[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11289-11293]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05136]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0129; Notice 2]

Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North 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: Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.,
on behalf of Toyota Motor Corporation and certain other specified
Toyota manufacturing entities (collectively referred to as ``Toyota''),
has determined that certain model year (MY) 2016-2017 Lexus RX350 and
Lexus RX450H motor vehicles do not fully comply with Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 202a, Head Restraints. Toyota filed
a noncompliance information report dated November 29, 2016. Toyota also
petitioned NHTSA on December 21, 2016, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Chan, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, NHTSA, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Toyota, has determined that certain MY 2016-2017 Lexus
RX350 and RX450H motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S4.5
of FMVSS No. 202a, Head Restraints (49

CFR 571.202a). Toyota filed a noncompliance information report dated
November 29, 2016, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Toyota also petitioned NHTSA
on December 21, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and
49 CFR part 556, 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.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on April 7, 2017, in the Federal Register (82 FR
17079). 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-2016-0129.''
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 120,748 MY 2016-2017 Lexus
RX350 and Lexus RX450H motor vehicles manufactured between September
28, 2016, and November 23, 2016, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: Toyota explains that the rear seat outboard
head restraints are removable by utilizing the same action (i.e.,
depressing the lock release button while the headrest is being pulled
upward) that is used to adjust the head restraints from the first
adjustment position to the second. Therefore, the requirements of
paragraph S4.5 of FMVSS No. 202a are not met.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S4.5 of FMVSS No. 202a, titled
``Removability of Head Restraints'' includes the requirements relevant
to this petition:
     The head restraint must not be removable without a
deliberate action distinct from any act necessary for upward
adjustment.
    V. Summary of Toyota's Petition: Toyota described the subject
noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Toyota submitted the following
reasoning:
    1. The rear outboard head restraints continue to meet the
underlying purpose of S4.5 of the standard:
    a. Background of S4.5: Toyota referenced a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) that NHTSA issued in 2001 \1\ to upgrade FMVSS No.
202 and stated that its principal focus was to improve performance of
front and rear outboard head restraints to mitigate ``whiplash''
injuries, particularly in rear crashes. Toyota stated that the agency
recognized that existing adjustable head restraints could be manually
removed solely by hand, and not be replaced, thereby creating a greater
risk of injury. As a result, the proposed rule stated that removable
front seat head restraints would not be permitted, but that due to
concerns with rear visibility, removable restraints in the rear would
not be prohibited. Toyota stated that the draft rule did not contain
any requirement comparable to the one set forth in paragraph S4.5 of
FMVSS No. 202a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 66 FR 968 (January 4, 2001)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Toyota further explained that when NHTSA issued the FMVSS No. 202
Final Rule in 2004,\2\ it made a variety of changes from the
requirements proposed in the NPRM. One of those was to not require rear
seat outboard head restraints, but to impose certain requirements on
head restraints that were voluntarily installed. Toyota noted that most
of the comments submitted on the NPRM favored removability of both
front and rear seat head restraints solely by hand, although some
supported a prohibition on removability at all positions, because a
removed restraint might not be replaced or correctly reinstalled.
Toyota stated that NHTSA ultimately decided to allow head restraint
removability for both front and rear restraints, but for both front and
rear optional head restraints, specified that removal must be by means
of a deliberate action that is distinct from any act necessary for
adjustment to ensure that head restraints are not accidentally removed
when being adjusted, thereby reducing the likelihood of inadvertent
head restraint removal and increasing the chances that vehicle
occupants will receive the benefits of properly positioned head
restraints. To implement this requirement, the agency added the text in
paragraph S4.5. In 2007, the agency amended the standard by adding the
word ``upward'' before ``adjustment'' to clarify the upward adjustment
and removability aspects of the requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 69 FR 74848 (December 14, 2004)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. The noncompliance is inconsequential because the rear outboard
head restraints meet the underlying purpose of S4.5: Toyota stated that
the rear seat head restraints in the subject vehicles allow manual
adjustment by sliding the head restraint in and out of the seat back on
stays attached to the head restraint. Position locking is achieved by
two notches in one of the stays, allowing for a detent mechanism.
Toyota stated that the posts go through plates on top of the seat back,
one of which contains a button which is pressed to allow the restraint
to be removed. To adjust the height of the head restraint from the
fully stowed position on top of the seatback to the first notch on the
stay, the restraint is simply pulled upward. To reach the second notch,
the button must first be pressed to allow the restraint to be lifted;
it then will lock in position. To remove the restraint, the button must
again be pressed before lifting it out of the seatback. Because the
button must be pressed to adjust the restraint from the first notch
position to the second, and the same action is required to start the
removal process, the restraint does not conform to paragraph S4.5 of
FMVSS No. 202a.
    Toyota stated that there are three factors, when considered
together, that make this noncompliance inconsequential to motor
vehicles safety:
    i. With the subject head restraints, the necessity to press the
release button to move from the first notch to the second, in addition
to the need to press it to release the restraint from the second notch
to remove it, lessens the ease of removal, thereby reducing the
likelihood of inadvertent removal and increasing the chances that the
occupant will receive the benefits of a properly positioned head
restraint.
    ii. The subject vehicle model can be generally described as a mid-
sized sports-utility vehicle (SUV). The roofline tends to slope
downward toward the rear of the vehicle, and the distance between the
top of the head restraint and the headliner is less than in other mid-
sized SUV's with a less sloped roofline. The rear seat can be manually
adjusted forward and rearward on the seat track for a distance of 120mm
from the front position to the rear position. The nominal design seat
back position is approximately 27 degrees rearward to the vertical
line, and the seat back can be reclined an additional 10 degrees. The
seat back folds forward from the nominal design position. (See figure 6
of Toyota's petition).
    Given the rear seat design, there are a variety of combinations of
seat track and seat back positions that can be attained. Typically, the
seat would most likely be placed in the mid-track position or rearward
for occupant comfort and convenience. From the mid-track position
(60mm) rearward there are 30 combinations of seat track/seat back angle
combinations for the manually reclining seat back.\3\ Of these

