[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 111 (Friday, June 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37877-37878]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12319]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004; FRL-11013-01-OCSPP]

Access to Confidential Business Information by Agile Decision
Sciences, LLC

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has authorized its contractor Agile Decision Sciences, LLC
of Huntsville, AL to access information which has been submitted to EPA
under all Sections of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Some of
the information may be claimed or

determined to be Confidential Business Information (CBI).

DATES: Access to the confidential data will occur no sooner than June
16, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Colby Lintner/Adam Schwoerer, Program Management and Operations
Division (7407M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected] or<PHONE_NUMBER>; [email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute
industrial chemicals. Because other entities may also be interested,
the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that
may be affected by this action.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this notice, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004, is available at https://www.regulations.gov. The data being transferred is not in the docket.
For the latest status information on EPA dockets, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    Under contract number 68HERD23D0003, task order number
68HERD23F0044, contractor Agile Decision Sciences, LLC located at 350
Voyager Way Suite 100B, Huntsville, AL 35806-3200 will assist the
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) by managing the Non-
Confidential Business Information Center (NCIC). They will also provide
current and historical reports on all TSCA non-CBI submissions received
in compliance with TSCA; organize, distribute and prepare records for
permanent storage; and handle all docket-related records for OPPT, in
accordance with the TSCA Security Manual.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that under
EPA contract number 68HERD23D0003, task order number 68HERD23F0044,
Agile Decision Services, LLC will require access to CBI submitted under
all Sections of TSCA to perform successfully the duties specified under
the contract. Agile Decision Services, LLC personnel will be given
access to information claimed or determined to be CBI information
submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA.
    EPA is issuing this notice to inform all submitters of information
under all sections of TSCA that EPA will provide Agile Decision
Sciences, LLC access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know basis
only. All access to TSCA CBI under this contract will take place at EPA
Headquarters in accordance with EPA's TSCA CBI Protection Manual and
the Rules of Behavior for Virtual Desktop Access to OPPT Materials,
including TSCA CBI.
    Access to TSCA data, including CBI, will continue until March 31,
2026. If the contract is extended, this access will also continue for
the duration of the extended contract without further notice.
    Agile Decision Sciences, LLC personnel will be required to sign
nondisclosure agreements and will be briefed on specific security
procedures for TSCA CBI.
    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: June 5, 2023.
Pamela Myrick,
Director, Project Management and Operations Division, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2023-12319 Filed 6-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 159 (Thursday, August 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40840-40841]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17641]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2018-66]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; The Boeing
Company

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion or omission of information in the summary
is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final
disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before September 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2017-0259
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Harrison, AIR-673, Federal
Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198,
phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected]; or Alphonso
Pendergrass, ARM-200, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591, phone
202-267-4713, email [email protected].
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on August 10, 2018.
Victor Wicklund,
Manager, Transport Standards Branch.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2017-0259.
    Petitioner: The Boeing Company.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec.  25.813(e).
    Description of Relief Sought: The Boeing Company requests an
amendment to Exemption No. 17634 to add the Model 777-8 and 777-9
airplanes, increase the maximum number of mini-suites allowed, and
change the conditions of the exemption regarding evacuation analysis.

[FR Doc. 2018-17641 Filed 8-15-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 88 (Monday, May 10, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24797-24798]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09476]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0235; Airspace Docket No. 21-AGL-18]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Revocation of Class E Airspace; Port Huron, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to revoke the Class E surface airspace at
St. Clair County International Airport, Port Huron, MI. The FAA is
proposing this action as the result of an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the Remote Communications Outlet (RCO) frequency at
St. Clair County International Airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 24, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2021-0235/Airspace Docket No. 21-AGL-18 at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the
proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in
the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11E at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would revoke the Class E surface airspace at St. Clair County
International Airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2021-0235/
Airspace Docket No. 21-AGL-18.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments

will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The
proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and effective
September 15, 2020. FAA Order 7400.11E is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11E lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by removing the
Class E surface area at St. Clair County International Airport as it is
no longer required.
    This action is necessary due to an airspace review caused by the
decommissioning of the RCO, which provided navigation information for
the instrument procedures this airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002
respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11E, dated July 21, 2020, and effective
September 15, 2020, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.
The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be
published subsequently in the Order.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11E,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated July 21, 2020, and
effective September 15, 2020, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Airspace.

* * * * *

AGL MI E2 Port Huron, MI [Revoked]

St. Clair County International Airport, MI
    (Lat. 42[deg]54'39'' N, long. 82[deg]31'44'' W)

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 29. 2021.
Martin A. Skinner,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2021-09476 Filed 5-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

 National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory

                              2565 Plymouth Road

                    Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105-2498

											OFFICE OF

										      AIR AND RADIATION

September 26, 2008

MEMORANDUM

FROM:  	Todd Sherwood

Assessment and Standards Division, US EPA

TO:	   	Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0047

SUBJECT:	Meeting with PACCAR

Meeting Date

EPA staff met with representatives of PACCAR on July 16, 2008.

EPA Attendees

EPA staff in attendance at the meeting were:

Brian Nelson

Anthony Neam

Hugh Harris

Jason Gumbs

Todd Sherwood

PACCAR Attendees

PACCAR representatives in attendance at the meeting were:

Margaret Sullivan

John de Graaf

Thomas Sloane

Topics Discussed

Topics discussed at this meeting were:

PACCAR’s HDOBD development status

Page   PAGE  1  of   NUMPAGES  1


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION SAN 3837 Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement, and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget. Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA/ Office of Air and Radiation/ Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 2. OMB control number b. X None a. ___ ___ ___ ___  ___ ___ ___ ___ 2060 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. X New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement instructions 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: ______/______/______ c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: ______/______

7. Title " NESHAP for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters ( 40 CFR Part 63, subpart DDDDD)" ( proposed rule)

8. Agency form number( s) 2028.01 9. Keywords : Industrial boilers, Commercial Boilers, Process Heaters, Hazardous Air Pollutants, NESHAP 10. Abstract. Each owner or operator of a source affected by the proposed standards would be required to submit an initial notification that the source is subject to the standard. Each respondent would submit semiannual compliance reports. Additional records and notifications would depend on which subcategory the boilers or process heaters are in. The owner or operator of an industrial, commercial, or institutional boiler or process heater for which there are applicable emission limits would be required to control hazardous air pollutants ( HAP) by either limiting the HAP content in the inlet fuels or by using an emission control system to meet the applicable emission limits.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. ___ Individuals or households d.___ Farms b. _ P_ Business or other for profit e._ x_ Federal Government c. ___ Not for profit institutions f. _ x_ State, Local, or Tribal Governments 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 18,788 b. Total annual responses 18,788 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 0% c. Total annual hours requested 1 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 1 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 1 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 1 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 1 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 1 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 1 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. ____ Application for benefits e. ____ Program planning or management b. ____ Program evaluation f. ____ Research c. ____ General purpose statistics g. __ P_ Regulatory or compliance d. ____ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. G Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. G On occasion 2. G Weekly 3. G Monthly 4. G Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. G Annually 7. G Biennially 8. X Other ( describe) one time 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

G Yes ____ No _

_ 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer question regarding the content of this submission)

Name: Jim Eddinger, U. S EPA, MD 13 Phone: ( 919) 541 5426 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

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

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

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

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

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

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

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

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8 ( b)( 3):

( I) Why the information is being collected;

( ii) Use of information;

( iii) Burden estimate;

( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory);

( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

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

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

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

Signature of Program Office Official Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Director, Collection Strategies Division Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 189 (Thursday, September 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 67027]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23696]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]

Order of Suspension of Trading; in the Matter of Accel Brands,
Inc.

