[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 23, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40010-40011]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17872]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-D-1804]

International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical
Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products; Studies
To Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Human Food:
General Approach To Establish an Acute Reference Dose; Guidance for
Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a guidance for industry (GFI) #232 entitled
``Studies to Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in
Human Food: General Approach to Establish an Acute Reference Dose''
(VICH GL54). This guidance has been developed for veterinary use by the
International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements
for Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products (VICH). This VICH
guidance document is intended to address the nature and types of data
that can be useful in determining a toxicological acute reference dose
(ARfD) for residues of veterinary drugs, the studies that may generate
such data, and how the ARfD may be calculated based on these data.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances
at any time.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 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-2015-D-1804 for ``Studies to Evaluate the Safety of Residues of
Veterinary Drugs in Human Food: General Approach to Establish an Acute
Reference Dose.'' 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.
    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the
Policy and Regulations Staff (HFV-6), Center for Veterinary Medicine,
Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855.
Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in
processing your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
electronic access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tong Zhou, Center for Veterinary
Medicine (HFV-153), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl.,
Rockville, MD 20855,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of GFI #232 entitled ``Studies
to Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Human Food:
General Approach to Establish an Acute Reference Dose'' (VICH GL54). In
recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by
regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote the
international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has
participated in efforts to enhance harmonization and is committed to
seeking scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for
pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to
identify, and then reduce, differences in technical requirements for
drug development among regulatory agencies in different countries.
    FDA has actively participated in the International Council for
Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human
Use for several years to develop, with input from both regulatory and
industry representatives, harmonized technical requirements for the
registration or approval of pharmaceutical products for

human use among the European Union, Japan, and the United States. The
VICH is a parallel initiative for veterinary medicinal products. The
VICH is concerned with developing harmonized technical requirements for
the approval of veterinary medicinal products in the European Union,
Japan, and the United States, and includes input from both regulatory
and industry representatives.
    The VICH Steering Committee is composed of member representatives
from the European Commission and European Medicines Agency;
International Federation for Animal Health--Europe; FDA; the U.S.
Department of Agriculture; the U.S. Animal Health Institute; the
Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries; and the
Japanese Veterinary Products Association.
    Six observers are eligible to participate in the VICH Steering
Committee: One representative from the government of Australia/New
Zealand, one representative from the industry in Australia/New Zealand,
one representative from the government of Canada, one representative
from the industry in Canada, one representative from the government of
South Africa, and one representative from the industry in South Africa.
The VICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of
documentation, is provided by HealthforAnimals.

II. Guidance for Industry on Studies To Evaluate the Safety of Residues
of Veterinary Drugs in Human Food: General Approach To Establish an
Acute Reference Dose

    In the Federal Register of June 1, 2015 (80 FR 31041), FDA
published the notice of availability for a draft guidance entitled
``Studies to Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in
Human Food: General Approach to Establish an Acute Reference Dose''
(VICH GL54) giving interested persons until July 31, 2015, to comment
on the draft guidance. FDA received two comments on the draft guidance,
and those comments, as well as those received by other VICH member
regulatory agencies, were considered as the guidance was finalized. The
guidance announced in this notice finalizes the draft guidance dated
June 1, 2015. The final guidance is a product of the Safety Expert
Working Group of the VICH.
    This VICH guidance document is intended to address the nature and
types of data that can be useful in determining a toxicological ARfD
for residues of veterinary drugs, the studies that may generate such
data, and how the ARfD may be calculated based on these data.

III. Significance of Guidance

    This guidance, developed under the VICH process, is being issued
consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR
10.115). For example, the document has been designated ``guidance''
rather than ``guideline.'' In addition, guidance documents must not
include mandatory language such as ``shall,'' ``must,'' ``require,'' or
``requirement,'' unless FDA is using these words to describe a
statutory or regulatory requirement.
    The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on ``Studies to
Evaluate the Safety of Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Human Food:
General Approach to Establish an Acute Reference Dose.'' 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 is not a
significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 12866.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Action of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 514 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0032.

V. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at
either https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/GuidanceComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/default.htm or
https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: August 18, 2017.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-17872 Filed 8-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 145 (Monday, July 29, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36474]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16046]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010; FRL-9996-45-Region 7]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the Omaha Lead Superfund
Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 7 announces
the deletion of 500 residential parcels of the Omaha Lead Superfund
site (Site or OLS) located in Omaha, Nebraska, from the National
Priorities List (NPL). This partial deletion pertains to 500
residential parcels. The remaining parcels will remain on the NPL and
are not being considered for deletion as part of this action. The NPL,
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended,
is an appendix of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). The EPA and the State of Nebraska, through the
Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality, determined that all
appropriate Response Actions under CERCLA were completed at the
identified parcels. However, this deletion does not preclude future
actions under CERCLA.

DATES: This action is effective July 29, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0010. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the site information repositories. Locations, contacts,
and viewing hours of the Site information repositories are:
     EPA Region 7, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas
66219, open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday-Friday.
     W. Dale Clark Library, located at 215 S 15th Street,
Omaha, NE 68102, open 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday-Thursday; 10 a.m. to 6
p.m. Friday and Saturday; and 1 p.m. to 6 p.m. Sunday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Hagenmaier, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, SEMD/LMSE,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, KS 66219, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The portion of the site to be deleted from
the NPL are 500 residential parcels of the Omaha Lead Superfund site,
Omaha, Nebraska. A Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion for this Site
was published in the Federal Register (84 FR 24069) on May 24, 2019.
    The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent for Partial
Deletion was June 24, 2019. No public comments were received, and EPA
has determined it will proceed with the partial deletion.
    The EPA maintains the NPL as the list of sites that appear to
present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or the
environment. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not preclude further
remedial action. Whenever there is a significant release from a site
deleted from the NPL, the deleted site may be restored to the NPL
without application of the hazard ranking system. Deletion of portions
of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party liability, in
the unlikely event that future conditions warrant further actions.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous substances, Hazardous waste, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water supply.