combinations there are 25 where there would be some degree of
interference between the top of the head restraint and the vehicle
headliner if someone intended to remove it. To completely remove the
restraint from the top of the seat in these 25 combinations, there must
be a deliberate action to compress the soft material of the restraint,
because it cannot be pulled directly out of the seatback. In some
cases, the seat back angle would have to be adjusted or the seat moved
forward on the seat track before the restraint can be removed without
headliner interference. (See figure 7 of Toyota's petition)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Some models are equipped with a power reclining seat back
with the same adjustment range as the manual reclining seat back,
but which can be placed in positions between the 2 degree increments
of the manual seat back.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Together with the need to press the release button to move the head
restraint when in either the first or second notches, such further
deliberate actions in many seat adjustment positions of either
compressing the restraint material, adjusting the seat slide position,
or adjusting the seat back angle lessen the ease with which the
restraint can be removed, reduce the chance of accidental removal, and
increase the chances that the occupant will receive the benefits of a
properly positioned head restraint.
    iii. Finally, in addition to the two previously noted factors, it
is unlikely that the head restraint will be inadvertently removed as
there is 97.7mm of travel distance from the second notch until the head
restraint is fully removed from the seat; this length is much greater
than the travel distance between the fully stowed position and second
notch (37.5mm). The difference is easily recognized by anyone
attempting to adjust the head restraint. (See figure 8 of Toyota's
petition) Therefore, the overall design and operation of the rear head
restraints in the subject vehicles fulfill the purpose and policy
behind the S4.5 requirement.
    2. The Design and performance of the rear seat head restraints
provide safety benefits to a broad range of occupants and pose no risk
of exacerbating whiplash injuries, making the noncompliance
inconsequential:
    a. Toyota stated that NHTSA elected not to mandate rear seat head
restraints in vehicles; however, certain requirements for voluntarily
installed rear head restraints were adopted. Toyota stated that the
requirements for rear outboard head restraints are common in some
respects with those of front seat restraints, but that the rear seat
environment and usage resulted in several differences. Toyota stated
that NHTSA analyzed the usage of rear seats and studied the various
types of occupants who typically occupy rear seating positions. Toyota
stated that NHTSA found that 10 percent of all occupants sit in rear
outboard seats, and that only 5.1 percent of those are people who are
13 years or older. Toyota stated that this justified a difference in
the minimum height requirement for front and rear head restraints. The
standard requires front integral head restraints to have a height of at
least 800mm above the H-point \4\ to the top of the restraint; the top
of an adjustable restraint must reach at least 800mm and cannot be
adjustable below 750mm. Rear outboard head restraints must have a
height not less than 750mm in any position of adjustment. Toyota quoted
the agency as stating: ``The agency has estimated that a 750mm head
restraint height would offer whiplash protection to nearly the entire
population of rear seat occupants.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The H-point is defined by a test machine placed in the
vehicle seat. From the side, the H-point represents the pivot point
between the torso and upper leg portions of the test machine, or
roughly like the hip joint of a 50th percentile male occupant viewed
laterally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Toyota stated that the rear outboard restraints in the subject
vehicles meet or surpass all the requirements in the completely stowed
position and in the first notch position. Toyota stated that there is
nothing about the performance of these restraints that poses a risk of
exacerbating whiplash injuries and that the noncompliance does not
create such a risk.
    b. Rear head restraint height well surpasses the requirements of
the standard: Toyota stated that when NHTSA established height
requirements for mandatory front head restraints, an adjustment range
was adopted that was estimated to ensure that the top of the head
restraint exceeded the head center of gravity for an estimated 93
percent of all adults. Toyota stated that research conducted since the
implementation of the previous height requirements has shown that head
restraints should be at least as high as the center of gravity of the
occupant's head to adequately control motion of the head and neck
relative to the torso.
    Toyota stated that the rear head restraints in the subject vehicles
not only surpass the 750mm requirement for voluntarily installed rear
seat restraints, but also can be adjusted to surpass the 800mm
requirement applicable to mandatory front seat head restraints. In the
fully stowed position, the rear outboard head restraints measure 780mm
above the H-point. In the first notch position they are 797mm above the
H-point, and in the second notch position they are 816mm above the H-
point. (See figure 9 of Toyota's petition)
    Toyota stated that it evaluated the height of the rear outboard
head restraints in the subject vehicles against the center of gravity
of various size occupants. In the first notch position, which can be
attained by simply pulling upward on the head restraint in a manner
compliant with S4.5, the center of gravity of the head of an occupant
the size of a 95th percentile adult male (AM95) is below the top of the
head restraint.\5\ (See figure 10 of Toyota's petition) Therefore, for
virtually 100 percent of the female adult population of the United
States \6\ and over 95 percent of the U.S. male adult population, the
rear outboard head restraints can help ``adequately control motion of
the head and neck relative to the torso'' in a position that can be
adjusted in compliance with the standard. It can also protect occupants
larger than AM95 occupants when adjusted to the second notch position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ NHTSA assumed during the rulemaking that the center of
gravity of the head of the AM95 was 105mm from the top of the head.
See FRIA at page 44. See also 66 FR at page 975. Figure 10, below,
uses this value. The center of gravity of the head of the BIORID III
ATD is 110.5mm below the top of the head.
    \6\ ``The center of gravity height of a 99th percentile female
reclined at 25 degrees is about 19mm below a 750mm (29.5 inches)
high head restraint at a 50mm (2 inch) backset.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. Toyota stated that the rear outboard head restraints in the
subject vehicles meet and surpass all other performance requirements of
the standard not only in the fully stowed position, but also in both
the first and second notch positions. These include energy absorption
(S4.2.5 and S5.2.5), backset retention (S4.2.7 and S5.2.7), and height
retention (S4.2.6 and S5.2.6). Toyota summarized the performance in
tables that can be found in its petition. It contended that there is
nothing about the performance of the rear outboard head restraints in
the subject vehicles that in relation to the additional criteria set
forth in these tables that poses a risk of exacerbating whiplash
injuries.
    3. The occupancy rates and usage of the Lexus RX model further
supports the conclusion that the noncompliance with S4.5 is
inconsequential to safety: The rear seat vehicle environment has unique
aspects in terms of occupancy rates and usage. This is why the agency
decided to specify different requirements for front and rear seat head
restraints. As noted above, the agency found that, in the general
vehicle population studied for the purpose of adopting FMVSS 202a
requirements, the occupancy rate for the rear outboard seating
positions was about 10 percent.