September 27, 2016.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of
Accel Brands, Inc. (``Accel Brands'') (CIK No.<PHONE_NUMBER>) because it
has not filed any periodic reports since the period ended March 31,
2015, and the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission has
independently endeavored to determine whether the company is operating
and the company has failed to respond to the Commission's inquiry about
its operating status. Accel Brands, formerly known as Accelpath, Inc.,
is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business listed
as National Harbor, Maryland with stock quoted on OTC Link (previously
``Pink Sheets'') operated by OTC Markets Group, Inc. under the ticker
symbol ACLP.
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the
securities of Accel Brands.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of
Accel Brands is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EDT on
September 27, 2016, through 11:59 p.m. EDT on October 10, 2016.

    By the Commission.
Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-23696 Filed 9-27-16; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 58 (Monday, March 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12952-12953]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06046]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2018-D-1067]

Evaluation of Bulk Drug Substances Nominated for Use in
Compounding Under Section 503B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act; Draft Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is
announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled
``Evaluation of Bulk Drug Substances Nominated for Use in Compounding
Under Section 503B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.'' This
draft guidance describes policies that FDA proposes to use in
evaluating bulk drug substances nominated for use in compounding under
section 503B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) for
inclusion on the list of bulk drug substances that can be used in
compounding under section 503B.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by May 25, 2018 to ensure that the Agency considers your
comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final
version of the guidance.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as
follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or

anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business
information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you
include your name, contact information, or other information that
identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be
posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2018-D-1067 for ``Evaluation of Bulk Drug Substances Nominated for
Use in Compounding Under Section 503B of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act.'' Received comments will be placed in the docket and,
except for those submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly
viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management
Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to
the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave.,
Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one
self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Rothman, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 5197, Silver Spring, MD 20903, 301-796-
3110.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Evaluation of Bulk Drug Substances Nominated for Use in
Compounding Under Section 503B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act.'' Section 503B (21 U.S.C. 353b), added to the FD&C Act by the Drug
Quality and Security Act in 2013, describes the conditions that must be
satisfied for human drug products compounded by an outsourcing facility
to be exempt from the following three sections of the FD&C Act: section
505 (21 U.S.C. 355) (concerning the approval of drugs under new drug
applications or abbreviated new drug applications); section 502(f)(1)
(21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)) (concerning the labeling of drugs with adequate
directions for use); and section 582 (21 U.S.C. 360eee-1) (concerning
drug supply chain security requirements). One of the conditions that
must be met for a drug product compounded by an outsourcing facility to
qualify for these exemptions is that the outsourcing facility does not
compound drug products using a bulk drug substance unless either: (1)
It appears on a list established by the Secretary of Health and Human
Services identifying bulk drug substances for which there is a clinical
need (see section 503B(a)(2)(A)(i) of the FD&C Act) (503B Bulks List)
or (2) the drug compounded from such bulk drug substances appears on
the drug shortage list in effect under section 506E of the FD&C Act (21
U.S.C. 356e) at the time of compounding, distribution, and dispensing
(see section 503B(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act).
    This draft guidance addresses FDA policies for developing the 503B
Bulks List, including the Agency's interpretation of the phrase ``bulk
drug substances for which there is a clinical need,'' as it is used in
section 503B of the FD&C Act. The draft guidance also addresses the
factors and processes by which the Agency intends to evaluate and list
bulk drug substances.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on ``Evaluation
of Bulk Drug Substances Nominated for Use in Compounding Under Section
503B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.'' It does not
establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the
public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations. This draft
guidance is not subject to Executive Order 12866.

II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance
at either https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, or
https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: March 20, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-06046 Filed 3-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 231 (Monday, December 2, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 72002-72003]
[FR Doc No: 2013-28665]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0469; Airspace Docket No. 13-AEA-9]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Danville, VA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E Airspace at Danville Regional
Airport, Danville, VA, to accommodate new landing and departure
procedures, and by removing the operating hours established by a Notice
to Airmen (NOTAM). This enhances the safety and management of aircraft
operations at the airport. This action also updates the geographic
coordinates of the airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, February 6, 2014. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On August 7, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class E surface area
airspace at Danville Regional Airport, Danville, VA. (78 FR, 48079).
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 of
FAA Order 7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15,
2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 amends Class E surface area airspace at Danville Regional
Airport, Danville, VA, within a 5-mile radius of the airport, with
segments extending from the 5-mile radius to 7 miles southwest and 7
miles northeast of the airport. Due to increased air traffic,
controlled airspace is continuous 24 hours, and no longer effective
during the specific dates and times established in advanced by NOTAM.
The geographic coordinates of the airport also are adjusted to be in
concert with FAAs aeronautical database.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at Danville Regional Airport,
Danville, VA.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9X, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 7, 2013, effective September 15, 2013, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

AEA VA E2 Danville, VA [Amended]

Danville Regional Airport
    (Lat. 36[deg]34'22'' N., long. 79[deg]20'10'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 5-mile
radius of Danville Regional Airport and within 2.4-mile each side of
a 208[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from the 5-mile
radius to 7 miles southwest of the airport, and within 2.4-mile each
side of a 016[deg] bearing from the airport, extending from the 5-
mile radius to 7 miles northeast of the airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on November 19, 2013.
Kip B. Johns,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2013-28665 Filed 11-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 37 (Wednesday, February 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 10089]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03901]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2014-0068; FRL-9923-46-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Primary Lead Smelters (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), ``NESHAP for Primary Lead
Smelters (40 CFR part 63, subpart TTT) (Renewal)'' (EPA ICR No.
1856.10, OMB Control No. 2060-0414) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This is a proposed extension of
the ICR, which is currently approved through February 28, 2015. Public
comments were previously requested via the Federal Register (79 FR
30117) on May 27, 2014 during a 60-day comment period. This notice
allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller
description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated burden
and cost to the public. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a
person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless
it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before March 27,
2015.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2014-0068, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA
Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The NESHAP is applicable to primary lead processing
facilities that are engaged in the production of lead metal from lead
sulfide ore concentrate. The final amendment establishes new emission
limits, revises testing, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements.
Sources subject to the NESHAP are required to comply with the stack
testing, monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements of the
standard.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of primary lead
smelting facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 63,
subpart TTT).
    Estimated number of respondents: 1 (total).
    Frequency of response: Initially, quarterly and semiannually.
    Total estimated burden: 6,265 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $782,379 (per year), includes $169,000
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an overall decrease in the
respondent and Agency burden and cost from the OMB Inventory of
Approved Burdens. The currently approved burden is the cumulative
burden and cost from EPA ICR Number 1856.06 (existing rule) and EPA ICR
Number 1856.08 (2011 amendment). In this ICR renewal, we have combined
the two ICRs to reflect current rule requirements and removed duplicate
items. In addition, this ICR renewal reflects a decrease in the number
of respondents from two to one since EPA ICR Number 1856.06. We have
assumed that there are an estimated one respondent subject to NSPS
Subpart TTT since rule is still in effect. These changes result in an
apparent decrease in labor hours and costs.

