hours, low-stress periods of waiting during
the workday, and very limited hours of actual driving on public roads.
Ground crew members are relieved of any work--and are off duty--for
long periods throughout a typical workday, so, relative to the service
provided, allowing 2 more hours of duty time when coming on duty
responding to and returning from emergency incidents would, if
anything, increase the overall safety of the public.
    PJH believes that its application includes simple, alternative HOS
options; among them not driving after the 16th hour after coming on
duty and allowing only 8 hours consecutively off duty before coming on
duty again. In addition, the driver must have at least 2 hours off duty
during that 16-hour period and be responding to or returning from an
active incident as requested by an officer of a public agency or public
utility. PJH's drivers would need to use this exemption, on average,
once every two weeks during the months of April through October.
    PJH would still be required to use electronic logging devices to
help track duty hours, and most of the time they would be subject to
Part 395 HOS rules. PJH has proposed conditional rules that are
designed to keep the drivers using this exemption from driving
fatigued. PJH states that when using this proposed exemption, its
drivers would achieve a level safety that meets or exceeds the current
regulations. A copy of PJH's application for exemptions is available
for review in the docket for this notice.

    Issued on: March 22, 2019.
 Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-06097 Filed 3-28-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P