[Federal Register: March 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 49)]
[Notices]
[Page 13274-13276]
[DOCID:fr12mr08-131]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[FMCSA Docket No. FMCSA-2007-0070]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt sixty-six individuals
from its rule prohibiting persons with insulin-treated diabetes
mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions are effective March 12, 2008. The exemptions
expire on March 12, 2010.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at: http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of DOT's dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, or other
entity). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register (65 FR 19477, Apr. 11, 2000). This statement is also
available at http://Docketinfo.dot.gov.

Background

    On February 1, 2008, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of Federal
diabetes exemption applications from sixty-six individuals, and
requested comments from the public (73 FR 6249). The public comment
period closed on March 3, 2008 and one comment was received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of the sixty-six applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level
that would be achieved by complying with the current regulation 49 CFR
391.41(b)(3).

Diabetes Mellitus and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The Agency established the current standard for diabetes in 1970
because several risk studies indicated that diabetic drivers had a
higher rate of crash involvement than the general population. The
diabetes rule provides that ``A person is physically qualified to drive
a commercial motor vehicle if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control'' (49 CFR 391.41(b)(3)).
    FMCSA established its diabetes exemption program, based on the
Agency's July 2000 study entitled ``A Report to Congress on the
Feasibility of a Program to Qualify Individuals with Insulin-Treated
Diabetes Mellitus to Operate in Interstate Commerce as Directed by the
Transportation Act for the 21st Century.'' The report concluded that a
safe and practicable protocol to allow some drivers with ITDM to
operate CMVs is feasible. The 2003 notice in conjunction with the
November 8, 2005 (70 FR 67777) Federal Register Notice provides the
current protocol for allowing such drivers to operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
    These sixty-six applicants have had ITDM over a range of 1 to 26
years. These applicants report no hypoglycemic reaction that resulted
in loss of consciousness or seizure, that required the assistance of
another person, or resulted in impaired cognitive function without
warning symptoms in the past 5 years (with one year of stability
following any such episode). In each case, an endocrinologist has
verified that the driver has demonstrated willingness to properly
monitor and manage their diabetes, received education related to
diabetes management, and is on a stable

insulin regimen. These drivers report no other disqualifying
conditions, including diabetes-related complications. Each meets the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
    The qualifications and medical condition of each applicant were
stated and discussed in detail in the February 1, 2008, Federal
Register Notice (73 FR 6249). Therefore, they will not be repeated in
this notice.

Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. The exemption allows the applicants
to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered medical reports about the applicants' ITDM and vision, and
reviewed the treating endocrinologist's medical opinion related to the
ability of the driver to safely operate a CMV while using insulin.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the
diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) is likely to achieve a level
of safety equal to that existing without the exemption.

Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption will be provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and they include the following:
(1) That each individual submit a quarterly monitoring checklist
completed by the treating endocrinologist as well as an annual
checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) that each
individual reports within 2 business days of occurrence, all episodes
of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to
manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other
adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not they are
related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) that each individual provide
a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report to the medical
examiner at the time of the annual medical examination; and (4) that
each individual provide a copy of the annual medical certification to
the employer for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep
a copy in his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-
employed. The driver must also have a copy of the certification when
driving, for presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local
enforcement official.

Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received one comment in this proceeding. The comment was from
an anonymous individual, who stated that he felt it was discriminatory
for truck drivers on insulin to have to go through a lengthy process to
keep their jobs.
    With regard to the length of time required to obtain a Federal
exemption, FMCSA is required to publish in the Federal Register the
name of each eligible individual who applies for a diabetes exemption,
and request public comment on the application.
    The Agency must then review all the comments received and determine
whether granting the exemption would achieve a level of safety
equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety provided by
compliance with the current diabetes standard. Depending on the
complexity of the health issues discussed in the application, a final
decision may take up to 180 days from the date we receive the completed
application (49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315). We recognize this potential
6-month waiting period may seem burdensome. However, we must carefully
evaluate each applicant's request to assess his or her potential safety
performance. FMCSA notifies all applicants in writing once a final
decision is made. It is not the intention of FMCSA to impose hardship
on commercial drivers. CMV drivers are held to a strict physical
standard because of the extensive skill required to operate large
trucks and buses and the potential harm these vehicles can cause to
other motorists. Our safety regulations have a single goal--to reduce
the number of CMV crashes and fatalities on the Nation's highways.
    FMCSA's exemption process supports drivers with ITDM who seek to
operate in interstate commerce. In addition, the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) are not contrary to the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. The mandates of the ADA do not require
that FMCSA alter the driver qualification requirements contained in 49
CFR Part 391. The Senate report on the ADA, submitted by its Committee
on Labor and Human Resources, included the following explanation:

    With respect to covered entities subject to rules promulgated by
the Department of Transportation regarding physical qualifications
for drivers of certain classifications of motor vehicles, it is the
Committee's intent that a person with a disability applying for or
currently holding a job subject to these standards must be able to
satisfy these physical qualification standards in order to be
considered a qualified individual with a disability under Title I of
this legislation. S. Rep. 101-116, at 27 (1989).

    FMSCA relies on the expert medical opinion of the endocrinologist
and the medical examiner, who are required to analyze individual
ability to control and manage the diabetic condition, including the
individual ability and willingness of the driver to monitor blood
glucose level on an ongoing basis. Until the Agency issues a Final
Rule, however, insulin-treated diabetic drivers must continue to apply
for exemptions from FMCSA, and request renewals of such exemptions.
FMCSA will grant exemptions only to those applicants who meet the
specific conditions and comply with all the requirements of the
exemption.