Courtney Kerwin,
Acting Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2015-03901 Filed 2-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 151 (Monday, August 6, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46633-46640]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18899]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 393 and Appendix G to Subchapter B of Chapter III

[Docket No. FMCSA-2010-0257]
RIN 2126-AB28

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation: Brakes;
Adjustment Limits

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) amends
the requirements regarding brake readjustment limits in the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). This rule amends the
readjustment limits, clarifies their application, and corrects an error
in cross-referencing a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS).
This rule responds to a petition for rulemaking from the Commercial
Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA).

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule becomes effective September 5,
2012.
    Petitions for Reconsideration of this final rule must be submitted
to the FMCSA Administrator no later than September 5, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Please include the Docket ID Number FMCSA-2010-0257 or the
Regulatory identification Number (RIN) 2126-AB28 in the subject line of
your petition, and submit it by any of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
    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. ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah M. Freund, Vehicle and
Roadside Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and
Operations (MC-PSV), Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Abbreviations
II. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking
III. Background
IV. CVSA's Petition
V. NPRM; Comments Received
VI. Regulatory Analyses

I. Abbreviations

ATA American Trucking Associations
CMV commercial motor vehicle
CVSA Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSRs Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
FMVSSs Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OOS out of service
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers

II. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    This final rule is based on the authority of the Motor Carrier Act
of 1935 (Pub. L. 74-255, 49 Stat. 543, August 9, 1935, now codified at
49 U.S.C. 31502(b)) (1935 Act) and the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984
(Pub. L. 98-554, Title II, 98 Stat. 2832, October 30, 1984) (the 1984
Act), both of which provide broad discretion to the Secretary of
Transportation (Secretary) in implementing their provisions.
    The 1935 Act provides that the Secretary may prescribe requirements
for (1) qualifications and maximum hours of service of employees of,
and safety of operation and equipment of, a motor carrier [49 U.S.C.
31502(b)(1)], and (2) qualifications and maximum hours of service of
employees of, and standards of equipment of, a motor private carrier,
when needed to promote safety of operation [section 31502(b)(2)]. This
final rule is based on the Secretary's authority to regulate the safety
and standards of equipment of for-hire and private carriers.
    The 1984 Act gives the Secretary concurrent authority to regulate
drivers, motor carriers, and vehicle equipment. Codified in 49 U.S.C.
31136(a), section 206(a) of the Act requires the Secretary to publish
regulations on commercial motor vehicle (CMV) safety. Specifically, the
Act sets forth minimum safety standards to ensure that (1) CMVs are
maintained, equipped, loaded, and operated safely [section
31136(a)(1)]; (2) the responsibilities imposed on operators of CMVs do
not impair their ability to operate the vehicles safely [section
31136(a)(2)]; (3) the physical condition of CMV operators is adequate
to enable them to operate the vehicles safely [section 31136(a)(3)];
and (4) the operation of CMVs does not have a deleterious effect on the
physical

condition of the operators [section 31136(a)(4)].
    The rule provides improved guidance concerning CMV brake adjustment
limits. The revised requirements concerning maximum pushrod stroke for
brake actuators will enhance the braking performance of the vehicle,
consistent with section 31136(a)(1). The rule is not concerned with the
responsibilities or physical condition of drivers addressed by section
31136(a)(2) and (3), respectively, and deals with section 31136(a)(4)
only to the extent that a safer vehicle is less likely to have a
deleterious effect on the physical condition of a driver. Before
prescribing any such regulations, however, FMCSA must consider the
``costs and benefits'' of any proposal (49 U.S.C. 31136(c)(2)(A) and
31502(d)).

III. Background

    Appendix G, Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards, was added to the
FMCSRs in 1988 (53 FR 49411, Dec. 7, 1988). Under the inspection
standards of Appendix G, all items required to be inspected must be in
proper adjustment, must not be defective, and must function properly
before a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) is placed in service. Appendix
G includes, among many other things, brake adjustment (readjustment)
limits. Paragraph 1.a.(5) of this appendix currently states that the
maximum stroke at which brakes should be readjusted is given below. Any
brake \1/4\'' or more past the readjustment limit or any two brakes
less than \1/4\''; beyond the readjustment limit shall be cause for
rejection. Stroke shall be measured with engine off and reservoir
pressure of 80 to 90 psi with brakes fully applied.
    The figures in the rightmost column of each of the three tables
following paragraph 1.a.(5) indicate the maximum stroke at which brakes
should be readjusted.
    Subsequently, in June 1991, the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE) (now known as SAE International) developed International
Recommended Practice J1817 (SAE J1817) to provide a marking system that
distinguishes long-stroke from standard-stroke air brake actuators,
rotochambers, and their components. It defines ``rated stroke'' as the
minimum design stroke of a brake actuator.
    The 2001 revision of SAE J1817 includes tables listing recommended
values for minimum rated stroke and maximum readjustment stroke for
clamp band/sealed design standard- stroke brake actuators (Table 1A),
clamp band/sealed design long-stroke brake actuators (Table 1B), and
rotochamber designs (Table 1C). Table 1B is further broken down to
include three classes of long-stroke actuators. The classes are defined
according to the range of difference between the maximum readjustment
stroke and the standard rated stroke. In most but not all cases, the
maximum readjustment stroke is 80 percent of the minimum rated stroke.
The differences are greatest for the smaller sizes of brake chambers.
    In 1997, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), FMCSA's
predecessor agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT),
published in the Federal Register an NPRM titled ``Parts and
Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; General Amendments'' (62 FR
18169, Apr. 14, 1997). The NPRM proposed various amendments to 49 CFR
part 393 and 49 CFR part 571, which generally did not establish new or
more stringent requirements but clarified existing requirements.
    As part of that NPRM, FHWA proposed to add a new Sec.  393.47(e) to
the FMCSRs to specify the maximum permissible stroke for different
types (sizes) of brake chambers and incorporate by reference SAE J1817,
Long-Stroke Air-Brake Actuator Marking (June 1991). The NPRM proposed
to require that the maximum values for pushrod stroke for clamp- and
rotochamber-type actuators must be less than 80 percent of the rated
strokes listed in SAE J1817, or 80 percent of the rated stroke marked
on the brake chamber by the chamber manufacturer, or the readjustment
limit marked on the brake chamber by the chamber manufacturer. For
types 16 and 20 long-stroke clamp-type brake actuators, the NPRM
proposed that the pushrod stroke must be less than 51 mm (2 in.), or 80
percent of the rated stroke marked on the brake chamber by the chamber
manufacturer, or the readjustment limit marked on the brake chamber by
the chamber manufacturer. The NPRM did not propose to revise the
Appendix G brake readjustment-limits tables.
    FMCSA published the final rule on August 15, 2005 (70 FR 48007).
The Agency revised Sec.  393.47(e) as proposed, except that it
incorporated by reference the July 2001 revision of SAE J1817 rather
than the June 1991 edition. No commenters to the docket for that
rulemaking addressed the proposed incorporation by reference of SAE
J1817.