    Dated: July 23, 2019.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2019-16046 Filed 7-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


January 23, 2012

Mr. Jim Downing

Executive Director

Human Studies Review Board

Office of the Science Advisor

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington, D.C. 20460

Tim Boyle

103 West 6th Street

Bayonne NJ 07002

Re:	USEPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2011-0954

			Comment to the Record

Dear Mr. Downing:

I am an employee of the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP).  On January 9, 2012, I posted a comment to the
referenced public docket from my work computer, using NJDEP’s
“Groupwise” email system and noting my official title and web
address.   Although I posted the comment on human studies from my NJDEP
account, I did not intend to speak on behalf of the Department, nor was
I granted authority by my supervisors to do so.   Rather, the comment
was intended solely to express my personal opinions and views.

I submit this letter to you in order to correct the public record and
address any misperceptions that may have arisen as a result of my
unauthorized use of NJDEP’s Groupwise email system and my official
state title and address to express a personal opinion.   Please consider
my January 9, 2012 comment to be that from a private citizen.

I understand that this public docket was established to accept comments
in advance of a meeting of the USEPA Human Studies Review Board which is
scheduled to be held on January 26, 2012.  To the extent that the public
docket remains open, please accept this clarification of my prior public
comment.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me
directly at the personal address above.  Thank you.

Sincerely,

Tim Boyle

c: 	Magdalena Padilla, NJDEP Chief of Staff

	Wolfgang Skacel, NJDEP Assistant Commissioner

	John Castner, NJDEP Director

	Roy Meyer, NJDEP Chief

	Debra Ewalt, NJDEP Director

	Roseanne Rossi, NJDEP Manager


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29293-29294]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13541]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9962-04-Region 5]

Proposed De minimis Settlement With Sunoco (R&M), LLC at Lammers
Barrel Site in Beavercreek, Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended (``CERCLA''), notice is hereby given by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (``EPA''), Region 5, of a proposed de minimis
administrative agreement under Section 122(g) of CERCLA, between EPA
and Sunoco (R&M), LLC. pertaining to the Lammers Barrel Superfund Site
located in the Beavercreek, Greene County, Ohio (``Site''). The
settlement requires a $85,253.85 payment by Sunoco (R&M), LLC. to the
EPA Hazardous Substance Superfund Lammers Barrel Superfund Site Special
Account set aside for the remedial design and remedial action

(RD/RA) work at operable unit 2 (``OU2''). Crediting the $73,538 Sunoco
(R&M), LLC previously paid to the group of parties performing work at
the Site, it will have paid $158,791.85, its fair share of cleanup
costs incurred and anticipated to be incurred in the future at the
Site, plus a ``premium'' that accounts for, among other things,
uncertainties associated with the costs of future work at the Site. The
payment also factors in an orphan share based on 25% of the estimated
RD/RA costs at OU2. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue
pursuant to Sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA, relating to the Site,
subject to limited reservations, and protection from contribution
actions or claims as provided by Sections 113(f)(2) and 122(g)(5) of
CERCLA. For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this
notice, EPA will receive written comments relating to the settlement.
EPA will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its
consent to the settlement if comments received disclose facts or
considerations that indicate that the proposed settlement is
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. EPA's response to any comments
received will be available for public inspection at EPA Region 5, 77
West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL. 60604.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 28, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement is available for public inspection
at EPA Region 5 offices at 77 West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604. A
copy of the proposed settlement may be obtained from Maria Gonzalez,
Associate Regional Counsel, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Blvd., mail code:
C-14J, Chicago, IL 60604. Comments should reference the Lammers Barrel
Superfund Site, and EPA Docket No. V-W-17-C-006 and should be addressed
to Maria Gonzalez, Associate Regional Counsel, EPA, Office of Regional
Counsel, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Blvd., mail code: C-14J, Chicago, IL
60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maria Gonzalez, Associate Regional
Counsel, EPA, Office of Regional Counsel, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Blvd., mail code: C-14J, Chicago, IL 60604. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-
Mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA executed a Consent Decree with Sixteen
major parties, the owner, twenty-one de minimis parties, and two
Federal agencies that was entered on April 22, 2014, after public
comment (the Consent Decree). The Consent Decree addressed the remedial
design and remedial action at OU1 of the Site as well as de minimis
settlement. EPA previously issued an administrative order on consent
for a remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) in 2002, and
amended it in 2008, to add more parties. The group is conducting the
RD/RA at OU2 and continues the RI/FS at OU1. EPA brought a cost
recovery action against two other parties Sunoco, Inc. and Dayton
Industrial Drums, Inc. in 2016. The proposed settlement does not cover
those parties.