Conclusion

    After considering the comments to the docket, and based upon its
evaluation of the forty-eight exemption applications, FMCSA exempts,
William E. Amidon, Jack H. Badger, Jr., Richard L. Burwell, Scott A.
Campbell, David Clemente, Sr., Mark D. Cleveland, Timothy M. Collier,
Danny R. Combs, Robert S. Crawford, Anthony S. Cruise, James D. Daly,
James Davis, William M. Dement, Lizzie L. Dixon, Nathan J. Donley,
Billy R. Echols, Gregory A. Fisher, Linda G. Flock, Kurt D. Genat,
Kerri J. Gibson, Carlos F. Gonzales, Larry D. Goughnour, Ronald G.
Gross, James O. Hamilton, Chester C. Holland, Justin J. Hughes, Phillip
R. Hutchinson, Bradley J. Ingemann, Robert M. Jasuta, William B. Jenks,
Jr., Timothy L. Johnson, Daniel R. Jones, Glenn R. Kerns, Kenneth M.
Kostelny, Douglas O. Krosch, John Lewis, Jr., Robert E. Martin, Henry
M. McCurdy, Thomas J. Montgomery, Robert L. Morden, Jerry L. Morris,
Michael D. Mumma, Harold R. Newton, Clayton W. Noe, Derek J. Page,
Garrett A. Phillips, Gary P. Pitts, Bruce P. Quaintance, Randy L.
Quattlebaum, Curtis L. Reed, Jr., Everette W. Roberts, Mark C. Smith,
Ryan B. Smith, Billy J. Stamper, Ralph J. Sternhagen, Robert E.
Tauriainen, David B. Tomlin, Brian T. Tow, Larry N. Trimble, Frederick
J. Van Aken, III., Roger K. VanDenbark, Kenneth D. Wallace, Kelly A.
Walling, Gary J. Weiss, and Danny L. Wood, from the ITDM standard in 49
CFR 391.41(b)(3), subject to the conditions listed under ``Conditions
and Requirements'' above.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 each exemption will
be valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption
will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with

the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315. If the
exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year period, the
person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in effect at
that time.

    Issued on: March 6, 2008.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Program Development.
[FR Doc. E8-4950 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27721-27724]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12732]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0511; Product Identifier 2017-NM-145-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model 4101 airplanes. This proposed AD
was prompted by a determination that

inspection requirements for a number of maintenance tasks are
incorrect. This proposed AD would require a one-time detailed
inspection of a certain fuselage frame and repair, if necessary, and a
revision of the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate new or revised maintenance instructions and airworthiness
limitations. We are proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by July 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact BAE
Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department,
Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United
Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email
[email protected]; internet http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/index.htm. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th
St., Des Moines, WA. 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-2018-
0511; 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 NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations
office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Thompson, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0511;
Product Identifier 2017-NM-145-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM based on
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD
2017-0187, dated September 22, 2017 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Model 4101 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Maintenance instructions for BAE Jetstream 4100 aeroplanes,
which are approved by EASA, are defined in BAE Systems (Operations)
Ltd Jetstream 4100 Service Bulletin (SB) J41-51-001, which
references certain Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) tasks. These
instructions have been identified as mandatory for continued
airworthiness.
    Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an
unsafe condition.
    CAA UK [Civil Aviation Authority United Kingdom] issued AD 005-
02-2002 [which corresponds to FAA AD 2005-15-11, Amendment 39-14200
(70 FR 43025, July 26, 2005) (``AD 2005-15-11'')] to require
operators to comply with the inspection instructions as referenced
in SB J41-51-001 at original issue.
    Since that [CAA UK] AD was issued, BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd
have determined that the inspection requirements for a number of
maintenance tasks are incorrect. Consequently, existing inspection
items 52-20-013, 53-10-006, 53-10-025, 53-10-029 and 53-10-079 will
be amended in Chapter 05 of the AMM. Compliance periods for these
changes are given in BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd SB J41-51-001 (now
at Revision 4) and BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd Alert SB J41-A53-
058. Those fatigue inspections detailed in SB J41-51-001, at
Revision 3 or earlier, have now been incorporated into Chapter 05 of
the AMM. To avoid duplication these tasks are deleted from SB J41-
51-001 at Revision 4.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD retains the
requirements of CAA UK AD 005-02-2002, which is superseded, and
requires accomplishment of the actions specified in BAE Systems
(Operations) Ltd Jetstream 4100 SB J41-51-001 Revision 4 and Alert
SB J41-A53-058 (hereafter collectively referred to as `the SB' in
this [EASA] AD).

    The actions include a one-time detailed inspection of fuselage
frame 90 for cracking or fatigue damage and repair if necessary; and
revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate new or revised maintenance instructions and airworthiness
limitations. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that it
is possible for cracks in fuselage frame 90 to exceed the critical
length for failure in less time than the current inspection interval;
and a determination that inspection requirements for a number of
maintenance tasks involving certain airworthiness limitations are
incorrect. The unsafe condition is cracking in fuselage frame 90, which
could cause it to fail and thereby compromise the structural integrity
of the aircraft pressure hull; and fatigue damage of various airplane
structures, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0511.