Toyota undertook an analysis of the National Automotive Sampling System
(NASS) General Estimates System (GES) data to better understand the
outboard rear seat occupancy rate in the subject vehicles. The subject
vehicles are the fourth generation of the Lexus RX model series, which
was introduced for MY2016. Because the exposure of this model year in
the fleet is somewhat limited, and NASS GES does not yet contain MY2016
data, the three previous generations of the RX model going back to MY
1999 were used for the analysis. While there are design differences in
each generation, all are mid-size SUV's, and it is expected that the
user demographics and rear seat usage would be representative of the
subject vehicles.
    Based on the analysis, the occupancy rate for rear outboard seat
occupants in all types of crashes for the RX models analyzed was 10
percent--meaning that 10 percent of the RX vehicles involved in crashes
have a rear outboard passenger. This is the same as what NHTSA found to
be the occupancy rate in the general vehicle population when it
undertook the FMVSS 202a rulemaking. In a smaller subset of only rear
crashes, the occupancy rate in the RX models is slightly higher, but
still small--only 13 percent.
    The data analyzed were insufficient to provide an understanding of
the size of the occupants who ride in the rear outboard positions in
the subject vehicles. However, considering that the occupancy rate is
consistent with NHTSA's previous analyses, there is no reason to
believe that occupant sizes would be significantly different from the
general vehicle population. In the Final Regulatory Impact Analysis,
the agency found that, of the small percentage of occupants that ride
in the rear of vehicles generally, 83 percent of all rear outboard
occupants were 5'9'' or less and 17 percent were 5'10'' and above. The
latter is the height of the average U.S. male. As outlined in Section
II, above, the rear outboard head restraints in the subject vehicles
are designed so that the center of gravity of the head of the small
percentage of large occupants who may occasionally ride in the rear
seats of the subject vehicles is below the top of the head restraint.
Therefore, the number of occupants who may actually seek to adjust the
rear outboard head restraints in the subject vehicles is insignificant,
further justifying a finding that the paragraph S4.5 noncompliance is
inconsequential to vehicle safety.
    Toyota stated that it is unaware of any consumer complaints, field
reports, accidents, or injuries that have occurred as a result of this
noncompliance as of December 15, 2016.
    Toyota concluded by expressing the belief 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.
    Public Comments: One comment was received by an anonymous source
and they recommended that Toyota's petition be denied. They indicated
that this law was important because it works to reduce whiplash
injuries and that if someone were trying to adjust their head
restraint, and accidentally removed it, they would be at a greater risk
of injury if they were involved in a crash trying to take it to a
mechanic.