    Dated: April 21, 2017.
Margaret M. Guerriero,
Acting Director, Superfund Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-13541 Filed 6-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Summary of EPA Meeting with

VPRA (Vanadium Processors and Recyclers Association)

June 11, 2007

On Monday, June 11, 2007, representatives from the Office of Solid Waste
(OSW) met with VPRA to discuss their petition on spent catalyst and
possible interaction with the Definition of Solid Waste Rulemaking.
VPRA presented a history of their interactions with the Agency on the
regulation of spent catalyst and discussed some of the unique properties
of spent catalyst, including the fact it is exothermic and generates
sulfuric acid which can eat through traditional containers.  VPRA urged
EPA to take action on their petition and to keep spent catalyst separate
from the proposed Definition of Solid Waste exclusion.   EPA shared the
current schedule for addressing the petition and explained that we have
not yet decided whether and how to exclude spent catalysts from RCRA
regulations.   EPA encouraged VPRA to submit formal comments on the DSW
proposal.

Matt Hale		Environmental Protection Agency

Ross Elliott		Environmental Protection Agency

Tavara Culpepper	Environmental Protection Agency

Tracy Atagi		Environmental Protection Agency

Jim Aiken		VPRA

John Hilbert		VPRA

Hoy Frakes		Metallurg Vanadium

Bill Deering		GCMC

Dale Scherger		VPRA/Scherger Associates

Ken von Schaumburg	Squire Associates


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION 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 Enforcement and Compliance Assurance/ Office of Compliance 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2060 0054 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. G New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. X 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 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 For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title NSPS for Glass Manufacturing Plants ( 40 CFR part 60, subpart CC) ( Renewal)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR Number 1131.08 9. Keywords Hand glass melting furnaces, all electric melter, container glass, flat glass, pressed and blown glass.

10. Abstract The provisions of this subpart apply to each glass manufacturing plant that commenced construction or modification after June 15, 1979. Owners or operators of subpart CC facilities are required to comply with reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and maintain records of specific information needed by EPA to determine if compliance has been achieved. Sources are required to submit semiannual reports of excess emissions.

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. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 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 41 b. Total annual responses 103 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 10 % c. Total hours requested 803 d. Current OMB inventory 590 e. Difference 213 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment 213 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) $ 238 c. Total annualized cost requested $ 238 d. Current OMB inventory $ 261 e. Difference ($ 23) f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change $ 0 2. Adjustment $( 23)

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. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. X Other ( describe) Initially 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Learia A. Williams Phone: ( 202) 564 4113 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 the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

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

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

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

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

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

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

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

( i) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

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

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

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

Signature of Program Official Michael S. Alushin, Director Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division Office of Compliance Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Sara Hisel McCoy, ActingDirector Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


TITLE V PERIODIC MONITORING GUIDANCE FINALIZED The Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) issued guidance on September 15, 1998, that clarifies certain principles to be applied when implementing the periodic monitoring requirements of 40 CFR, sections 70.6( a)( 3) and 71.6( a)( 3). The guidance, developed with significant stakeholder involvement, should assist State and local permitting authorities in evaluating whether sufficient monitoring is contained in each facility's air operating permit.

Under EPA's operating permit program ( title V), permits issued must include periodic monitoring for each emission point at each source. This requirement has been one of the most challenging aspects of title V implementation because issues raised have revealed significantly different interpretations among permitting authorities, EPA, and industry. The periodic monitoring guidance discusses in detail the factors that should be considered in assessing the adequacy of the periodic monitoring and should resolve most questions of interpretation. In addition, by clarifying periodic monitoring requirements, EPA expects that the guidance will lead to good permits which satisfy the Clean Air Act and its regulations.

The guidance clarifies the instances in which periodic monitoring is required. It does not, however, contain specific, technical examples of periodic monitoring. The Agency is developing a technical reference document containing such examples that is expected to be available to the public by Spring 1999. It is likely that understanding of the technical aspects of implementing periodic monitoring will continue to evolve over time and that the reference document will be supplemented accordingly. The guidance also clarifies the instances in which no periodic monitoring is required. In addition, the guidance confirms that top down or hierarchical approaches to monitoring selection are not required.

Other features of the guidance include background on why and when periodic monitoring is necessary and a description of the monitoring evaluation process. The guidance describes how periodic monitoring can be made enforceable through the title V permit and discusses documentation that should accompany the permit record. It also explains EPA's role in the periodic monitoring evaluation process and where the applicant, the permitting authority, or public may find more information about the process.

For further information, interested parties can obtain an electronic copy of the guidance from EPA's operating permits program web site at the following address: http:// www. epa. gov/ oar/ oaqps/ permits. For questions concerning the guidance or specific periodic monitoring adequacy determinations, contact your State/ local permitting authority or David McNeal ( 404 562 9102) or Joel Huey ( 404 562 9104) of EPA Region 4.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 83 (Monday, April 30, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18765-18766]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08960]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0310; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASW-7]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Revocation of Class E Airspace; Clarendon, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to remove Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Clarendon Municipal Airport,
Clarendon, TX. The FAA is proposing this action due to the cancellation
of the instrument procedures at the airport making this airspace no
longer necessary.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 14, 2018.

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-2018-0310; Airspace Docket No. 18-ASW-7, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at http://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 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://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 7400.11B at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, 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 support the removal Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Clarendon Municipal Airport, Clarendon,
TX, as the airspace is no longer required.

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-2018-0310/
Airspace Docket No. 18-ASW-7.'' 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 http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://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 7400.11B, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective
September 15, 2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B 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 Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by removing the Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Clarendon Municipal Airport,
Clarendon, TX.
    The FAA is proposing this action due to the cancellation of the
instrument procedures at the airport making the airspace no longer
necessary.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017, 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.

