[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 153 (Thursday, August 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 44355]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17240]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 3133-033]

Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC; Errol Hydro Co., LLC; Notice of
Application Tendered for Filing With The Commission and Establishing
Procedural Schedule for Licensing and Deadline for Submission of Final
Amendments

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New Major License.
    b. Project No.: 3133-033.
    c. Date Filed: July 30, 2021.
    d. Applicant: Brookfield White Pine Hydro, LLC and Errol
Hydroelectric Co., LLC (licensees).
    e. Name of Project: Errol Hydroelectric Project (Errol Project).
    f. Location: The Errol Project is located on the Androscoggin River
and Umbagog Lake, near the Town of Errol, and Township of Cambridge,
NH, in Coos Wing County, New Hampshire and the Towns of Magalloway
Plantation and Upton in Oxford County, Maine. The project occupies
3,285 acres federal land in the Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge
administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Tom Uncher, Vice President, Brookfield
White Pine Hydro, LLC, Errol Hydroelectric Co., LLC, 339B Big Bay Rd.,
Queensbury, NY 12804 Phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Kelly Wolcott at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    k. The Errol Project consists of: (1) An existing dam consisting of
a 25-foot-high, 202.5- foot-long gated section separated by rock-filled
timber or concrete crib piers supporting five sluice gates and seven
deep gates, and an earthen dike with a sheet steel cut-off wall on the
upstream side, extending approximately 50 feet from the end of the
gated section of the dam to the northwestern wall of the powerhouse and
then extending another approximately 70 feet from the southeastern
powerhouse wall to the eastern embankment; (2) an approximately 9,098-
acre project impoundment with a storage capacity of 89,568 acre-feet at
a normal pond elevation of 1,247 feet, which includes an approximately
3-mile-long reach of the Androscoggin River above Errol Dam, Umbagog
Lake, and approximately 4.3 miles of the Magalloway River; (3) a
reinforced concrete powerhouse containing one horizontal double
regulated bulb turbine-generator unit with a hydraulic capacity of
2,600 cubic feet per second and an authorized installed generating
capacity of 2,031 kilowatts (kW); (4) an approximately 80-foot-long
tailrace; (5) a 3,333-kilovolt-ampere substation power transformer; and
(6) appurtenant facilities.
    The Errol Project is operated in accordance with the current
license, and three water agreements that dictate operational flows in
the watershed for other hydropower developments and for waterfowl
nesting, with an estimated annual energy production of approximately
15,944 megawatt hours. The licensees propose to operate the project
allowing for seasonal flows necessary for waterfowl nesting in Umbagog
Lake and spring runoff and does not propose any new construction to the
project. A license amendment was issued for the project in 2016 (156
FERC ] 62,045 (2016)), which approved the installation of a sixth
turbine generator unit, which would increase the total installed
capacity to 3,542.5 kW; however, the additional generator unit has not
yet been installed.
    l. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's
website 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. At this time, the Commission has
suspended access to the Commission's Public Reference Room due to the
proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel
Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) issued on March 13, 2020. For
assistance, contact FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY).
    m. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    n. Procedural schedule: The application will be processed according
to the following preliminary schedule. Revisions to the schedule will
be made as appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Deficiency Letter (if necessary)  September 2021.
Request Additional Information........  September 2021.
Notice of Acceptance December.........  2021.
Notice of Ready for Environmental
 Analysis TBD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

    Dated: August 6, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-17240 Filed 8-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 76455]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30753]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL11-4-000]

Coso Energy Developers; Coso Finance Partners; Coso Power
Developers; Notice Of Filing

December 1, 2010.
    Take notice that on November 18, 2010, Coso Energy Developers, Coso
Finance Partners, and Coso Power Developers, pursuant to section 207 of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207 (2010), filed a request for waiver of the
interconnection financial security (IFS) deposit requirement set forth
in section 9.3.1 of the California Independent System Operator
Corporation's Large Generator Interconnection Process for Queue
Requests in a Cluster Window (Cluster LGIP).
    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. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    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 e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on December 16, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30753 Filed 12-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 7 (Friday, January 10, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1789-1791]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00280]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2013-0935]

Regulated Navigation Areas and Limited Access Areas Waterway
Management; Apra Harbor, Guam