NHTSA'S Decision

    NHTSA has reviewed the petition and the anonymous comment and has
made its decision to grant the petition based on the reasons described
below.
    NHTSA's Analysis: In promulgating the requirements related to head
restraint removability, it was the agency's desire to take reasonable
steps to increase the likelihood that a head restraint is available
when needed. We stated the following in the 2004 final rule:

    ``If head restraints were too easily removable, chances are
greater that they will be removed. That, in turn, increases the
chances that the restraints might not be reinstalled correctly, if
at all. By prohibiting removability without the use of deliberate
action distinct from any act necessary for adjustment, the
likelihood of inadvertent head restraint removal will be reduced,
thus increasing the chances that vehicle occupants will receive the
benefits of properly positioned head restraints.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 69 FR 74863.

    We believe the rationale and justification for this provision
remains sound. NHTSA's decision in this matter, in no way changes the
agency's position about the general need for the removability
requirements specified in S4.5 of FMVSS No. 202a.
    We find merit in the argument presented by Toyota that when the
head restraint is in the stowed (full down), first notch, and second
notch position, the head restraint ``meet[s] and surpass all other
performance requirements of the standard . . . .'' Thus, when the head
restraint is not removed, all benefits of the standard have been
preserved.
    Toyota provided information indicating that when the rear seat is
adjusted to a mid-track position, most seat adjustment positions (25 of
30) are such that there would be interference during head restraint
removal necessitating compression of the head restraint foam or
readjustment of the seat back to complete the removal. However, Toyota
did not provide similar data for more forward seat track positions.
Based on the data presented, it seems likely that the interference
during removal would be lessened or eliminated in these more forward
positions. Nonetheless, NHTSA finds some merit in the argument that
this mitigates to some degree the possibility of inadvertent head
restraint removal, when the seat is at mid-track or more rearward.
    We do not agree with Toyota's contention that ``the overall design
and operation of the rear head restraints in the subject vehicles
fulfills the purpose and policy behind the S4.5 requirement.'' However,
we find merit in the argument that the required 97mm of travel beyond
the second adjustment position to remove the head restraint may
mitigate potential unintended removal. This distance is greater than
the travel from the fully stowed to the second adjustment position
(37mm), and this additional distance (without a detent) may indicate to
the operator that the head restraint is being removed rather than being
adjusted to a higher position.
    Finally, although not required by FMVSS No. 202a, NHTSA notes that
the head restraints, if removed, can be reinstalled by the operator
without the assistance of a mechanic and without any tools.
    NHTSA's Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds
that Toyota has met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 202a
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, Toyota's petition is hereby granted and Toyota is
consequently 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 Toyota 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 Toyota
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)

Claudia Covell,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2018-05136 Filed 3-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: December 29, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 248)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 68697-68699]
[DOCID:fr29de09-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2008-0020; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8109]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities, where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP), that are scheduled for suspension on the effective
dates listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the
floodplain management requirements of the program. If the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the
community has adopted the required floodplain management measures prior
to the effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension
will not occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in
the Federal Register on a subsequent date.

DATES: Effective Dates: The effective date of each community's
scheduled suspension is the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third
column of the following tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact David Stearrett, Mitigation Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
flood insurance which is generally not otherwise available. In return,
communities agree to adopt and administer local floodplain management
aimed at protecting lives and new construction from future flooding.
Section 1315 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage as authorized under
the NFIP, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; unless an appropriate public body
adopts adequate floodplain management measures with effective
enforcement measures. The communities listed in this document no longer
meet that statutory requirement for compliance with program
regulations, 44 CFR part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be
suspended on the effective date in the third column. As of that date,
flood insurance will no longer be available in the community. However,
some of these communities may adopt and submit the required
documentation of legally enforceable floodplain management measures
after this rule is published but prior to the actual suspension date.
These communities will not be suspended and will continue their
eligibility for the sale of insurance. A notice withdrawing the
suspension of the communities will be published in the Federal
Register.
    In addition, FEMA has identified the Special Flood Hazard Areas
(SFHAs) in these communities by publishing a Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM). The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated
in the fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial
assistance (except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a
flood) may legally be provided for construction or acquisition of
buildings in identified SFHAs for communities not participating in the
NFIP and identified for more than a year, on FEMA's initial flood
insurance map of the community as having flood-prone areas (section
202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a),
as amended). This prohibition against certain types of Federal
assistance becomes effective for the communities listed on the date
shown in the last column. The Administrator finds that notice and
public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and unnecessary
because communities listed in this final rule have been adequately
notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Considerations. No environmental impact assessment has been prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42
U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless an appropriate
public body adopts adequate floodplain management measures with
effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply
with the statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood
insurance will no longer be available in the communities unless
remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

0
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Effective date
                                                 authorization/
                                   Community    cancellation of    Current effective map   Date certain federal
       State and location             No.        sale of flood             date            assistance no longer
                                                  insurance in                              available in SFHAs
                                                   community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Region III

Virginia:
    Augusta County,                    510013  July 24, 1974,     Jan. 6, 2010..........  Jan. 6, 2010
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; May 17,
                                                1990, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.
    Franklin County,                   510061  May 23, 1974,      ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; May 19,
                                                1981, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.
    Staunton, City of,                 510155  December 24,       ......do..............   Do.
     Independent City.                          1974, Emerg;
                                                December 1,
                                                1978, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.
           Region IV