IV. CVSA's Petition

    On April 16, 2007, CVSA petitioned the Agency to revise Sec.
393.47(e). CVSA stated that, although the readjustment (or brake
actuator stroke) limits of SAE J1817are consistent with those listed in
Appendix G and CVSA's North American Standard Out-of-Service (OOS)
Criteria, Sec.  393.47(e) ``specifies readjustment (stroke) limits
based on 80 percent of the rated (full) strokes listed in SAE J1817.''
Relying on this criterion introduces discrepancies between Sec.
393.47(e) and SAE J1817. Although the readjustment limits listed in SAE
J1817 agree with those in Appendix G and the OOS Criteria, they differ,
for some brake chambers, from the ``80 percent of rated stroke''
specified in Sec.  393.47(e). Consequently, ``[t]he enforcement and/or
noting of Sec.  393.47(e) violations by cross-referencing the
regulation to 80% of SAE J1817--Long Stroke Air-Brake Actuator Marking,
July, 2001 is proving problematic for inspectors and industry.''
    CVSA also pointed out that Sec.  393.47(e) considers a brake with
the stroke at the readjustment limit to be out of adjustment. In
contrast, both Appendix G and the OOS Criteria state that the brake
pushrod stroke must exceed the readjustment limit for the brake to be
considered out of adjustment. The petitioners added that the values in
both Appendix G and the OOS Criteria were established consistent with
brake manufacturers' recommendations. Although the CVSA subsequently
updated the OOS Criteria to include several types of long-stroke clamp-
type brake chambers, FMCSA has not similarly revised the Appendix G
values.
    In addition, CVSA requested that FMCSA revise Sec.  393.53,
Automatic brake adjusters and brake adjustment indicators, to include
references to the applicable requirements for such equipment on
trailers. Sections 393.53(b) and (c) would be revised to include a
reference to paragraph S5.2.2 so that the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) citations include the reference to trailers and read,
``49 CFR 571.121, S5.1.8 or S5.2.2.''
    On June 10, 2008, CVSA amended its April 2007 petition to correct
the text of the table subheadings for clamp-type and rotochamber-type
chamber data in the original petition and to add tables for Bendix DD-3
and bolt-type brake chamber data. The amended petition changed the
table subheadings ``Brake Chamber Pushrod Stroke Limit'' and ``RC
Actuate Pushrod Stroke Limit'' to read ``Brake Adjustment Limit'' and
``Rotochamber Type Brake Chamber Data,'' respectively.
    FMCSA has placed copies of CVSA's 2007 petition and 2008 correction
in the docket for this rulemaking.

V. NPRM; Comments Received

    In response to the CVSA petition, FMCSA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register on September 2, 2011 (76 FR
54721).
    The Agency received comments from CVSA, the American Trucking
Associations (ATA), the Heavy Duty Manufacturers Association (HDMA),
and Meritor WABCO Vehicle Control Systems (Meritor WABCO).
    1. Revise and expand the readjustment limit tables, and include in
Sec.  393.47 and Appendix G. The NPRM proposed to revise and expand the
readjustment-limits tables as recommended by CVSA, and to include these
revised tables in Sec.  393.47(e) and Appendix G. The revised tables
cover readjustment limits not only for clamp-, bolt-, and rotochamber-
type brake chambers, but also for Bendix DD-3 chambers. The table for
clamp-type brake chambers also differentiates between readjustment
limits for more sizes of standard-stroke and long-stroke chambers.
    All commenters supported the inclusion of the proposed readjustment
limit tables in Sec.  393.47(e) and Appendix G. Meritor WABCO stated
that ``The addition of the tables will clarify the chamber stroke
limits and reduce confusion in the field. Including these tables in
both * * * Sec.  393.47(e) and Appendix G will eliminate the need for
cross-referencing in the regulation. The additional text (after the
tables) is also appropriate to reinforce the chamber manufacturers' use
of marking and labeling of their actuators with the rated or
readjustment strokes.''
    With regard to all proposed readjustment limit tables, CVSA
suggests that the Agency consider increasing the metric conversions to
tenths of a millimeter. CVSA has found that roadside enforcement
officers who are trained using metric measurement (whether in Canada or
other jurisdictions) benefit from the additional decimal place,
especially in making conversions or comparisons from Imperial to
Metric, or vice versa, when reference materials or data system entries
require them. Furthermore, Canada's pending National Safety Code (NSC)
Standard 11 update, to be implemented in 2013, and CVSA's Out-of-
Service Criteria (OOSC) will be adopting metric conversions expressed
to the tenth of a millimeter for the same reason.
    CVSA advised FMCSA of a typographical error concerning the Type A
chamber outside diameter. The value shown in the NPRM is 6\5/16\ inch
(176 mm). The correct value is 6\15/16\ inch (176 mm).
    Agency Response. The Agency amends Sec.  393.47(e) and Appendix G
to include readjustment limit tables. The Agency has included metric
measurements to the tenth of a millimeter as suggested by CVSA, and has
corrected the typographical error for the Type A chamber outside
diameter.
    2. Threshold for brake adjustment violation, Sec.  393.47(e). The
NPRM proposed changes to paragraph 1a(5) of Appendix G, ``Brake System,
Service Brakes,'' to be consistent with the Sec.  393.47(e) requirement
that pushrod stroke be less than the values specified in the
accompanying tables.
    In support of this proposed amendment, the NPRM stated:

    An s-cam brake that is at the readjustment limit when it is cold
will be beyond the readjustment limit when it gets hot. FMCSA
believes that vehicles should not be dispatched with brakes at the
readjustment limit, because those brakes will be found to be beyond
the adjustment limit--and out of compliance with the regulations--if
evaluated during a roadside inspection after the brakes have become
hot due to operational use * * * The Agency believes, however, that
it is appropriate to require motor carriers to take action under the
requirements of Sec.  393.47 when a brake is at the adjustment
limit. * * * To avoid confusion in the enforcement community and the
industry, this NPRM proposes to amend Appendix G to make its
requirements consistent with those of Sec.  393.47(e) adopted in the
August 2005 rule.