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 7400.11B,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and
effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Clarendon, TX [Removed]

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on April 23, 2018.
Christopher L. Southerland,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-08960 Filed 4-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: January 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 9)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2077-2079]
[DOCID:fr14ja10-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-1073]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Todd Pacific Shipyards Vessel Launch, West Duwamish
Waterway, Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
West Duwamish Waterway, Seattle, Washington. Entry into, transit
through, mooring or anchoring within this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Puget Sound or her Designated
Representative. This safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of
recreational and commercial traffic in the area during a vessel launch
operation at Todd Pacific Shipyards, located at the entrance to the
West Duwamish Waterway.

DATES: This rule is effective from 1 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on January 16,
2010 unless cancelled sooner by the Captain of the Port.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-1073 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-1073 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail ENS Rebecca E. McCann, Waterways
Management Division, Sector Seattle, Coast Guard; telephone 206-217-
6088, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a
rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency
for good cause finds that those procedures are ``impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not
publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this
rule because publishing a NPRM would be contrary to the public interest
since immediate action is necessary to ensure the safety of commercial
and recreational vessels in the vicinity of the launch on the date and
times this rule will be in effect.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date would
be contrary to public interest because hazards associated with a vessel
launching operation in a restricted waterway, such as excessive vessel
congestion, could lead to injury, fatalities, and/or destruction of
public property. Therefore, immediate action is needed to ensure the
public's safety from the hazards noted above.

Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone to provide
for the safety of recreational and commercial vessel traffic during a
vessel launch operation at the Todd Pacific Shipyards Facility. The
area that Todd Pacific Shipyards Facility will use encompasses a high
commercial traffic zone and the West Duwamish River mouth. The Coast
Guard is establishing this zone to protect vessels and persons from the
hazards associated with excessive vessel congestions within this
restricted waterway. The safety zone is needed to keep vessels out of
the affected area during the launch period.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone to
encompass the waters of the Duwamish River extending 450 yards from the
vessel launch site at Todd Pacific Shipyard, located at the entrance to
the West Duwamish Waterway. The safety zone includes all waters within
an area encompassed by the points 47[deg]35[min]04[sec] N
122[deg]21[min]30[sec] W, thence to 47[deg]35[min]04[sec] N
122[deg]21[min]50[sec] W, thence to 47[deg]35[min]19[sec] N
122[deg]21[min]50[sec] W, thence to 47[deg]35[min]19[sec] N
122[deg]21[min]30[sec] W, thence to 47[deg]35[min]04[sec] N
122[deg]21[min]30[sec] W. The safety zone does not extend on land. The
temporary safety zone will be enforced from 1 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on
January 16, 2010 unless cancelled sooner by the Captain of the Port.
    The Coast Guard, through this action, intends to promote the safety
of personnel and vessels in the area. Entry into this zone by all
vessels will be prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port. This safety zone will be enforced by the U.S. Coast Guard. The
Captain of the Port may be assisted in the enforcement of this safety
zone by other Federal, state, or local agencies.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this temporary rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This
expectation is based on the fact that the regulated area established by
the regulation would encompass a small area that should not
significantly impact commercial or recreational traffic. For the above
reasons, the Coast Guard does not anticipate any significant economic
impact.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
the waters of the Duwamish River extending 450 yards from the vessel
launch site at Todd Pacific Shipyard, located at the entrance to the
West Duwamish Waterway from 1 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on January 16, 2010.
This safety zone will not have a significant impact due to the short
duration and small area.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule 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. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any
one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and

Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule 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.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of a
temporary safety zone to allow a vessel launch evolution at Todd
Pacific Shipyards, the duration of which will be less than one day. An
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR
part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T13-127 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-127  Safety Zone; Todd Pacific Shipyards Vessel Launch,
West Duwamish Waterway, Seattle, WA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: The waters of
the Duwamish River extending 450 yards from the vessel launch site at
Todd Pacific Shipyard, located at the entrance to the West Duwamish
Waterway, with an area encompassed by the points 47[deg]35'04'' N
122[deg]21'30'' W, thence to 47[deg]35'04'' N 122[deg]21'50'' W, thence
to 47[deg]35'19'' N 122[deg]21'50'' W, thence to 47[deg]35'19'' N
122[deg]21'30'' W, thence to 47[deg]35'04'' N 122[deg]21'30'' W.
    (b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in 33
CFR Part 165, Subpart C, no vessel may enter, transit, moor, or anchor
within this safety zone, except for vessels authorized by the Captain
of the Port or her Designated Representative.
    (c) Enforcement Period. From 1 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on January 16,
2010 unless cancelled sooner by the Captain of the Port.