Alabama: Greensboro, City of,          010336  March 19, 1975,    ......do..............   Do.
 Hale County.                                   Emerg; August
                                                19, 1985, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.
Kentucky: Marion County,               210160  June 7, 1984,      ......do..............   Do.
 Unincorporated Areas.                          Emerg; August
                                                19, 1985, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.
Mississippi:
    Chickasaw County,                  280269  November 15,       ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      2007, Emerg;
                                                September 1,
                                                2008, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.
    Eupora, Town of, Webster           280183  December 12,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1974, Emerg;
                                                June 17, 1986,
                                                Reg; January 6,
                                                2010, Susp.
    Houston, City of, Chickasaw        280030  February 14,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1975, Emerg;
                                                September 4,
                                                1985, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.
    Mathiston, Town of, Webster        280184  June 19, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; September
                                                29, 1986, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.
    New Houlka, Town of,               280067  October 25, 2007,  ......do..............   Do.
     Chickasaw County.                          Emerg; N/A, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.
    Okolona, City of, Chickasaw        280031  December 24,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1974, Emerg;
                                                September 4,
                                                1985, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.
    Roxie, Town of, Franklin           280055  May 8, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; June 17,
                                                1986, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.
    Webster County,                    280284  December 21,       ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      1978, Emerg;
                                                September 18,
                                                1985, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.
North Carolina:
    Asheville, City of,                370032  June 30, 1976,     ......do..............   Do.
     Buncombe County.                           Emerg; July 16,
                                                1980, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.
    Montreat, Town of, Buncombe        370476  N/A, Emerg;        ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    September 19,
                                                2005, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.
    Weaverville, Town of,              370269  N/A, Emerg; May    ......do..............   Do.
     Buncombe County.                           6, 1997, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.
    Woodfin, Town of, Buncombe         370380  February 18,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1975, Emerg;
                                                February 1,
                                                1980, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.

           Region VII

Kansas:
    Buhler, City of, Reno              200472  August 7, 1975,    ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; July 20,
                                                1984, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.
    Hutchinson, City of, Reno          200283  January 19, 1973,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; September
                                                5, 1978, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.
    Nickerson, City of, Reno           200284  January 16, 1975,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; January
                                                3, 1979, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.
    Pretty Prairie, City of,           200549  June 10, 1977,     ......do..............   Do.
     Reno County.                               Emerg; September
                                                28, 1990, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.
    South Hutchinson, City of,         200530  August 7, 1975,    ......do..............   Do.
     Reno County.                               Emerg; September
                                                28, 1990, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.
    Willowbrook, City of, Reno         200285  May 1, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; August 1,
                                                1986, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.
Nebraska:
    Central City, City of,             310148  May 20, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Merrick County.                            Emerg; August
                                                15, 1979, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.
    Clarks, Village of, Merrick        310149  August 26, 1975,   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; August
                                                19, 1987, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.
    Merrick County,                    310457  N/A, Emerg;        ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      January 31,
                                                1994, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.
    Pender, Village of,                310221  September 20,      ......do..............   Do.
     Thurston County.                           1973, Emerg;
                                                April 3, 1978,
                                                Reg; January 6,
                                                2010, Susp.
    Silver Creek, Village of,          310150  July 2, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Merrick County.                            Emerg; August
                                                26, 1977, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.
    Walthill, Village of,              310222  May 7, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     Thurston County.                           Emerg; September
                                                1, 1986, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.
    Winnebago, Town of,                310223  January 17, 1975,  ......do..............   Do.
     Thurston County.                           Emerg; September
                                                1, 1986, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.

    Winnebago Indian Tribe,            315498  August 6, 1996,    ......do..............   Do.
     Thurston County.                           Emerg; N/A, Reg;
                                                January 6, 2010,
                                                Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*-do- = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp.--Suspension.

    Dated: December 14, 2009.
Edward L. Connor,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Mitigation Directorate, Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-30731 Filed 12-28-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: September 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 181)]
[Notices]
[Page 53555-53556]
[DOCID:fr19se07-65]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12855-000]

FFP Project 11, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing
and Soliciting Comments, Motions to Intervene, and Protests

September 12, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric applications have been
filed with the Commission and are available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: P-12855-000.
    c. Date Filed: July 25, 2007.
    d. Applicant: FFP Project 11, LLC.
    e. Name of the Project: Kenner Bend Project.
    f. Location: The project would be located on the Mississippi River
in St.