    Both CVSA and Meritor WABCO opposed the NPRM proposal that would
require pushrod stroke to be less than the values specified in the
tables. Instead, the commenters recommended that the out-of-adjustment
criteria in Sec.  393.47 be when the brake stroke is greater than the
established limits, as recommended by CVSA in its original petition. In
support of its position CVSA stated:

    CVSA maintains its recommendation that brake out-of-adjustment
findings should be made when pushrod stroke exceeds the limits
listed in the adjustment limit tables, rather than the proposed
requirement that they must be less than established adjustment
limits * * *. The reasons for this convention, now uniformly used by
CVSA in training and in enforcement, are twofold. [Emphasis added.]
    First, consistency is important in roadside enforcement * * *
The 20 percent rule gives inspectors and commercial vehicle
operators clear and consistent expectations relative to proper brake
adjustment and out of service conditions. Prior to the 1996 change
to the OOSC, inspectors were mixed as to whether or not they
determined a brake measured at the stroke limit to be the out of
adjustment. The [1996] change to using brake stroke measurements
found beyond the adjustment limit to be out of adjustment
established much better consistency.
    Second, fairness and compliance with the regulation are critical
for successful enforcement. * * * By using brake stroke measurements
that exceed adjustment limits as the criteria for being out of
adjustment, inspectors make more consistent and, we believe, fairer
assessments * * *. [Emphasis added.]
    Ultimately, CVSA determined that amending the OOSC to consider
brake stroke measured beyond the established limits, rather than at
the limits, would address both aforementioned needs--to be both more
consistent and fair in enforcement--without markedly changing the
training. Indeed, we believe the move to penalizing brake stroke
beyond rather than at the adjustment limits shifts out-of-service
findings using the 20 percent rule to be more consistent with the
intent of the rule.
    CVSA respectfully disagrees with the agency's reasoning for
denying this part of our petition. We acknowledge that s-cam brakes,
when heated, will exhibit an increase in brake stroke. However,
brake stroke adjustment limits were established with reserve stroke
included under SAE J1817 in order to, at least in part, accommodate
for such normal in-service increases in stroke as those due to
thermal expansion. Furthermore, as with all roadside enforcement
determinations, inspectors can only assess the as is condition of
the vehicle--not what might be the case one mile or more miles down
the road.

    Agency Response. Although SAE J1817 does not appear to make an
explicit statement concerning reserve stroke, the concept is described
in detail in the UMTRI study referenced in the NPRM (``Evaluation of
Brake Adjustment Criteria for Heavy Trucks,'' FHWA-MC-94-016, March
1995). And, as FMCSA noted in the NPRM, citing that study, ``Although
in some cases, the readjustment limits listed in SAE J1817 are 80
percent of the rated stroke for a given actuator, deviations exist.''
(76 FR 54721, at 54723). Because of the inherent challenge in making
precise measurements of brake stroke, the proposed requirement for
measured values to be ``less than'' the figures in the tables could, in
practice, be taken as requiring measurements as much as \1/8\ inch less
than the values shown. In contrast, the CVSA's recommendation for
measurements to ``not be greater than'' the value specified would
require values to be less than or equal to the values shown in the
table.
    Based on the above, and to be clear that pushrod stroke measured to
be at the adjustment limit is not considered out of adjustment, FMCSA
amends the language in Sec.  393.47(e) to read as follows: ``The
pushrod stroke for clamp- and rotochamber brake actuator must