Relationship Between Proposed AD and AD 2005-15-11

    This NPRM would not supersede AD 2005-15-11. Rather, we have
determined that a stand-alone AD would be more appropriate to address
the changes in the MCAI. This NPRM would require a one-time detailed
inspection of fuselage frame 90 for cracking or fatigue damage and
revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate new or revised maintenance instructions and airworthiness
limitations. Accomplishment of the proposed actions would then
terminate all of the requirements of AD 2005-15-11.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    BAE Systems (Operations) Limited has issued the following service
information.
     Service Bulletin J41-51-001, Revision 4, dated July 11,
2017. This service information describes new

inspections and revisions to existing inspection requirements and
thresholds.
     Alert Service Bulletin J41-A53-058, dated December 6,
2016. This service information describes procedures for a detailed
inspection for cracking or fatigue damage of fuselage frame 90.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.
    This AD requires revisions to certain operator maintenance
documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections). Compliance with
these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes that have
been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the areas addressed
by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able to accomplish the
actions described in the revisions. In this situation, to comply with
14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request approval for an alternative
method of compliance according to paragraph (l)(1) of this proposed AD.
The request should include a description of changes to the required
actions that will ensure the continued damage tolerance of the affected
structure.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    The MCAI specifies that if there are findings from the
airworthiness limitations section (ALS) inspection tasks, corrective
actions must be accomplished in accordance with Airbus maintenance
documentation. However, this proposed AD does not include that
requirement. Operators of U.S.-registered airplanes are required by
general airworthiness and operational regulations to perform
maintenance using methods that are acceptable to the FAA. We consider
those methods to be adequate to address any corrective actions
necessitated by the findings of ALS inspections required by this
proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.........................  2 work-hours x $85 per hour              $0            $170            $680
                                      = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have determined that revising the maintenance or inspection
program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although we
recognize that this number may vary from operator to operator. In the
past, we have estimated that this action takes 1 work-hour per
airplane. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program
changes for their affected fleet(s), we have determined that a per-
operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.
Therefore, we estimate the total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90
work-hours x $85 per work-hour).
    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

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.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes to the Director of the System Oversight
Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

BAE Systems (Operations) Limited: Docket No. FAA-2018-0511; Product
Identifier 2017-NM-145-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by July 30, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2005-15-11, Amendment 39-14200 (70 FR 43025,
July 26, 2005) (``AD 2005-15-11'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Model
4101 airplanes, certificated in any category, all manufacturer
serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that it is possible for
cracks in fuselage frame 90 to exceed the critical length for
failure in less time than the current inspection interval; and a
determination that inspection requirements for a number of
maintenance tasks involving certain airworthiness limitations are
incorrect. We are issuing this AD to address cracking in fuselage
frame 90, which could cause it to fail and thereby compromise the
structural integrity of the aircraft pressure hull. We are also
issuing this AD to address fatigue damage of various airplane
structures, which could result in reduced structural integrity of
the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection

    At the compliance times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2) of this AD, as applicable: Do a detailed inspection of
fuselage frame 90 for cracking or fatigue damage, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Alert Service Bulletin J41-A53-058, dated December 6, 2016. If any
cracking or fatigue damage is found: Before further flight, repair
using a method approved by the Manager, International Section,
Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA); or BAE Systems (Operations) Limited's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA).
    (1) For airplanes with 6,300 flight cycles or fewer since
Structural Significant Items (SSI) 53-10-029 (Maintenance Planning
Document (MPD) 531029-DVl-10010-1) was last accomplished: Within
6,600 flight cycles after the last accomplishment of SSI 53-10-029
(MPD 531029-DVl-10010-1), or within 6 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever is later.
    (2) For airplanes with more than 6,300 flight cycles since SSI
53-10-029 (MPD 531029-DVl-10010-1) was last accomplished: Within 300
flight cycles or 4.5 months, whichever is earlier, since the last
accomplishment of SSI 53-10-029 (MPD 531029-DVl-10010-1), or within
6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is later.

(h) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revisions

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating
the maintenance tasks and associated thresholds and intervals
described in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment
Instructions of BAE Systems (Operations) Limited Service Bulletin
J41-51-001, Revision 4, dated July 11, 2017, as applicable. The
initial compliance times for new or revised tasks are at the
applicable times specified in BAE Systems (Operations) Limited
Service Bulletin J41-51-001, Revision 4, dated July 11, 2017, or
within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever is
later.

(i) No Alternative Actions and Intervals

    After the maintenance or inspection program has been revised as
required by paragraph (h) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g.,
inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or
intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC)
in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (l)(1) of
this AD.

(j) Terminating Action for Requirements of AD 2005-15-11

    Accomplishment of the actions required by paragraph (h) of this
AD terminates all requirements of AD 2005-15-11.

(k) No Reporting Requirement

    Although the Accomplishment Instructions of BAE Systems
(Operations) Limited Alert Service Bulletin J41-A53-058, dated
December 6, 2016, specify to submit certain information to the
manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, 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 International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (m)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected]. 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.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or BAE Systems (Operations) Limited's EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(m) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA AD 2017-0187, dated September 22, 2017, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2018-0511.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Todd Thompson,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact BAE
Systems (Operations) Limited, Customer Information Department,
Prestwick International Airport, Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland, United
Kingdom; telephone +44 1292 675207; fax +44 1292 675704; email
[email protected]; internet http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/RegionalAircraft/index.htm. You may view this service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th
St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on June 6, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-12732 Filed 6-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 90 (Thursday, May 11, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22055-22056]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09512]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard; American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc.'s (Honda) petition for exemption of the Acura MDX vehicle line in
accordance with 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard. This petition is granted because the agency has
determined that the antitheft device to be placed on the line as
standard equipment is likely to be as effective in reducing and
deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking
requirements of the 49 CFR part 541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard (Theft Prevention Standard).