Charles and Jefferson Parishes, Louisiana. The project uses no dam or
impoundment.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicants Contact: Mr. Dan Irvin, FFP Project 11, LLC, 69
Bridge Street, Manchester, MA 01944, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and interventions may be
filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper; see 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. Please include the project number (P-12855-000) on
any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project would consist of:
(1) 2,250 proposed 20-kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a
total installed capacity of 45-megawatts, (2) a proposed transmission
line; and (4) appurtenant facilities. The project would have an average
annual generation of 197.1-gigawatt-hours and be sold to a local
utility.
    l. Location of Application: A copy of the application is available
for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Competing Preliminary Permit: Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30
and 4.36.
    o. Competing Development Application: Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    p. Notice of Intent: A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to
submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    q. Proposed Scope of Studies Under Permit: A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    r. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001 (a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

under the ``e-Filing'' link.
    s. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``NOTICE OF INTENT
TO FILE COMPETING APPLICATION'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'',
``PROTEST'', and ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the
Project Number of the particular application to which the filing
refers. Any of the above-named documents must be filed by providing the
original and the number of copies provided by the Commission's
regulations to: The Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. An additional copy must be
sent to Director, Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, at the above-mentioned address. A
copy of any notice of intent, competing application or motion to
intervene must also be served upon each representative of the Applicant
specified in the particular application.
    t. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-18440 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: October 26, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 205)]
[Notices]
[Page 54982]
[DOCID:fr26oc09-56]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13556-000]

Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation; Notice
of Competing Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and
Soliciting Comments and Motions To Intervene

October 19, 2009.
    On July 16, 2009, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation (MDNRC) filed an application for a preliminary permit,
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study
the feasibility of the Tongue River Power Project, which would be
located at the existing Tongue River Reservoir Dam on the Tongue River,
in Big Horn County, Montana. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit,
if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license
application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not
authorize the permit holder to perform any land disturbing activities
or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the
owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would use the existing 93-foot-high, 1,824-
foot-long earthen dam with spillway, and the existing 765-foot-long,
16-foot-diameter horseshoe-shaped auxiliary outlet conduit. MDNRC
proposes to construct and install: (1) A new 8-foot-diameter, 765-foot-
long steel liner in the existing auxiliary outlet conduit; (2) a new 8-
foot-diameter, 400-foot-long steel penstock extending to a bifurcation;
(3) a new 8-foot-diameter, 60-foot-long steel penstock extending from
the bifurcation to the powerhouse; (4) a new 8-foot-diameter, 60-foot-
long steel conduit extending from the bifurcation to an energy
dissipation structure for excess flows and bypass during turbine
outages; (5) a new powerhouse containing two generating units with a
combined installed capacity of 3,000 kilowatts, discharging flows into
the Tongue River; (6) a new substation next to the powerhouse; (7) a
new 25-kilovolt, 0.75-mile-long transmission line; (8) a new switchyard
at the interconnection point with the local grid; and (9) appurtenant
facilities. The proposed project would have an average annual
generation of 11.5 gigawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Kevin Smith, State Water Projects Bureau,
Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, 1424 9th
Ave., P.O. Box 201601, Helena, MT 59620-1601; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Dianne Rodman,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Competing Application: This application competes with Project No.
13372-000 filed February 12, 2009. The April 23, 2009 notice for
Project No. 13372-000 established a June 22, 2009 deadline for filing
competing applications and notices of intent to file a competing
application. MDNRC's notice of intent to file a competing application
was timely filed on June 2, 2009, and its competing application was
timely filed on July 16, 2009.
    Deadline for filing comments and motions to intervene: 60 days from
the issuance of this notice. Comments and motions to intervene may be
filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii)
and the instructions on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov/
docs-filing/ferconline.asp) under the ``eFiling'' link. For a simpler
method of submitting text only comments, click on ``Quick Comment.''
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or, for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly
encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To
paper-file, mail an original and eight copies to: Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13556) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-25619 Filed 10-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


 ADVANCE \y63

	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	REGION III

1650 Arch Street

	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103-2029

February 21, 2008

Ms. Joyce E. Epps, Director

Bureau of Air Quality

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Rachel Carson State Office Building

P.O. Box 8468

Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063

Dear Ms. Epps:

On January 9, 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a revision to the Pennsylvania State Implementation Plan (SIP) from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP). This revision is requesting the approval of the Wayne County, Pennsylvania’s 110(a)(1) 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan and Base-Year Inventory.   The EPA has determined that the submittal is administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing it to prepare a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR).

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Gregory Becoat, Air Quality Planning Branch, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.  He is the principal contact for this rulemaking.

	Sincerely,

    /s/

          Judith M. Katz, Director

                          			          Air Protection Division

cc:  Arleen Shulman, PADEP

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

	Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 14, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15715-15716]
[FR Doc No: 2023-05181]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL--10758-01-OA]

Public Meetings of the Science Advisory Board Biosolids Panel

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory
Board (SAB) Staff Office is announcing public meetings of the Science
Advisory Board Biosolids Panel. The purpose of the meetings is to
receive a briefing from EPA, review and discuss charge questions, and
peer review the EPA's biosolid risk assessment framework.

DATES:
    Public Meetings: The Science Advisory Board Biosolids Panel will
meet on the following dates. All times listed are in Eastern Standard
Time.
    1. April 5, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    2. May 2-3, 2023, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    3. May 31, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    Comments: See the section titled ``Procedures for Providing Public
Input'' under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for instructions and deadlines.