not be greater than the values specified in the following tables:''.
    3. Threshold for periodic inspection, Appendix G. CVSA and Meritor
WABCO noted that under the current wording of Section 1.a(5) of
Appendix G (as well as in the proposed amendment to the same section in
the NPRM), a vehicle successfully meeting the annual inspection
requirements concerning brake adjustment would be issued a brake out-
of-adjustment violation if inspected at roadside. Both commenters
recommended dropping any reference to specific readjustment limits in
Section 1.a(5) of Appendix G.
    CVSA noted ``that referencing a specific length of stroke in excess
of the adjustment limits for any one, or two brakes especially, may
misguide maintenance personnel into not adjusting brakes that should be
adjusted since a vehicle meeting the annual inspection standard as
proposed would, to the contrary, already be in violation of the FMCSRs
as they are enforced at roadside. As an example, a single brake
measuring \1/8\ inches past the adjustment limit would be considered
out-of-adjustment at roadside but would meet the wording provided for
in the Appendix G proposal.'' Similarly, Meritor WABCO noted that
``Further, the proposed wording in Appendix G results in confirming an
acceptable maintenance inspection, allowing vehicles to be put back in
service when brake strokes exceed the readjustment limit by \1/4\ inch
or less.''
    Agency Response. CVSA and Meritor WABCO are correct in stating that
a CMV could pass a periodic inspection yet be found to be in violation
when inspected at roadside.
    To maintain consistency between Sec.  393.47 and Appendix G, the
Agency amends the Appendix G threshold to be the same as that in the
amended Sec.  393.47(e) as follows: ``Any brake stroke exceeding the
readjustment limit will be rejected:''
    4. Eliminate the incorporation by reference to SAE J1817 in Sec.
393.7(b)(15). The NPRM proposed to eliminate the incorporation by
reference to SAE J1817 in Sec.  393.47(e). Inclusion of the new tables
in Sec.  393.47(e) would provide explicit readjustment limits for each
type of actuator, eliminating the need for the cross-reference.
    HDMA and Meritor WABCO supported this amendment, and HDMA noted
that ``* * * removing the reference to SAE J1817 Long Stroke Air Brake
Actuator Marking, July 2001 is appropriate and reduces future confusion
between the sections involved in this NPRM.''
    Agency Response. The Agency amends Sec.  393.7 by eliminating Sec.
393.7(b)(15).
    5. Revise Sec.  393.53 to add a cross-reference to the Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard applicable to trailers. The NPRM proposed
to revise Sec.  393.53(b) and (c) to add a cross-reference to FMVSS No.
121, S5.2.2. Although the introductory text of each paragraph clearly
states that it is applicable to ``each commercial motor vehicle,''
Sec.  393.53(b) and (c) omit a cross-reference to the FMVSSs applicable
to trailers (S5.2.2). The NPRM proposed to add this cross-reference to
eliminate potential confusion.
    CVSA, Meritor WABCO, and HDMA all supported this change.
    Agency Response. FMCSA amends Sec.  393.53(b) and (c) to add a
cross-reference to FMVSS No. 121, S5.2.2.
    6. Recommendation to use common terminology. In its comment to the
docket, CVSA suggested that the agency consider clarifying a number of
terms used to describe brake actuator pushrod stroke and adjustment
status and limits to make the meanings clearer to vehicle operators and
inspectors. CVSA noted examples such as ``readjustment'' and
``adjustment;'' and ``pushrod travel'' and ``pushrod stroke.'' CVSA
also believes there is an opportunity to improve the public awareness
regarding the function of automatic slack adjusters, citing the
National Transportation Safety Board's 2006 Safety Recommendations (H-
06-001 and H-06-002) that CVSA and FMCSA should work to improve
training and proficiency on brake adjustment, and specifically that
brake systems with automatic slack adjusters should not be manually
adjusted.
    Agency Response: FMCSA has made, and continues to make, revisions
to clarify its regulatory and safety outreach materials. In many cases,
however, the Agency must use technical terms that are consistent with
those used by other safety agencies (particularly the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)) and by standards development
organizations (such as SAE International). Responding to CVSA's
comment, FMCSA will use the terms ``pushrod stroke'' rather than
``pushrod travel,'' and ``readjustment limit'' rather than ``adjustment
limit'' in regulatory text.
    Reflecting the longstanding concerns about manual adjustment of
automatic brake adjusters (also known as self-adjusting brake
adjusters), FMCSA advised the NTSB by letter on October 15, 2009 that,
in conjunction with CVSA, the Agency had taken action to modify the
North American Standard Inspection training materials to include a
module about the potential safety risks associated with manually
adjusting automatic slack adjusters. The NTSB acknowledged this effort
and classified Safety Recommendation H-06-001 ``Closed--Acceptable
Action'' on August 10, 2010.
    The following language will now be used on inspection reports:
``This vehicle has brake adjustment violations. Section 393.53 of 49
CFR requires that this vehicle be equipped with a self-adjusting brake
system. A qualified service technician needs to determine why the
defective brake has excessive stroke and make the appropriate repair.
Simply re-adjusting a self-adjusting brake adjuster, or replacing it,
does not guarantee that the problem is corrected. The problem may exist
in the foundation brake system. By certifying this inspection report
you have indicated that this vehicle now has a properly functioning
self-adjusting brake adjustment system.'' The information contained in
the training materials provided in Module 6 of the North American
Standard Level I--Part B (Vehicle) Inspection Course was updated in
June 2007. It was also included in the Brake Check Card. In addition,
FMCSA worked with the Heavy-Duty Brake Manufacturers Council (HDBMC)
and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) to develop a
``Brake Check Card'' for drivers and brake technicians. FMCSA has
distributed some 34,000 of these cards, as well as 28 copies of the CD-
ROM containing printable files to individuals and companies since
November 2007. Recipients include brake suppliers, insurance companies,
State commercial motor vehicle safety agencies through the CVSA, and
others. The CVSA and our State partners alone distributed approximately
20,000 cards during the September 2008 Brake Safety Week. NTSB
acknowledged this work and on August 10, 2010, classified Safety
Recommendation H-06-002 as Open--Acceptable Alternative Response.
    FMCSA also notes that the SAE International Truck and Bus Brake
Actuator Committee has initiated work on a new SAE Recommended
Practice, J2899, which would describe the physical characteristics of
air brake actuators and define the maximum readjustment limits based on
the rated stroke and type (size) of the chamber. The committee voted to
develop this new J-specification to identify maximum readjustment
limits independently of SAE J1817 and focus the latter on actuator
long-stroke marking requirements. This project was

initiated in May 2009, and it is not known when the new recommended
practice will be published. FMCSA believes that moving forward with
these amendments at this time will ensure clear guidance is provided to
motor carriers on the brake adjustment limits, and uniformity in the
enforcement of those limits.

VI. Regulatory Analyses

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, and does not require an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that Order. FMCSA expects the economic impact of this rule to be
minimal. The proposal affects the conditions under which motor carriers
are cited for out-of-adjustment brakes during roadside inspections and
CMVs are placed OOS for such violations. Each brake adjustment
violation cited during a roadside inspection must be addressed by the
carrier, and each OOS order results in time lost for the carrier and
driver because the vehicle may not be operated until the OOS defects
have been corrected. Consequently, a decrease in OOS violations cited
during roadside inspections can be considered a benefit of these
proposed amendments to the readjustment limits because the decrease
would represent vehicles that are currently being placed out of service
that do not pose a significant safety risk. Conversely, any increase in
violations and OOS orders would be a cost as the increase represents
vehicles that would have been allowed to remain in operation but now
will be considered a significant safety risk and removed from revenue
service until the brake adjustment problems are resolved. With respect
to the safety impact of OOS orders for brake adjustment violations,
more such orders on vehicles with defects may produce a safety benefit
by reducing crashes. Neither the petitioners nor the Agency, however,
are able to estimate whether the number of brake-adjustment violations
resulting from this rule would increase or decrease by a significant
amount. It should be noted, however, that FMCSA requires motor carriers
to maintain their vehicles in safe and proper operating condition at
all times and to have a systematic inspection, repair, and maintenance
program to avoid dispatching CMVs with safety defects and deficiencies
(see, e.g., 49 CFR 396.3(a)(1) and 398.7). Therefore, the potential
costs of this rule relate only to carrying out the maintenance task
(e.g., readjusting the brakes or replacing an inoperable slack
adjuster) at the inspection location rather than at one of the
carrier's usual maintenance locations.
    From 2000 to 2011, the annual number of Level I and Level V
roadside inspections of CMVs--the only inspection levels that include
brake stroke measurement--ranged from about 0.94 to 1.25 million, and
the percentage of inspections resulting in the CMV being placed OOS for
brake violations of all kinds ranged from a high of 17 percent to a low
of 12 percent. Roughly half of these violations concerned out-of-
adjustment brakes, but the Agency believes that the changes in this
final rule will have relatively little impact on this ratio. By (1)
removing from Sec.  393.47(e) the cross-reference to the readjustment-
limits tables in SAE J1817 and the requirement that pushrod stroke be
less than 80 percent of the rated stroke listed in those tables, (2)
incorporating into Sec.  393.47(e) a set of tables (duplicating those
in Appendix G) providing explicit readjustment limits, and (3)
requiring that pushrod stroke be not greater than the values specified
in those tables, the rule eliminates certain discrepancies between the
brake readjustment values derived using the ``80 percent of rated
stroke'' criterion under Sec.  393.47(e) and the values specified in
the SAE J1817 tables. In addition, these changes make Appendix G
consistent with Sec.  393.47(e), eliminating confusion in the
enforcement community and the industry.
    Although substituting the readjustment-limits tables for the cross-
reference to SAE J1817 in Sec.  393.47(e) resolves discrepancies that
the cross-reference introduced, these differences are in many cases
quite small. The differences vary according to the type (size) of brake
chamber. Using the ``80 percent of rated stroke'' criterion may produce
a value that is either more stringent or less stringent than the value
specified in SAE J1817. For these reasons, FMCSA anticipates that
certain brake pushrod stroke measurements that comply with the current
rule could be out of compliance with the proposed standard--while the
reverse could just as often be true. On the other hand, having the
Appendix G amendment mirroring the Sec.  393.47(e) requirement that
pushrod stroke not be greater than the values specified in the
readjustment-limits tables would have no effect on the rate of OOS
violations related to brake stroke status--because roadside inspection
procedures do not reference the readjustment limits in Appendix G.
    In summary, although FMCSA is unable to estimate the net economic
and safety impacts of the changes in this rule, the Agency believes
these impacts will be minimal.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
Federal agencies to determine whether proposed rules could have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
FMCSA estimates that the economic impact of this rule will be minimal.
Consequently, I certify that this proposed action would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rulemaking does not impose an unfunded Federal mandate, as
defined by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1532 et
seq.), that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $141.3
million (which is the value of $100 million in 2010 after adjusting for
inflation) or more in any 1 year.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This proposed action meets applicable standards in sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children)