    Dated: December 11, 2009.
S.E. Englebert,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2010-550 Filed 1-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: June 23, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 120)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 35627-35629]
[DOCID:fr23jn10-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

14 CFR Part 97

[Docket No. 30730; Amdt. No. 3379]

Standard Instrument Approach Procedures, and Takeoff Minimums and
Obstacle Departure Procedures; Miscellaneous Amendments

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or revokes Standard
Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums
and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports.
These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or
revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National
Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational
facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements.
These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the
navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under
instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

DATES: This rule is effective June 23, 2010. The compliance date for
each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the
amendatory provisions.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in
the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as
of June 23, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the
amendment is as follows:
    For Examination--
    1. FAA Rules Docket, FAA Headquarters Building, 800 Independence
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located;
    3. The National Flight Procedures Office, 6500 South MacArthur
Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169, or
    4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-
6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_
federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    Availability_All SIAPs are available online free of charge. Visit
nfdc.faa.gov to register. Additionally, individual SIAP and Takeoff
Minimums and ODP copies may be obtained from:
    1. FAA Public Inquiry Center (APA-200), FAA Headquarters Building,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; or
    2. The FAA Regional Office of the region in which the affected
airport is located.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harry J. Hodges, Flight Procedure
Standards Branch (AFS-420) Flight Technologies and Programs Division,
Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Mike
Monroney Aeronautical Center, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma
City, OK 73169 (Mail Address: P.O. Box 25082, Oklahoma City, OK 73125)
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule amends Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) by amending the referenced SIAPs.
The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the
appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data
Center (FDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated
by reference in the amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and
Sec.  97.20 of Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
    The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a
special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register
expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory
text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts
printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages
of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the
complete description of each SIAP contained in FAA form documents is
unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and
specifies the types of SIAP and the corresponding effective dates. This
amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure
and the amendment number.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of
each separate SIAP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and
timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only
specific changes contained for each SIAP as modified by FDC/P-NOTAMs.
    The SIAPs, as modified by FDC P-NOTAM, and contained in this
amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for
Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to
SIAPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions
existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule
have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency
action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published
aeronautical charts. The circumstances which created the need for all
these SIAP amendments requires making them effective in less than 30
days.
    Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs
and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure
before adopting these SIAPs are impracticable and contrary to the
public interest and, where applicable, that good cause exists for
making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

Conclusion

    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.
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. For the same reason, the FAA
certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 97

    Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, and
Navigation (air).

    Issued in Washington, DC on June 11, 2010.
John M. Allen,
Director, Flight Standards Service.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code
of Federal regulations, part 97, 14 CFR part

97, is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures,
effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

PART 97--STANDARD INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120,
44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.

0
2. Part 97 is amended to read as follows:

Sec. Sec.  97.23, 97.25, 97.27, 97.29, 97.31, 97.33, and
97.35  [Amended]

    By amending: Sec.  97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or
TACAN; Sec.  97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; Sec.
97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; Sec.  97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV;
Sec.  97.31 RADAR SIAPs; Sec.  97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and Sec.  97.35 COPTER
SIAPs, Identified as follows:

* * * Effective Upon Publication

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      AIRAC date           State              City                 Airport          FDC No.      FDC date                      Subject
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29-Jul-10............  AK             Fairbanks...........  Fairbanks Intl......       0/0892      5/25/10  RNAV (GPS) RWY 2L, ORIG.
29-Jul-10............  AK             Middleton Island....  Middleton Island....       0/0958      5/25/10  VOR/DME RWY 19, AMDT 5.
29-Jul-10............  AK             Middleton Island....  Middleton Island....       0/0959      5/25/10  VOR RWY 1, AMDT 2.
29-Jul-10............  AK             Middleton Island....  Middleton Island....       0/0961      5/25/10  RNAV (GPS) RWY 19, ORIG.
29-Jul-10............  AK             Middleton Island....  Middleton Island....       0/0962      5/25/10  RNAV (GPS) RWY 1, ORIG.
29-Jul-10............  FL             Okeechobee..........  Okeechobee County...       0/1147      5/25/10  RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, ORIG.
29-Jul-10............  FL             Okeechobee..........  Okeechobee County...       0/1148      5/25/10  RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, ORIG.
29-Jul-10............  CO             Burlington..........  Kit Carson County...       0/1503      5/25/10  NDB RWY 15, AMDT 1.
29-Jul-10............  NH             Manchester..........  Manchester..........       0/1601      5/25/10  VOR/DME OR GPS RWY 17, ORIG-C.
29-Jul-10............  NY             East Hampton........  East Hampton........       0/1697      5/25/10  RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 10, ORIG.
29-Jul-10............  NY             Shirley.............  Brookhaven..........       0/1698      5/25/10  RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 24, ORIG.
29-Jul-10............  VA             Charlottesville.....  Charlottesville-           0/1699      5/25/10  RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 21, ORIG-A.
                                                             Albemarle.
29-Jul-10............  NH             Whitefield..........  Mount Washington           0/1700      5/25/10  RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 10, ORIG.
                                                             Regional.
29-Jul-10............  NY             Ithaca..............  Ithaca Tompkins Rgnl       0/1701      5/25/10  RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 14, ORIG.
29-Jul-10............  MD             Baltimore...........  Baltimore-Washington       0/1702      5/25/10  ILS RWY 15R, AMDT 15B.
                                                             Intl Thurgood
                                                             Marshall.
29-Jul-10............  IA             Cherokee............  Cherokee County Rgnl       0/2102      5/25/10  RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 36, ORIG.
29-Jul-10............  NM             Socorro.............  Socorro Muni........       0/2103       6/4/10  RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 33, ORIG.
29-Jul-10............  CA             Arcata/Eureka.......  Arcata..............       0/2180       6/4/10  ILS RWY 32, AMDT 29C.
29-Jul-10............  WA             Renton..............  Renton Muni.........       0/2188      5/25/10  RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 16, AMDT 1.
29-Jul-10............  OR             The Dalles..........  Columbia Gorge             0/2189      5/25/10  LDA/DME RWY 25, ORIG.
                                                             Regional/The Dalles
                                                             Muni.
29-Jul-10............  AZ             Kingman.............  Kingman.............       0/2191      5/25/10  RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 21, ORIG.
29-Jul-10............  OR             Redmond.............  Roberts Field.......       0/2193      5/25/10  RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 28, ORIG.
29-Jul-10............  WA             Yakima..............  Yakima Air Terminal/       0/2194      5/25/10  ILS Z RWY 27, AMDT 27.
                                                             McAllister Field.
29-Jul-10............  WA             Yakima..............  Yakima Air Terminal/       0/2195      5/25/10  RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 27, ORIG.
                                                             McAllister Field.
29-Jul-10............  WA             Yakima..............  Yakima Air Terminal/       0/2196      5/25/10  ILS Y RWY 27, ORIG.
                                                             Mcallister Field.
29-Jul-10............  GA             Dalton..............  Dalton Muni.........       0/2418      5/26/10  RNAV (GPS) RWY 14, ORIG-A.
29-Jul-10............  GA             Dalton..............  Dalton Muni.........       0/2419      5/26/10  ILS OR LOC RWY 14, ORIG-A.
29-Jul-10............  GA             Dalton..............  Dalton Muni.........       0/2420      5/26/10  RNAV (GPS) RWY 32, ORIG.
29-Jul-10............  CT             Groton/New London...  Groton-New London...       0/2589      5/27/10  TAKEOFF MINIMUMS AND OBSTACLE DP, AMDT 7.
29-Jul-10............  WA             Seattle.............  Boeing Field/King          0/2663       6/7/10  ILS RWY 13R, AMDT 29.
                                                             County Intl.
29-Jul-10............  CA             Van Nuys............  Van Nuys............       0/2665      5/27/10  ILS RWY 16R, AMDT 5C.
29-Jul-10............  OR             Astoria.............  Astoria Rgnl........       0/2666       6/7/10  ILS RWY 26, AMDT 2B.
29-Jul-10............  NV             Reno................  Reno/Tahoe Intl.....       0/2668      5/27/10  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 34L, ORIG.
29-Jul-10............  CA             Salinas.............  Salinas Muni........       0/2669      5/27/10  RNAV (GPS) Z RWY 31, ORIG.
29-Jul-10............  NV             Reno................  Reno/Tahoe Intl.....       0/2670      5/27/10  RNAV (GPS) Y RWY 34R, ORIG.
29-Jul-10............  CA             Salinas.............  Salinas Muni........       0/2671      5/27/10  ILS RWY 31, AMDT 5C.
29-Jul-10............  CA             Orland..............  Haigh Field.........       0/2708      5/27/10  VOR OR GPS A, AMDT 6.
29-Jul-10............  HI             Honolulu............  Honolulu Intl.......       0/2769      5/27/10  RNAV (RNP) Z RWY 8L, ORIG.
29-Jul-10............  TX             San Angelo..........  San Angelo Regional/       0/2779       6/8/10  VOR/DME OR TACAN RWY 3, ORIG-A.
                                                             Mathis Fld.
29-Jul-10............  TX             San Angelo..........  San Angelo Regional/       0/2780       6/8/10  RADAR-1, AMDT 1.
                                                             Mathis Fld.
29-Jul-10............  TX             San Angelo..........  San Angelo Regional/       0/2781       6/8/10  ILS RWY 3, AMDT 21.
                                                             Mathis Fld.
29-Jul-10............  AL             Enterprise..........  Enterprise Muni.....       0/3150       6/8/10  VOR RWY 5, AMDT 4.
29-Jul-10............  AL             Enterprise..........  Enterprise Muni.....       0/3152       6/8/10  RNAV (GPS) RWY 5, AMDT 1.
29-Jul-10............  MT             Billings............  Billings Logan Intl.       0/3487       6/9/10  LOC/DME RWY 28R, ORIG-B.
29-Jul-10............  IA             Cedar Rapids........  The Eastern Iowa....       0/3944       6/3/10  RNAV (GPS) RWY 26, ORIG.
29-Jul-10............  IA             Cedar Rapids........  The Eastern Iowa....       0/3947       6/3/10  VOR/DME RWY 8, ORIG.
29-Jul-10............  IA             Cedar Rapids........  The Eastern Iowa....       0/3949       6/3/10  VOR RWY 26, ORIG.
29-Jul-10............  IA             Cedar Rapids........  The Eastern Iowa....       0/3950       6/3/10  RNAV (GPS) RWY 8, ORIG.

29-Jul-10............  CA             San Diego...........  Montgomery Field....       0/4634       6/9/10  TAKEOFF MINIMUMS AND OBSTACLE DP, AMDT 3.
29-Jul-10............  CQ             Saipan..............  Francisco C. Ada/          0/9757      3/16/10  ILS OR LOC/DME RWY 7, AMDT 5A.
                                                             Saipan Intl.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2010-14980 Filed 6-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 113 (Monday, June 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34244-34245]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14578]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1971-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Alabama; Amendment No. 15 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the
State of Alabama (FEMA-1971-DR), dated April 28, 2011, and related
determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 25, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tod Wells, Recovery Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, on May 25,
2011, the President amended the cost-sharing arrangements regarding
Federal funds provided under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(the ``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    A pilot project at 90 percent Federal cost share for debris
removal, including direct Federal assistance, for those areas within
counties designated for Public Assistance that are within, or
immediately adjacent to, areas of ``extensive'' or ``catastrophic''
damage as determined by the Federal Coordinating Officer applying
objective standards used by the National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency. This cost-share adjustment is authorized beginning April 28,
2011, through July 12, 2011. FEMA and the State of Alabama shall
continue to pursue any applicable private insurance payments for
debris removal to reimburse Federal costs to the extent permitted by
law.
    This adjustment to State and local cost sharing applies only to
Public Assistance costs, including direct Federal assistance, for
eligible debris removal under the pilot project. All other Public
Assistance costs will continue to be reimbursed at 75 percent of
total eligible costs. The law specifically prohibits a similar
adjustment for funds provided to States for Other Needs Assistance
(Section 408) and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (Section 404).
These funds will continue to be reimbursed at 75 percent of total
eligible costs.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant;