ADDRESSES: The April 5, 2023, and May 31, 2023, meetings will be
conducted virtually. Please refer to the SAB website at https://sab.epa.gov for information on how to attend the meeting. The May 2-3,
2023, meeting will be in person and virtually. Please refer to the SAB
website at https://sab.epa.gov for the location and information on how
to attend the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public who wants
further information concerning this notice may contact Dr. Shaunta
Hill-Hammond, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), via telephone (202)
564-3343, or email at [email protected]. General information
about the SAB, as well as any updates concerning the meetings announced
in this notice, can be found on the SAB website at https://sab.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The SAB was established pursuant to the Environmental
Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (ERDDAA),
codified at 42 U.S.C. 4365, to provide independent scientific and
technical advice to the EPA Administrator on the scientific and
technical basis for agency positions and regulations. The SAB is a
Federal Advisory Committee chartered under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. app. 2. The SAB will comply with the
provisions of FACA and all appropriate SAB Staff Office procedural
policies. Pursuant to FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that
the Science Advisory Board Biosolids Panel will hold three public
meetings to receive a briefing from EPA, review and discuss charge
questions, listen to public comments and peer review the EPA's biosolid
risk assessment framework; including the prioritization process, choice
of models and usability of a biosolids screening tool by risk
assessors.
    Availability of Meeting Materials: All meeting materials, including
the agenda, will be available on the SAB web page at https://sab.epa.gov.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees and panels has a
different purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices.
Therefore, the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory
committee is different from the process used to submit comments to an
EPA program office. Federal advisory committees and panels, including
scientific advisory committees, provide independent advice to the EPA.
Members of the public can submit relevant comments pertaining to the
committee's charge or meeting materials. Input from the public to the
SAB will have the most impact if it provides specific scientific or
technical information or analysis for the SAB to consider or if it
relates to the clarity or accuracy of the technical information.
Members of the public wishing to provide comment should follow the
instructions below to submit comments.
    Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an
oral presentation at a meeting conducted virtually will be limited to
three minutes and individuals or groups requesting an oral presentation
at an in-person meeting will be limited to five minutes. Each person
making an oral statement should consider providing written comments as
well as their oral statement so that the points presented orally can be
expanded upon in writing. Persons interested in providing oral
statements should contact the DFO, in writing (preferably via email) at
the contact information noted above by March 22, 2023, for the April 5,
2023, meeting, by April 18, 2023, for the May 2-3, 2023, and by May 17,
2023, for the May 31, 2023, meeting to be placed on the list of
registered speakers.
    Written Statements: Written statements will be accepted throughout
the advisory process; however, for timely consideration by SAB members,

statements should be submitted to the DFO by March 22, 2023, for
consideration at the April 5, 2023, meeting by April 18, 2023, for
consideration at the May 2-3, 2023, and by May 17, 2023, for
consideration at the May 31, 2023, meeting. Written statements should
be supplied to the DFO at the contact information above via email.
Submitters are requested to provide a signed and unsigned version of
each document because the SAB Staff Office does not publish documents
with signatures on its websites. Members of the public should be aware
that their personal contact information if included in any written
comments, may be posted to the SAB website. Copyrighted material will
not be posted without the explicit permission of the copyright holder.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, please contact the DFO, at the contact
information noted above, preferably at least ten days prior to the
meetings, to give the EPA as much time as possible to process your
request.

V. Khanna Johnston,
Deputy Director, Science Advisory Board Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2023-05181 Filed 3-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 102 (Friday, May 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25732-25735]
[FR Doc No: E9-12467]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0500; FRL-8910-4]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Information Collection Activities Associated With
EPA's ENERGY STAR Program in the Residential Sector; EPA ICR No.
2193.02, OMB Control No. 2060-0586

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to renew an existing approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is
scheduled to expire on November 30, 2009. Before submitting the ICR to
OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 28, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2004-0500, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Air and Radiation Docket, Mailcode 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW.,

Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2004-0500. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Ng, Energy Star Program,
Mailcode 6202J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0500, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Air and Radiation
Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Building, Room 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading
Room is open from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is 202-566-
1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is 202-
566-1742.
    Use www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft collection of
information, submit or view public comments, access the index listing
of the contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the
public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system,
select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified in this
document.

What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What Should I Consider When I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to?

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
home builders, home owners, home energy verification organizations,
lenders, regional energy efficiency programs, home improvement
contractors, and national, regional, state, or local government
entities and other organizations that serve the home building or home
improvement industries.
    Title: Information Collection Activities Associated with EPA's
ENERGY STAR Program in the Residential Sector.
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR No. 2193.02, OMB Control No. 2060-0586.
    ICR Status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on November
30, 2009. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal
Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and are displayed
either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate
means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if
applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: EPA introduced ENERGY STAR in 1992 to label energy
efficient computers. Since then, EPA and the Department of Energy (DOE)
have expanded the ENERGY STAR Program to promote energy efficiency in
products and commercial and residential buildings. Increased energy
efficiency through ENERGY STAR provides cost savings to businesses and
homeowners, reduces greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, and
increases U.S. energy security and reliability.
    EPA announced ENERGY STAR for New Homes in 1995 as part of its
effort to promote energy efficient construction in the new homes
market. EPA rolled