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2018 model year (MY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West
Building, W43-443, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Ms. Mazyck's phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is (202)
493-2990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated November 22, 2016, Honda
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard for the Acura MDX vehicle line beginning with MY
2018. The petition requested an exemption from parts-marking pursuant
to 49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard,
based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard equipment
for the entire vehicle line.
    Under 49 CFR part 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to
grant an exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its
petition, Honda provided a detailed description and diagram of the
identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft
device for the Acura MDX vehicle line. Honda stated that its vehicle
line will offer a front-wheel drive and an all-wheel drive variation.
Honda further stated that its MY 2018 Acura MDX vehicle line will be
installed with a transponder-based, engine immobilizer antitheft device
as standard equipment. Honda also stated that the MDX vehicle line will
be equipped with a ``smart entry with push button start'' ignition
system (``smart entry'') and an audible and visible vehicle security
system as standard equipment on the entire line. Key components of the
antitheft device will include a passive immobilizer, ``smart entry''
remote, powertrain control module (PCM) and an Immobilizer Entry System
(IMOES).
    Honda's submission is considered a complete petition as required by
49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in
Sec.  543.5 and the specific content requirements of Sec.  543.6.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of Sec.  543.6,
Honda provided information on the reliability and durability of its
proposed device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device,
Honda conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Honda
provided a detailed list of the tests it used to validate the
integrity, durability and reliability of the device and believes that
it follows a rigorous development process to ensure that its antitheft
device will be reliable and robust for the life of the vehicle. Honda
stated that its device does not require the presence of a ``smart
entry'' remote battery to function nor does it have any moving parts
(i.e., the PCM, IMOES, ignition key, ``smart entry'' remote and the
electrical components are found within its own housing units), which it
believes reduces the chance for deterioration and wear from normal use.
    Honda stated that its immobilizer device is always active without
requiring any action from the vehicle operator, until the vehicle is
started using a matching ``smart entry'' remote. Deactivation occurs
when a ``smart entry'' remote with matching codes is placed within
operating range and the vehicle is started by pushing the engine start/
stop button. Specifically, Honda stated that the immobilizer device
automatically checks for the immobilizer code when the ``smart entry''
remote is within operating range (inside the vehicle, close to the
doors or window or in close proximity outside the vehicle's exterior)
and the vehicle is started by pushing the engine start/stop button
located to the right of the steering wheel on the vehicle dashboard.
The matching code is validated by the IMOES, allowing the engine to
start. Honda further states that if a ``smart entry'' remote without a
matching code is placed inside the operating range and the engine
start/stop button is pushed, the PCM will prevent fueling and starting
of the engine. Additionally, the ignition immobilizer telltale
indicator will begin flashing on the meter panel.
    Honda stated that it will install an audible and visible vehicle
security system as standard equipment on all its MDX vehicles to
monitor any attempts of unauthorized entry and to attract attention to
an unauthorized person attempting to enter its vehicles without the use
of a ``smart entry'' remote or its built-in mechanical door key.
Specifically, Honda stated that whenever an attempt is made to open one
of its vehicle doors, hood or trunk without using the ``smart entry''
remote or turning a key in the key cylinder to disarm the vehicle, the
vehicle's horn will sound and its lights will flash. The vehicle
security system is activated when all of the doors are locked and the
hood and trunk are closed and locked. Honda's vehicle security system
is deactivated by using the key fob buttons to unlock the vehicle doors
or having the ``smart entry'' remote within operating range when the
operator grabs either of the vehicle's front door handles.
    Honda believes that additional levels of reliability, durability
and security will be accomplished because its ``smart entry'' remote
will utilize rolling codes for the lock and unlock functions of its
vehicles. Honda stated that it will also equip its vehicle line with a
hood release located inside the vehicle, counterfeit resistant vehicle
identification number (VIN) plates and secondary VINs as standard
equipment.
    In support of its belief that its antitheft device will be as or
more effective in reducing and deterring vehicle theft than the parts-
marking requirement, Honda referenced data showing several instances of
the effectiveness of its proposed immobilizer device. Honda first
installed an immobilizer device as standard equipment on its MY 2001
Acura MDX vehicles and referenced NHTSA's theft rate data for MYs 2003-
2012 showing a consistent rate of thefts well below the median of
3.5826 since the installation of its immobilizer device. NHTSA notes
that the theft rates for MYs 2013 and 2014 MDX vehicle line are 0.5936
and 0.3209 respectively.

Using an average of three MYs' theft data (2012-2014), the theft rate
for the MDX vehicle line is well below the median at 0.4630.
Additionally, Honda referenced the Highway Loss Data Institute's 2001-
2014 Insurance Theft Report showing an overall reduction in theft rates
for the Honda MDX vehicles after introduction of its immobilizer device
on the line.
    Additionally, Honda stated that the immobilizer device proposed for
the 2018 MDX is similar to the design offered on its Honda Civic, Honda
Accord, Honda CR-V and Honda Pilot vehicles. The agency granted the
petitions for the Honda Civic vehicle line in full beginning with MY
2014 (see 61 FR 19363, March 29, 2013), the Honda Accord vehicle line
beginning with MY 2015 (see 79 FR 18409, April 1, 2014), the Honda CR-V
vehicle line beginning with MY 2016 (see 80 FR 3733, January 23, 2015)
and the Honda Pilot beginning with MY 2017 (see 81 FR 12197, March 8,
2016). The agency notes that the average theft rate for the Honda
Civic, Accord, CR-V and Pilot vehicle lines using three MYs' data (MYs
2012 through 2014) are 0.6611, 0.7139, 0.3203 and 0.9134 respectively.
    Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Honda on its device,
the agency believes that the antitheft device for the Acura MDX vehicle
line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor
vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the
Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR 541). The agency concludes that the
device will provide the five types of performance listed in Sec.
543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation; attract attention to the efforts of
an unauthorized person to enter or move a vehicle by means other than a
key; preventing defeat or circumvention of the device by unauthorized
persons; preventing operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants;
and ensuring the reliability and durability of the device.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7(b), the agency grants
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of part
541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of part 541. The agency
finds that Honda has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device for the Acura MDX vehicle line is likely to be as
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance
with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
This conclusion is based on the information Honda provided about its
device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Honda's
petition for exemption for the Acura MDX vehicle line from the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541, beginning with the 2018 model
year vehicles. The agency notes that 49 CFR part 541, Appendix A-1,
identifies those lines that are exempted from the Theft Prevention
Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR part 543.7(f) contains
publication requirements incident to the disposition of all part 543
petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of future product
nameplates, the beginning model year for which the petition is granted
and a general description of the antitheft device is necessary in order
to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle lines exempted from
the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard.
    If Honda decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR parts 541.5
and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Honda wishes in the future to modify the device
on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a
petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a part 543
exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under
this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's
exemption is based. Further, part 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of
an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in
that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend in drafting part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which
might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency
before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.95.

Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2017-09512 Filed 5-10-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


Comparing Two Models for Beryllium Benefits

The purpose of this paper is to compare the results of the quartile model OSHA used in its benefits analysis in the preliminary economic impact analysis to the results of the logistic regression analysis presented in Table 14 of the preliminary risk analysis.
To achieve this comparison, OSHA separately determines the prevalence of CBD cases under the quartile model and the logistic model, then converts the prevalence rate into an exposure-response incidence rate, as described in more detail in Chapter VII (Benefits), and then applies that incidence rate in the lifetime risk model used to calculate benefits.
By comparing the different outcomes of the lifetime risk model based on the different incident rate inputs produced by the quartile and logistical models, OSHA provides a further check on the reasonableness of its preferred quartile model.  The summary conclusion for this examination of the logistic model is that even taking into account the uncertainty represented by the 95% confidence interval on the slope coefficient  of the cumulative exposure variable does not change the qualitative result that economic benefits vastly outweigh the costs of the proposed standard.

Background
All of the models OSHA will examine used the data set from the beryllium machining plant in Cullman, Alabama, to create empirical estimates of beryllium sensitization and CBD prevalence for its exposure response model, which translates beryllium exposure to risk of adverse health endpoints for the purpose of determining the benefits that could be achieved by preventing those adverse health endpoints.  This data set had the advantage of highly accurate historical exposure assessment available for a wide range of cumulative exposures, average exposures, and years of exposure, allowing for greater accuracy in calculating the risk rate for adverse health endpoints, and thus the benefits of preventing them.
The study contains results for 319 employees, all of whom were exposed for 33 years or less, so even one case would represent a risk in excess of one in a thousand over a forty five year life time, which would satisfy OSHA's legal requirement to show that the health risk is "significant."  Even before a specific exposure-response model is estimated, the raw data show cases of CBD with cumulative exposures that would represent an average exposure level of less than 0.1 ug/m[3] per day if exposed for ten years; show cases of CBD with exposures lasting less than one year; and show cases of CBD with actual average daily exposure of less than 0.1 ug/m[3].  Thus, OSHA has strong reasons to conclude that significant risks would result from exposures at the current and proposed PELs, and benefits could be achieved by reducing employee's exposures from their current levels, without any extrapolation to lower exposure levels than found in the raw data.  Nevertheless, OSHA is aware that the extrapolations may be less reliable, particularly at very low and high exposure levels, because of certain characteristics of the exposure found in the data set.  There are levels below which no cases of CBD were found.  The lowest cumulative exposure that results in cases of CBD is 0.118 ug/m[3]exposure years, equivalent to an average exposure of 0.01 ug/m[3] per day over ten years or an average exposure of 0.003 ug/m[3] per day over 45 years.  There are 70 cases in the Cullman database with aggregate exposure less than this.  Conversely the same database contains very few cases of exposure at very high levels such as might be experienced by a worker with 45-year exposure at 1.0 ug/m[3] per day or more.  The highest exposure resulting in CBD in the data base is 61.86 exposure years, equivalent to an average exposure of approximately 2 ug/m[3] per day over thirty years or 1.37 ug/m[3]over 45 years.
All of the models examined used the version with cumulative exposure as the independent variable.
As explained in the revised Chapter VII, the estimation of the quantitative effects on morbidity and mortality proceed in two stages.  The first stage estimates the numbers of diseases and deaths prevented by comparing the current (baseline) situation to a world in which the proposed PEL is adopted and followed by everyone throughout their lives.  For this stage, OSHA converts the prevalence estimates to incidence estimates and then uses a standard life table to determine the number of cases of beryllium disease that can be expected with and without the proposed rule. The second stage also assumes that the proposed PEL is adopted, but uses the results from the first stage to estimate what would happen under a more realistic scenario in which employees have been exposed for varying periods of time to the baseline situation and will thereafter be exposed to the new PEL.
In addition, OSHA developed separate estimates of the effects of the ancillary provisions and combined this estimate with the estimates of the benefits of the PEL to develop its estimate of the total benefits of the proposed standard.  In one sector, dental laboratories, OSHA estimated that some employers would substitute away from beryllium alloys.  This effect was placed under airborne- only elements, though this effect is the result of both the PEL and the ancillary provisions.
Quartile Model
The quartile model groups exposure data into broad groups.  Given the broad grouping of the raw data and the estimates needed, this approach is particularly prone to mis-estimating the effects in two ways.  First, the very low levels of cumulative exposure could result in an overestimate because the entire first quartile is lumped together.  Second, the approach potentially underestimates the effects of very high levels of exposure, since the highest exposures for which estimates are needed are higher than any exposure in the data set.
OSHA for its primary estimate used a 45 year working life, and the full life risk model includes estimates of how to convert prevalence to incidence data.  To examine the importance of these aspects of the approach, OSHA, for this paper, also examined a simpler model.  Perhaps the simplest approach to estimating the number of cases of CBD prevented when there is full compliance with the PEL would be to look at the Quartile Model and match up the risk projected by the cumulative exposure prevalence estimates to the exposed population.  After 15 years of cumulative exposure, the entire exposed population is estimated to fall in the top two quartiles of the model, having a prevalence rate of 8% or higher, and cause 2,843 cases of CBD.  If one ignores turnover, this results in an average of 190 cases per year.  Using the estimated incidence rate as 10% of the prevalence based on a 10% turnover rate, as is done elsewhere in OSHA's analysis, would result in 284 CBD cases annually.  These estimates bracket OSHA's baseline estimate of 245 cases per year.  (The effect from reducing airborne exposures to the PEL of 0. 2 ug/m[3] alone, including substitution from Beryllium in dental labs, is estimated to be 594 cases total, or between 40 and 59 cases annually, compared to 57 cases in the main analysis of Chapter VII).
Logistic Regression
A logistic model is often simple to interpret.  Time enters only through any independent variables with a time component.  A standard logistic model gives an estimate of the probability of an outcome, and, applied to a population, estimates a prevalence of being in a state (i.e., having CBD), a stock concept at a point of time.  In order to apply the prevalence model to the lifetime risk model, this prevalence rate must be translated into an incidence rate of the risk of developing CBD at a point in time, a flow concept.  Under steady state conditions, the prevalence rate multiplied by the population turnover rate will equal the incidence rate.  To make this translation, the Agency assumes (both for the quartile model and the logistical model) a 10% turnover rate and hence the estimates of prevalence from the logit model are multiplied by 10% to produce the incidence rates used in the lifetime risk calculation.
The logistic model, as well as providing point estimates of coefficients, also gives us some measures of the uncertainty of these estimates, of course conditional on the model being the correct specification.  From the CBD logistic model presented in table 14 of the background risk assessment document, OSHA used the coefficient on cumulative exposure, 0.03, as its base model, along with the 95% confidence interval around this estimate (the values of 0.001 and 0.07 for a low and high model)  as a useful measure and range of uncertainty.  OSHA used these parameters and range to implement the life time risk model.
First, the comparison of the number of CBD cases that occur (and are prevented at various PEL levels) is presented in Table 1 below.  OSHA presents results on CBD cases, for all 4 models, of cases due to airborne only effects (purely due to changes in the PEL), non-airborne included (adding the effects of ancillary benefits), and then the base midpoint estimate.  The quartile model results here are those presented in the PEA Chapter VII revised benefits analysis.
One thing to keep in mind is that with the complete benefits model there is an offsetting effect from ancillary benefits versus any changes in the slope coefficient on cumulative exposure for the number of cases averted due to a changing PEL, given a constant baseline number of cases. Ancillary programs are assumed to save a certain percentage (45% at the midpoint estimate) of all CBD cases that are not averted by the change in the PEL.  Hence changes in the PEL that leave more CBD cases still occurring post-standard will have a somewhat offsetting increase in cases averted due to ancillary programs.  Comparing the spread in logit model estimates, for airborne only at a PEL option of 0.2, the low estimate is 44% of the mid estimate (1503/3414) while the high estimate is 148% of the mid (5066/3414.)  In contrast, this spread narrows to 74% and 126% in the estimates that include non-airborne effects. The midpoint spread is then between these two.