    FMCSA analyzed this action under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. The
Agency determined that this rulemaking does not pose an environmental
risk to health or safety that may disproportionately affect children.

Executive Order 12630 (Taking of Private Property)

    This rulemaking does not effect a taking of private property or
otherwise have takings implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    A rulemaking has implications for Federalism under Executive Order
13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or
local governments and would either preempt

State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them.
FMCSA analyzed this action in accordance with Executive Order 13132.
The rule does not have a substantial direct effect on States, nor does
it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this
rulemaking preempts any State law or regulation.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)

    The regulations implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding
intergovernmental consultation on Federal programs and activities do
not apply to this action.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) requires
that FMCSA consider the impact of paperwork and other information
collection burdens imposed on the public. The Agency has determined
that this rule imposes no new information collection requirements.

National Environmental Policy Act

    FMCSA analyzed this rule for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
determined under our environmental procedures Order 5610.1, published
in the Federal Register on March 1, 2004 (69 FR 9680), that this action
does not have any effect on the quality of the environment. Therefore,
this rule is categorically excluded from further analysis and
documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact
statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1, paragraph 6(bb) of Appendix 2. The
Categorical Exclusion under paragraph 6(bb) relates to ``regulations
concerning vehicle operation safety standards,'' such as the amended
brake inspection standards adopted in this rulemaking. A Categorical
Exclusion determination is available for inspection or copying in the
Regulations.gov Web site listed under ADDRESSES.
    FMCSA also analyzed this rule under section 176(c) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and implementing
regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general conformity
requirement since it does not affect direct or indirect emissions of
criteria pollutants.

Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)

    FMCSA analyzed this action under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. The Agency has determined that it is not a
``significant energy action'' under that Executive Order because it is
not economically significant and is not likely to have an adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 393

    Highways and roads, Incorporation by reference, Motor carriers,
Motor vehicle equipment, Motor vehicle safety.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA amends title 49, Code of
Federal Regulations, subtitle B, chapter III, as follows:

PART 393 [AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 393 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 31136, 31151, and 31502; Sec. 1041(b) of
Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914, 1993 (1991); and 49 CFR 1.73.

Sec.  393.7  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  393.7, remove and reserve paragraph (b)(15).

0
3. Amend Sec.  393.47 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  393.47  Brake actuators, slack adjusters, linings/pads, and
drums/rotors.

* * * * *
    (e) Clamp, Bendix DD-3, bolt-type, and rotochamber brake actuator
readjustment limits. (1) The pushrod stroke must not be greater than
the values specified in the following tables:

                        Clamp-Type Brake Chambers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Brake readjustment  Brake readjustment
   Type       Outside diameter     limit: standard    limit: long stroke
                                    stroke chamber          chamber
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.........  4 \1/2\ in. (114     1 \1/4\ in. (31.8
             mm).                 mm).
9.........  5 \1/4\ in. (133     1 \3/8\ in. (34.9
             mm).                 mm).
12........  5 \11/16\ in. (145   1 \3/8\ in. (34.9    1 \3/4\ in. (44.5
             mm).                 mm).                 mm).
16........  6 \3/8\ in. (162     1 \3/4\ in. (44.5    2 in. (50.8 mm).
             mm).                 mm).
20........  6 \25/32\ in. (172   1 \3/4\ in. (44.5    2 in. (50.8 mm).
             mm).                 mm).                2 \1/2\ in. (63.5
                                                       mm).\1\
24........  7 \7/32\ in. (184    1 \3/4\ in. (44.5    2 in. (50.8 mm).
             mm).                 mm).                2 \1/2\ in. (63.5
                                                       mm).\2\
30........  8 \3/32\ in. (206    2 in. (50.8 mm)....  2 \1/2\ in. (63.5
             mm).                                      mm).
36........  9 in. (229 mm).....  2 \1/4\ in. (57.2
                                  mm).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For type 20 chambers with a 3-inch (76 mm) rated stroke.
\2\ For type 24 chambers with a 3-inch (76 mm) rated stroke.

                       Bendix DD-3 Brake Chambers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Type             Outside diameter        Brake readjustment limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
30...............  8 \1/8\ in. (206 mm)......  2 \1/4\ in. (57.2 mm).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Bolt-Type Brake Chambers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Type             Outside diameter        Brake readjustment limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A................  6 \15/16\ in. (176 mm)....  1 \3/8\ in. (34.9 mm).
B................  9 \3/16\ in. (234 mm).....  1 \3/4\ in. (44.5 mm).
C................  8 \1/16\ in. (205 mm).....  1 \3/4\ in. (44.5 mm).
D................  5 \1/4\ in. (133 mm)......  1 \1/4\ in. (31.8 mm).
E................  6 \3/16\ in. (157 mm).....  1 \3/8\ in. (34.9 mm).

F................  11 in. (279 mm)...........  2 \1/4\ in. (57.2 mm).
G................  9 \7/8\ in. (251 mm)......  2 in. (50.8 mm).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Rotochamber-Type Brake Chambers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Type             Outside diameter        Brake readjustment limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9................  4 \9/32\ in. (109 mm).....  1 \1/2\ in. (38.1 mm).
12...............  4 \13/16\ in. (122 mm)....  1 \1/2\ in. (38.1 mm).
16...............  5 \13/32\ in. (138 mm)....  2 in. (50.8 mm).
20...............  5 \15/16\ in. (151 mm)....  2 in. (50.8 mm).
24...............  6 \13/32\ in. (163 mm)....  2 in. (50.8 mm).
30...............  7 \1/16\ in. (180 mm).....  2 \1/4\ in. (57.2 mm).
36...............  7 \5/8\ in. (194 mm)......  2 \3/4\ in. (69.9 mm).
50...............  8 \7/8\ in. (226 mm)......  3 in. (76.2 mm).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (2) For actuator types not listed in these tables, the pushrod
stroke must not be greater than 80 percent of the rated stroke marked
on the actuator by the actuator manufacturer, or greater than the
readjustment limit marked on the actuator by the actuator manufacturer.
* * * * *

0
4. Amend Sec.  393.53 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  393.53  Automatic brake adjusters and brake adjustment
indicators.