out its existing homes effort in 2000 to promote comprehensive, cost-
effective upgrades to the existing homes market. These two efforts
promote home envelope improvements such as the proper installation of
adequate insulation, sealing of holes and gaps that allow air into the
home, and installation of energy efficient windows. In addition to the
home envelope, EPA promotes energy efficient heating and cooling
equipment, including sealing leaky ducts that distribute conditioned
air.
    EPA has developed this ICR to obtain authorization to collect
information from the public for the activities described below.
    ENERGY STAR Partnership: An organization interested in joining
ENERGY STAR as a partner is asked to submit a partnership agreement
establishing its commitment to promoting ENERGY STAR. Partners agree to
undertake efforts such as educating staff and the public about their
partnership with ENERGY STAR, developing and implementing a plan to
improve energy performance in homes, and highlighting achievements
utilizing the ENERGY STAR logos. Partners are encouraged to undertake
related activities for added benefit and/or public recognition, such as
committing to build 100% ENERGY STAR qualified new homes or offering
homebuyers ENERGY STAR's Advanced Lighting Package.
    Evaluation: Partners and other program participants are asked to
periodically submit information to EPA as needed to assist in
evaluating ENERGY STAR's effectiveness in helping organizations promote
energy efficiency in homes, to assess partners' level of interest and
ability in promoting ENERGY STAR in the residential sector, and to
determine the impact that ENERGY STAR has on the supply and demand for
energy-efficient homes and home improvement products and services. For
example, EPA periodically contacts a subset of partners about their
participation in the ENERGY STAR Program to determine how it has
impacted their organization and areas for improvement. EPA also
provides tools to help educate homeowners about their homes' energy
efficiency. For example, a homeowner can input basic information about
their home and their utility costs into EPA's Home Energy Yardstick to
compare their household's energy use to others and get recommendations
for improvement. EPA would like to utilize some of this information to
evaluate the tool's usefulness as well as evaluate the impact of energy
efficiency improvements as well as other characteristics of the home on
home energy efficiency.
    Quarterly Reporting: Partners are asked to submit information each
calendar quarter to assist EPA in tracking and measuring progress and
program implementation. This includes submitting quarterly updates on
partners' level of activity in qualifying new homes for the ENERGY STAR
label and activity in improving the energy efficiency of existing
homes.
    ENERGY STAR Awards: Each year partners are eligible for an ENERGY
STAR award, which recognizes organizations demonstrating outstanding
support in promoting ENERGY STAR. This award program provides partners
with public recognition and market differentiation. There is an
application form that is submitted to EPA by partners interested in
being eligible for an award.
    Outreach Partnership: Partners have the opportunity to participate
in an outreach partnership with EPA to develop public education
campaigns featuring the benefits of ENERGY STAR qualified homes.
Partners interested in participating in the outreach program are asked
to submit a form detailing their level of participation.
    Finally, organizations are encouraged to participate in other
voluntary activities under the program, such as pilot projects designed
to help EPA find better ways to encourage energy efficiency in new and
existing homes.
    Burden Statement: The annual burden for joining ENERGY STAR and
conducting related activities is estimated to range from about 1 to 100
hours per respondent. This includes time for preparing and submitting
the Partnership Agreement and related information, if requested, and
carrying out specified activities under the partnership (e.g.,
verifying site-built homes to see if they qualify for an ENERGY STAR
Label). The annual burden for partner evaluations is estimated to range
from 15 minutes to 4 hours per respondent. This includes time for
responding to EPA's questions posed during a phone interview or other
method. The annual burden for quarterly reporting is estimated to range
from about 3.5 to 10 hours per respondent. This includes time for
submitting specified information to EPA on a quarterly basis. The
annual burden for the annual awards is estimated to range from about
10.5 to 30 hours per respondent. This includes time for preparing and
submitting the application materials and, if requested, an annual
report. The annual burden for the outreach activities is estimated to
range from about 1 to 40 hours per respondent. This includes time for
preparing and submitting the commitment form and performing outreach
activities under the partnership (e.g., implementing an outreach
campaign).
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements
which have subsequently changed; train personnel to be able to respond
to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and
review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
    The ICR provides a detailed explanation of the Agency's estimate,
which is only briefly summarized here:
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 80,000.
    Frequency of response: Once, quarterly, annually, on occasion.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 297,997.
    Estimated total annual costs: $18.7 million. This includes an
estimated cost of approximately $18.6 million for labor and $0.1
million for capital investment, operation and maintenance.

Are There Changes in the Estimates From the Last Approval?

    There is an increase of 122,548 hours in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase results partly from adjustments to EPA's
burden estimates of its existing collections (e.g., updates to the
number of respondents and activities). The increase also results from
some new, voluntary programs that EPA would like to offer industry and
homeowners to further promote energy efficiency in new and existing
homes. For example, EPA intends to offer a voluntary, online tool for
homeowners to compare their home's energy efficiency to other, similar
homes. They would enter basic information from their utility bills and
their home's size and location to derive comparative information. This
would help them take steps to reduce their home's energy usage and
costs. Because the tool would be user-friendly and yet beneficial, EPA

estimates that many homeowners would use it (i.e., 75,000 homeowners/
yr.).

What Is the Next Step in the Process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: May 21, 2009.
Kathleen Hogan,
Director, Climate Protection Partnerships Division.
[FR Doc. E9-12467 Filed 5-28-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P