                                   Table 1
 Prevented Mortality and Morbidity by PEL Option  (45-Year Working Life Case)
                                CBD Total Cases
                                 (All Models)

                             Baseline Total Cases
                             PEL Option (ug/m[3])

                             Baseline Annual Cases
                             PEL Option (ug/m[3])

Total  Number of Avoided Cases

Annual Number of Avoided Cases

                                      0.1
                                      0.2
                                      0.5

                                      0.1
                                      0.2
                                      0.5

Airborne Only Estimates

Quartile Model
                                    11,017
                                     2,763
                                     2,563
                                     2,463

                                      245
                                     61.4
                                     56.9
                                     54.7

Logit-Base
                                     9,873
                                     3,493
                                     3,414
                                     3,259

                                      219
                                     77.6
                                     75.9
                                     72.4
Logit-Low
                                     7,462
                                     1,506
                                     1,503
                                     1,499

                                      166
                                     33.5
                                     33.4
                                     33.3
Logit-High
                                    12,308
                                     5,282
                                     5,066
                                     4,556

                                      274
                                     117.4
                                     112.6
                                     101.3

Non-Airborne Included Estimates

Quartile Model
                                    11,017
                                    10,191
                                    10,171
                                     6,312

                                      245
                                     226.5
                                     226.0
                                     140.3

Logit-Base
                                     9,873
                                     9,235
                                     9,227
                                     6,236

                                      219
                                     205.2
                                     205.1
                                     138.6
Logit-Low
                                     7,462
                                     6,867
                                     6,866
                                     4,183

                                      166
                                     152.6
                                     152.6
                                     92.9
Logit-High
                                    12,308
                                    11,605
                                    11,583
                                     8,044

                                      274
                                     257.9
                                     257.4
                                     178.8

Midpoint Estimates

Quartile Model
                                    11,017
                                     6,477
                                     6,367
                                     4,387

                                      245
                                     143.9
                                     141.5
                                     97.5

Logit-Base
                                     9,873
                                     6,364
                                     6,321
                                     4,747

                                      219
                                     141.4
                                     140.5
                                     105.5
Logit-Low
                                     7,462
                                     4,186
                                     4,185
                                     2,841

                                      166
                                     93.0
                                     93.0
                                     63.1
Logit-High
                                    12,308
                                     8,444
                                     8,325
                                     6,300

                                      274
                                     187.6
                                     185.0
                                     140.0

Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, Directorate of Standards and Guidance