* * * * *
    (b) Automatic brake adjusters (air brake systems). Each commercial
motor vehicle manufactured on or after October 20, 1994, and equipped
with an air brake system must meet the automatic brake adjustment
system requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 121
(49 CFR 571.121, S5.1.8 or S5.2.2) applicable to the vehicle at the
time it was manufactured.
    (c) Brake adjustment indicator (air brake systems). On each
commercial motor vehicle manufactured on or after October 20, 1994, and
equipped with an air brake system which contains an external automatic
adjustment mechanism and an exposed pushrod, the condition of service
brake under-adjustment must be displayed by a brake adjustment
indicator conforming to the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard No. 121 (49 CFR 571.121, S5.1.8 or S5.2.2) applicable
to the vehicle at the time it was manufactured.

0
5. Amend Appendix G to Subchapter B by revising paragraph 1.a(5) to
read as follows:

Appendix G to Subchapter B of Chapter III--Minimum Periodic Inspection
Standards

* * * * *
    1 * * *
    a. * * *
    (5) Readjustment limits. (a) The maximum pushrod stroke must not
be greater than the values given in the tables below and at Sec.
393.47(e). Any brake stroke exceeding the readjustment limit will be
rejected. Stroke must be measured with engine off and reservoir
pressure of 80 to 90 psi with brakes fully applied.

                        Clamp-Type Brake Chambers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Brake readjustment  Brake readjustment
   Type       Outside diameter     limit: standard    limit: long stroke
                                    stroke chamber          chamber
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.........  4 \1/2\ in. (114     1 \1/4\ in. (31.8
             mm).                 mm).
9.........  5 \1/4\ in. (133     1 \3/8\ in. (34.9
             mm).                 mm).
12........  5 \11/16\ in. (145   1 \3/8\ in. (34.9    1 \3/4\ in. (44.5
             mm).                 mm).                 mm).
16........  6 \3/8\ in. (162     1 \3/4\ in. (44.5    2 in. (50.8 mm).
             mm).                 mm).
20........  6 \25/32\ in. (172   1 \3/4\ in. (44.5    2 in. (50.8 mm).
             mm).                 mm).                2 \1/2\ in. (63.5
                                                       mm).\1\
24........  7 \7/32\ in. (184    1 \3/4\ in. (44.5    2 in. (50.8 mm).
             mm).                 mm).                2 \1/2\ in. (63.5
                                                       mm).\2\
30........  8 \3/32\ in. (206    2 in. (50.8 mm)....  2 \1/2\ in. (63.5
             mm).                                      mm).
36........  9 in. (229 mm).....  2 \1/4\ in. (57.2
                                  mm).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For type 20 chambers with a 3-inch (76 mm) rated stroke.
\2\ For type 24 chambers with a 3-inch (76 mm) rated stroke.

                       Bendix DD-3 Brake Chambers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Type             Outside diameter        Brake readjustment limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
30...............  8 \1/8\ in. (206 mm)......  2 \1/4\ in. (57.2 mm).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Bolt-Type Brake Chambers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Type             Outside diameter        Brake readjustment limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A................  6 \15/16\ in. (176 mm)....  1 \3/8\ in. (34.9 mm).
B................  9 \3/16\ in. (234 mm).....  1 \3/4\ in. (44.5mm).
C................  8 \1/16\ in. (205 mm).....  1 \3/4\ in. (44.5 mm).
D................  5 \1/4\ in. (133 mm)......  1 \1/4\ in. (31.8 mm).
E................  6 \3/16\ in. (157 mm).....  1 \3/8\ in. (34.9 mm).
F................  11 in. (279 mm)...........  2 \1/4\ in. (57.2 mm).
G................  9 \7/8\ in. (251 mm)......  2 in. (50.8 mm).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Rotochamber-Type Brake Chambers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Type             Outside diameter        Brake readjustment limit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9................  4 \9/32\ in. (109 mm).....  1 \1/2\ in. (38.1 mm).
12...............  4 \13/16\ in. (122 mm)....  1 \1/2\ in. (38.1 mm).
16...............  5 \13/32\ in. (138 mm)....  2 in. (50.8 mm).
20...............  5 \15/16\ in. (151 mm)....  2 in. (50.8 mm).
24...............  6 \13/32\ in. (163 mm)....  2 in. (50.8 mm).
30...............  7 \1/16\ in. (180 mm).....  2\1/4\ in. (57.2 mm).
36...............  7 \5/8\ in. (194 mm)......  2 \3/4\ in. (69.9 mm).
50...............  8 \7/8\ in. (226 mm)......  3 in. (76.2 mm).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (b) For actuator types not listed in these tables, the pushrod
stroke must not be greater than 80 percent of the rated stroke
marked on the actuator by the actuator manufacturer, or greater than
the readjustment limit marked on the actuator by the actuator
manufacturer.
* * * * *

    Issued on: July 27, 2012.
William Bronrott,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-18899 Filed 8-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


At Petitioners' request, EPA hosted a listen session on July 29, 2013 during which Petitioners discussed their Petition to Add the Oil and Gas Extraction Industry, Standard Industrial Classification Code 13, to the List of Facilities Required to Report under the Toxics Release Inventory. Petitioners created the attached agenda and adhered to its framework and content during the listening session. Since this was a listening session, EPA listened to Petitioners' input but did not provide substantive feedback or input of any kind.

Meeting Attendees:
EPA
Steve Knizner, Director, TRI Program Division<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ingrid Rosencrantz, Branch Chief, TRI Regulatory Development Branch<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Gilbert Mears, Staff, TRI<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cory Wagner, Staff, TRI<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Chris Kaczmarek, Attorney, Office of General Counsel<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ben Wakefield, Attorney, Office of General Counsel<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Non-EPA
Eric Schaeffer, Executive Director, Environmental Integrity Project<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Adam Kron, Attorney, Environmental Integrity Project<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sofia Plagakis, Policy Analyst, Center for Effective Government (formerly OMB Watch<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sean Moulton, Director of Open Government Policy Program , Center for Effective Government<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Diana Dascalu-Joffe, Senior General Counsel, Chesapeake Climate Action Network<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Aaron Mintzes, Policy Advocate, Earthworks<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Matthew McFeeley, Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Craig Segall, Sierra Club, Attorney<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ryan Hamilton, Intern, Environmental Integrity Project
Ariel Solaski, Intern, Environmental Integrity Project
Caitlin Stantion, Intern, Environmental Integrity Project