97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

    June 6, 2011.
W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2011-14578 Filed 6-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 126 (Friday, June 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 38793]
[FR Doc No: 2012-15974]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL12-77-000]

Grand Valley Rural Power Lines, Inc., Yampa Valley Electric
Association, Inc., Intermountain Rural Electric Association, Tri-State
Generation and Transmission Association, Inc. v. Public Service Company
of Colorado; Notice of Complaint

    Take notice that on June 21, 2012, pursuant to sections 201, 206,
and 306 of the Federal Power Act; 16 U.S.C. 824, 824(e) and 825 (2010)
and Rules 206 and 212 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission); 18 CFR 385.206 and
385.212 (2011), Grand Valley Rural Power Lines, Inc., Yampa Valley
Electric Association, Inc., Intermountain Rural Electric Association,
and Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
(collectively, Complainants) filed a formal complaint against the
Public Service Company of Colorado (Respondent), alleging that the
10.25 percent ``Return on Equity'' assessed by the Respondent in the
formula rate is unjust and unreasonable.
    The Complainants state that a copy of the Complaint has been served
on the contact for the Respondent as listed on the Commission list of
Corporate Officials.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 11, 2012.

    Dated: June 25, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-15974 Filed 6-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 14 (Friday, January 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3380-3382]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01128]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0006; Notice 2]

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (Volkswagen), has determined
that certain model year (MY) 2015-2016 Audi A3 and Audi S3 motor
vehicles do not comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment.
Volkswagen filed a noncompliance report dated January 28, 2019, and a
petition was received by NHTSA on January 28, 2019, for a decision that
the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety. This document announces the grant of Volkswagen's
petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA),<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Volkswagen has determined that certain MY 2015-2016
Audi A3 Sedan, S3 Sedan, and A3 Cabriolet motor vehicles do not comply
with paragraph S9.3.6. of FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and
Associated Equipment (49 CFR 571.108). Volkswagen filed a noncompliance
report dated January 28, 2019, pursuant to 49 CFR 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports, and a petition received by
NHTSA on January 28, 2019, for an exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 30118 and 49 U.S.C. 30120, Exemption for
Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    Notice of receipt of Volkswagen's petition was published with a 30-
day public comment period, on July 9, 2019, in the Federal Register (84
FR 32830). One comment was received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2019-0006.''
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 81,831 MY 2015-2016 Audi A3,
S3 Sedan, and A3 Cabriolet motor vehicles, manufactured between
November 28, 2013, and July 28, 2016, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: Volkswagen explains that the noncompliance is
that the subject vehicles are equipped with turn signal pilot
indicators that do not meet the flashing rate as required by paragraph
S9.3.6 of FMVSS No. 108. Specifically, the left turn signal indicator
does not have a significant change in the flashing rate when the left
rear turn signal LED array becomes inoperative.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S9.3.6 of FMVSS No. 108 provides
the requirements relevant to this petition. Failure of one or more turn
signal lamps, such that the minimum photometric performance specified
in Tables VI or VII of FMVSS No. 108 is not being met, must be
indicated by the turn signal pilot indicator by a ``steady on,''
``steady off,'' or by a significant change in the flashing rate.
    V. Summary of Volkswagen's Petition: Volkswagen describes the
subject noncompliance and contends that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. The following
views and arguments presented in this section, ``V. Summary of
Volkswagen's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by
Volkswagen and do not reflect the views of the Agency.
    In support of its petition, Volkswagen offers the following
reasoning:

    (a) The driver receives two different indicator warnings that
the rear brake light is inoperative in the instrument cluster
immediately upon failure of the turn signal lamp to comply with the
photometry requirements of FMVSS No. 108. This happens because the
brake light and indicator light/turn signal are combined.
    (b) The subject condition, the lack of a turn signal pilot
indicator flash rate change, is limited to the condition in which
the outermost left rear turn signal lamp fails.
    (c) In the case of LED array failure, both the brake light and
indicator light/turn signal become inoperative. Should the required
left turn signal become inoperative, Volkswagen confirmed that other
auxiliary left turn signal lights located on the trunk and the left
side mirror are still operational. Additionally, the back-up lamp in
the left rear tail lamp assembly, the left brake light in the trunk
lid assembly, and the center high mount stop lamp, will remain
operational.