We see at the proposed PEL of 0.2 that the quartile model for the baseline number of cases (the scenario under the current regime with no change in the current PEL) predicts 9,563 cases, while the logit model at its estimated cumulative exposure coefficient is somewhat higher at 11,017 cases.  With the range estimated using the 95% confidence level around this coefficient we get 7,462 and 12,308 cases. To the right are total cases and annual cases averted as the PEL is lowered.  We see even for the low estimate of the logit model that the number of cases averted is 33.4 per year at a proposed PEL of 0.2.
Next in Table 2, OSHA shows how various daily levels of exposure map into cumulative exposure years given various numbers of years of exposure.  Then in Table 3, OSHA presents the estimates of prevalence at different cumulative exposure levels.  At 10 years at the proposed PEL of 0.2, the quartile model has already reached its highest point of 8.8%.  The logit model instead has a continuous function and for the high model at a large number of years reaches very high percentages.  However, as noted above, the values for these high levels in the logistic regression model are extrapolated well beyond the available data.
Table 2.  Cumulative Exposure by Daily Exposure Level and Years of Exposure
Cumulative Exposure
                             Daily Exposure Level

                                                                            0.1
                                                                            0.2
                                                                            0.5
                                                                            1.0
                                                                            2.0
Years of exposure

                                                                             10

                                                                            1.0
                                                                            2.0
                                                                            5.0
                                                                           10.0
                                                                           20.0
                                                                             20

                                                                            2.0
                                                                            4.0
                                                                           10.0
                                                                           20.0
                                                                           40.0
                                                                             30

                                                                            3.0
                                                                            6.0
                                                                           15.0
                                                                           30.0
                                                                           60.0
                                                                             40

                                                                            4.0
                                                                            8.0
                                                                           20.0
                                                                           40.0
                                                                           80.0
                                                                             45

                                                                            4.5
                                                                            9.0
                                                                           22.5
                                                                           45.0
                                                                           90.0

             Table 3.  Prevalence by Model and Years of Exposure

Quartile Model

                                Exposure Level
Years of exposure
                                                                            0.1
                                                                            0.2
                                                                            0.5
                                                                            1.0
                                                                            2.0
                                                                             10

                                                                          2.50%
                                                                          8.00%
                                                                          8.00%
                                                                          8.80%
                                                                          8.80%
                                                                             20

                                                                          8.00%
                                                                          8.00%
                                                                          8.80%
                                                                          8.80%
                                                                          8.80%
                                                                             30

                                                                          8.00%
                                                                          8.00%
                                                                          8.80%
                                                                          8.80%
                                                                          8.80%
                                                                             40

                                                                          8.00%
                                                                          8.80%
                                                                          8.80%
                                                                          8.80%
                                                                          8.80%
                                                                             45

                                                                          8.00%
                                                                          8.80%
                                                                          8.80%
                                                                          8.80%
                                                                          8.80%

Logit Model -Base

                                Exposure Level
Years of exposure
                                                                            0.1
                                                                            0.2
                                                                            0.5
                                                                            1.0
                                                                            2.0
                                                                             10

                                                                          4.70%
                                                                          4.83%
                                                                          5.27%
                                                                          6.07%
                                                                          8.02%
                                                                             20

                                                                          4.83%
                                                                          5.12%
                                                                          6.07%
                                                                          8.02%
                                                                         13.71%
                                                                             30

                                                                          4.97%
                                                                          5.42%
                                                                          6.98%
                                                                         10.53%
                                                                         22.44%
                                                                             40

                                                                          5.12%
                                                                          5.73%
                                                                          8.02%
                                                                         13.71%
                                                                         34.52%
                                                                             45

                                                                          5.19%
                                                                          5.90%
                                                                          8.59%
                                                                         15.58%
                                                                         41.58%

Logit Model - High

                                Exposure Level
Years of exposure
                                                                            0.1
                                                                            0.2
                                                                            0.5
                                                                            1.0
                                                                            2.0
                                                                             10

                                                                          4.88%
                                                                          5.22%
                                                                          6.36%
                                                                          8.79%
                                                                         16.25%
                                                                             20

                                                                          5.22%
                                                                          5.95%
                                                                          8.79%
                                                                         16.25%
                                                                         44.03%
                                                                             30

                                                                          5.57%
                                                                          6.79%
                                                                         12.03%
                                                                         28.09%
                                                                         76.13%
                                                                             40

                                                                          5.95%
                                                                          7.73%
                                                                         16.25%
                                                                         44.03%
                                                                         92.82%
                                                                             45

                                                                          6.15%
                                                                          8.24%
                                                                         18.77%
                                                                         52.75%
                                                                         96.30%

Logit Model - Low

                                Exposure Level
Years of exposure
                                                                            0.1
                                                                            0.2
                                                                            0.5
                                                                            1.0
                                                                            2.0
                                                                             10

                                                                          4.57%
                                                                          4.57%
                                                                          4.59%
                                                                          4.61%
                                                                          4.65%
                                                                             20

                                                                          4.57%
                                                                          4.58%
                                                                          4.61%
                                                                          4.65%
                                                                          4.74%
                                                                             30

                                                                          4.58%
                                                                          4.59%
                                                                          4.63%
                                                                          4.70%
                                                                          4.83%
                                                                             40

                                                                          4.58%
                                                                          4.60%
                                                                          4.65%
                                                                          4.74%
                                                                          4.93%
                                                                             45

                                                                          4.58%
                                                                          4.60%
                                                                          4.66%
                                                                          4.77%
                                                                          4.97%

Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, Directorate of Standards and Guidance

Finally, in Table 4 OSHA presents results on end point annualized monetary benefits, for all models at a 3% discount rate, with the same breakout as in Table 1.  These monetized benefit results include the lung cancer estimates, which were unaffected by this analysis.  At the midpoint estimate the quartile model is $575.8 million while the Logit-Mid model is $571.9 million.  Even at the Logit-Low estimate we have sizeable benefits of $388.5 million.  Again we see the offsetting effect of ancillary programs versus the airborne only cases.  For the 0.2 PEL, Airborne only estimate, the Logit-Low estimate is 50.4% of the base estimate, while the high estimate is 142.9% of the base estimate.  Then for the maximum Non-Airborne Included estimates we see this compression, 75.2% and 124.8%.  Table 3 also includes the base estimate and the values for the high, low, and midpoint for each of those estimates.