    Volkswagen concludes that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    VI. Public Comments: NHTSA received one comment from the public.
This comment was received from an individual who believed that
Volkswagen's reasoning is unclear as it stands, and that NHTSA should
request more information from Volkswagen or deem the noncompliance
consequential. The commenter said that it is unclear as to whether the
``two different indicator warnings in the instrument cluster'' are
compliant and that a redundancy should not be considered an appropriate
substitute for a well-functioning, compliant failure indicator that's
required by the FMVSS. The commenter also said that the rule
requirements are

fairly clear with the possible exception of the lack of specificity of
the word ``significant'' in the phrase ``significant change in the
flashing rate'' but that lack of specificity isn't addressed by
Volkswagen's petition. The commenter also questioned the reasoning in
paragraph 2 of the petition that the warning that ``both lights'' had
become inoperative was equivalent to the specific warnings required by
the Standard.
    VII. NHTSA's Analysis: The burden of establishing the
inconsequentiality of a failure to comply with a performance
requirement in a standard--as opposed to a labeling requirement--is
more substantial and difficult to meet. Accordingly, the Agency has not
found many such noncompliances inconsequential.\1\ Potential
performance failures of equipment like seat belts or air bags are
rarely deemed inconsequential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An important issue to consider in determining inconsequentiality
based upon NHTSA's prior decisions on noncompliance issues was the
safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against
which the recall would otherwise protect.\2\ NHTSA also does not
consider the absence of complaints or injuries to show that the issue
is inconsequential to safety. ``Most importantly, the absence of a
complaint does not mean there have not been any safety issues, nor does
it mean that there will not be safety issues in the future.'' \3\
``[T]he fact that in past reported cases good luck and swift reaction
have prevented many serious injuries does not mean that good luck will
continue to work.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
    \3\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
    \4\ United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C.
Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk when it
``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden engine fire,
and where there is no dispute that at least some such hazards, in
this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in the
future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA has reviewed and evaluated the merits of the inconsequential
noncompliance petition submitted by Volkswagen.
    For this petition, NHTSA first considered the subject lamp
configuration which consists of four light assemblies on the rear of
the subject vehicles. Two outboard assemblies are mounted to the rear
quarter panels and two inboard assemblies are mounted on the trunk lid.
These pairs of assemblies, one on each side of the vehicle, are mounted
adjacent to each other. When a turn signal is activated by the driver,
the turn lamps in both the outboard and inboard assemblies on the side
of the vehicle corresponding to the direction the driver selected, will
illuminate. Volkswagen explained that that the auxiliary inboard lamps
will remain operational should the outboard lamps become inoperative.
The Agency did not find these factors to be compelling in granting this
petition.
    Instead, the Agency found the following considerations to be most
relevant to its decision:

    (a) While the turn signal pilot indicator does not change in
flash rate when the left outboard turn signal lamp fails to meet the
photometric requirements, the subject vehicles provide the drivers
an alternative method of notification. According to Volkswagen's
petition, the noncompliance in the subject vehicles is limited to
when the left rear outboard turn signal lamp fails, and if the left
inboard turn signal lamp should fail, the turn signal pilot
indicator will function. Given these conditions, the noncompliance
creates a scenario where a failure in the left outboard turn signal
lamp will not activate the ``fast flash'' in the pilot indicator.
While the driver is not alerted to a failure of the required turn
signal lamp by means of a change in the flash rate of the turn
signal pilot indicator lamp, if both the required turn signal lamp
and the auxiliary turn signal lamp fails, the driver will be alerted
by the means specified in the standard. In the event this inboard
turn signal lamp should fail, the turn signal pilot indicator will
alert the driver.
    (b) In addition, Volkswagen has provided at least two other
warning lights that illuminate to make the driver aware of the
failure. A warning light will illuminate at vehicle start-up or when
the failure occurs while driving. There will also be a constant bulb
out indicator in the central information display while the turn
signal lamp is inoperative. Additionally, if the left outboard turn
signal lamp is out, all other required lamps still operate as
designed.

    In response to the public comment stating that ``a redundancy
should not be considered an appropriate substitute for a well-
functioning, compliant failure indicator that's required by the
FMVSS,'' NHTSA agrees that an alternative method of notification is not
a substitute for complying with a FMVSS. However, NHTSA has recently
granted other petitions such as those submitted by Mack Trucks Inc. and
Volvo Trucks North America where an alternative method of notification
was a factor considered in granting the petition.\5\ While
manufacturers are not permitted to knowingly certify a vehicle that
does not comply with the FMVSS, NHTSA can consider whether such an
alternative method of performance is a mitigating factor when
determining the effect of the noncompliance on safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Mack Trucks, Inc., and Volvo Trucks North America, Grant
of Petitions for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 84 FR
67766, December 11, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the case of the subject petition, failure of the left rear
outboard turn signal will result in the illumination of a steady
burning general warning telltale, while a failure of the left rear
inboard turn signal will produce a compliant ``fast flash'' warning.
Thus, some form of notification will always result from a failure and
an FMVSS No. 108-compliant warning will occur if both rear left turn
signal lamps fail. Based on the specifics of this case, NHTSA believes
this alternative warning provides adequate notice to drivers that the
left rear turn signal lamp has failed such that this noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    VIII. NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA
finds that Volkswagen has met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS
No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, Volkswagen's petition is hereby granted and they
are exempted from the obligation to provide notification of and remedy
for the subject noncompliance in the affected vehicles under 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, this decision
only applies to the subject vehicles that Volkswagen no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, the granting of this petition does not relieve vehicle
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for

sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after
Volkswagen notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at 49
CFR 1.95 and 501.8)

Otto G. Matheke, III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-01128 Filed 1-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P