                                    Table 4
               Total Annualized Monetized Benefits  ($Millions)
                        (All Models, Discount Rate 3%)
                             PEL Option (ug/m[3])

                                      0.1
                                      0.2
                                      0.5

Airborne Only Estimates

Quartile Model
                                    $170.3
                                    $158.0
                                    $150.7

Logit-Base
                                    $208.8
                                    $202.8
                                    $192.8

Logit-Low
                                    $103.9
                                    $102.1
                                     $99.9

Logit-High
                                    $303.3
                                    $289.9
                                    $261.3

Non-Airborne Included Estimates

Quartile Model
                                   $1,250.0
                                   $1,245.2
                                    $782.8

Logit-Base
                                   $1,136.3
                                   $1,133.0
                                    $773.7

Logit-Low
                                    $854.5
                                    $852.1
                                    $529.8

Logit-High
                                   $1,418.2
                                   $1,413.3
                                    $988.8

Midpoint Estimates

Quartile Model
                                    $587.3
                                    $575.8
                                    $403.1

Logit-Base
                                    $577.6
                                    $571.9
                                    $434.0

Logit-Low
                                    $390.6
                                    $388.5
                                    $270.4

Logit-High
                                    $756.0
                                    $743.8
                                    $567.3

Source: Office of Regulatory Analysis, Directorate of Standards and Guidance

In summary, examination of the alternative logistic regression model changes no essential conclusion of the Agency's analysis.  Both the airborne only estimates and the total estimates for the base estimate for the logistic regression are little different from the preferred quartile model.  Even if one uses the airborne only estimate for the low logistic regression estimate, benefits exceed costs.  There is nothing in the comparison between the quartile and logistic model, including the range of uncertainty in the logistic model that change either OSHA's conclusions about significant risk or the results of the benefit cost analysis.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 158 (Monday, August 17, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49216-49217]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20195]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt
wholesale generator filings:

    Docket Numbers: EG15-112-000.
    Applicants: Silver State Solar Power South, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-certification of Exempt Wholesale
Generator Status of Silver State Solar Power South, LLC.
    Filed Date: 8/11/15.
    Accession Number: 20150811-5097.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG15-113-000.
    Applicants: Recurrent Energy, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of EG of RE Garland, LLC.
    Filed Date: 8/11/15.
    Accession Number: 20150811-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: EG15-114-000.
    Applicants: Recurrent Energy, LLC.
    Description: Self-Certification of EG of RE Garland A, LLC.
    Filed Date: 8/11/15.
    Accession Number: 20150811-5126.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/1/15.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-2964-008.
    Applicants: Selkirk Cogen Partners, L.P.
    Description: Supplement to July 1, 2015 Notice of Non-Material
Change in Status of Selkirk Cogen Partners, L.P.
    Filed Date: 8/11/15.
    Accession Number: 20150811-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2135-000.
    Applicants: Alexander Wind Farm, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to July 9, 2015 Alexander Wind Farm, LLC
tariff filing.
    Filed Date: 8/6/15.
    Accession Number: 20150806-5086.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/27/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2348-000.
    Applicants: Tucson Electric Power Company.
    Description: Report Filing: Supplement to Filing of Amendments to
Rate Schedule No. 102 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 8/7/15.
    Accession Number: 20150807-5125.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/28/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2409-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.

    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2015-08-11_SA 2825
MidAmerican Energy-Highland Wind Energy II GIA (J285) to be effective
8/4/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/11/15.
    Accession Number: 20150811-5037.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2410-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Initial rate filing: Executed Expedited Service
Agreement between PNM and Arabella Wind, LLC to be effective 7/16/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/11/15.
    Accession Number: 20150811-5100.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2411-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Termination of NW Energy AMPS 230
kV Line 46 MW Construct Agmt to be effective 10/29/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/11/15.
    Accession Number: 20150811-5124.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2412-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1884R4 Westar Energy, Inc.
NITSA and NOA to be effective 8/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/11/15.
    Accession Number: 20150811-5135.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2413-000.
    Applicants: ITC Midwest LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Filing of CIAC Agreement
with Clarke Electric to be effective 10/12/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/11/15.
    Accession Number: 20150811-5142.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2414-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1885R4 Westar Energy, Inc.
(Bronson) NITSA and NOA to be effective 8/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/11/15.
    Accession Number: 20150811-5143.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2415-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Errata to Revision Related to Order
No. 676-H to be effective 5/15/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/11/15.
    Accession Number: 20150811-5144.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/1/15.

    Docket Numbers: ER15-2416-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 1887R4 Westar Energy, Inc.
(Elsmore) NITSA and NOA to be effective 8/1/2015.
    Filed Date: 8/11/15.
    Accession Number: 20150811-5172.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/1/15.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    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 comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    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: August 11, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-20195 Filed 8-14-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 247 (Thursday, December 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 66811]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27996]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84867; File No. SR-C2-2018-022]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Designation of a Longer Period for Commission Action on a Proposed Rule
Change To Adopt Complex Reserve Order Functionality

December 19, 2018.
    On November 8, 2018, Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to adopt Complex
Reserve Order functionality. The proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on November 27, 2018.\3\ The Commission
has received no comment letters regarding the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C.78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 84643 (November 21,
2018), 83 FR 60916.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that, within 45 days of
the publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is January 11, 2019. The Commission is extending this 45-day time
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\5\ designates
February 25, 2019, as the date by which the Commission shall either
approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-C2-2018-022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-27996 Filed 12-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P