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is considering revising and consolidating
existing Regulated Navigation Areas, Security Zones and Safety Zones
currently in place in Apra Harbor, Guam. This action is intended to
replace a number of redundant, potentially confusing and outdated
navigation regulations with a cogent regulatory framework. The goal is
to better meet the needs of the community today and ensure the safe and
efficient use of the harbor by clarifying and streamlining requirements
thereby reducing vessel operator confusion while transiting the waters
of Apra Harbor, Guam. We are soliciting comments related to navigation
in Apra Harbor, Guam including ways the Coast Guard can streamline the
regulations in place while promoting safety on the waterway.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before March 11, 2014. Public meetings will be held from 12
p.m. to 2 p.m. and from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on January 22, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The public meetings will be held at the Port Authority Guam
Building, 1026 Cabras Highway, Piti, Guam. Documents mentioned in this
preamble are part of Docket Number USCG-2013-0935. To view documents
mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Open Docket Folder'' on the line
associated with this rulemaking. The following link will take you
directly to the docket: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;=USCG-2013-0935. If you do not have access to the
Internet, you may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room
W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    You may submit comments, identified by docket number, using any one
of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions
on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
document, call or email Mr. Terry Rice, Fourteenth Coast Guard
District, U. S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or submitting
material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
ESQD Explosive Safe Quantity Distance
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
RNA Regulated Navigation Area

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. If you submit a

comment online, it will be considered received by the Coast Guard when
you successfully transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or
mail your comment, it will be considered as having been received by the
Coast Guard when it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We
recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email
address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we
can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.''
Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with this
rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.''
Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this document.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We plan to hold two public meetings. The first meeting will be on
January 22, 2014 at noon at Port Authority Guam, 1026 Cabras Highway,
Piti, Guam. The second meeting will be on January 22, 2014 at 6 p.m. at
Port Authority Guam, 1026 Cabras Highway, Piti, Guam. We plan to post
the minutes and a written summary of the meeting, including all
comments made at the meeting, in the docket. For information on
facilities or services for individuals with disabilities or to request
special assistance at the public meeting, contact the person named in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, above.

5. Regulatory History and Information

    Navigational regulations of Apra Harbor have been in place in
various forms dating back to the era of U.S. Navy administration of
Guam. Some of the regulations predate the promulgation of the Ports and
Waterways Safety Act of 1972, were initially included in 33 CFR Parts
127 and 128, and subsequently re-codified in 33 CFR Part 165 on July 8,
1982 as part of a regulatory reorganization effort. The regulations in
part 165 were subsequently amended in 1986, 1990, 1996, 1998 and 2003.
Between 1972 and 2003 four Regulated Navigation Areas, three Security
Zones and two Safety Zones were created and/or amended. One of the
Security Zones was subsequently deleted, another changed to a Safety
Zone, and an additional safety zone created.
    Apra Harbor safety zones regulations in 33 CFR 165.1401 were last
amended in 1990 (55 FR 18725, May 4, 1990). These zones were
established as security zones in 1972 (37 FR 10800, 31 May 1972);
amended in 1975 (40 FR 1016, Jan. 6, 1975); codified in 33 CFR 127.1401
(a) and (b) in 1982 as part of a regulatory reorganization effort (47
FR 29569, 29667, July 8, 1982); and were subsequently disestablished
and re-established as safety zones in 1990 (55 FR 18725, May 4, 1990).
    Apra Outer Harbor regulated navigation area regulations in 33 CFR
165.1402 were established by 33 CFR part 165 (47 FR 29660, July 8,
1982), and amended in 1996, and subsequently again in 1998 (63 FR
35533, June 30, 1998).
    Apra Outer Harbor regulated navigation area regulations in 33 CFR
165.1404 were first established in 33 CFR part 128 in 1972 (37 FR
10800, May 31, 1972). They were moved to 33 CFR part 165 in 1982 (47 FR
29569, July 8, 1982), and amended in 1996 (61 FR 33660, June 28, 1996;
and subsequently in 1998 (63 FR 35524, June 30, 1998].
    Apra Harbor Security Zone C in 33 CFR 165.1404 was promulgated in
1990 (55 FR 18724, May 4, 1990).
    Regulated Navigation Areas and Security Zones regulations in 33 CFR
165.1405 regarding; Designated Escorted Vessels-Philippine Sea and Apra
Harbor Guam (including Cabras Island Channel) were established in 2003
(68 FR 4383, Jan. 29, 2003).

6. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rulemaking is the Coast Guard's authority
to establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas:
33 U.S.C 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195;
33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-6,160.5; Pub L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; and
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    Currently there are four Regulated Navigation Areas (RNA), one
Security Zone and two Safety Zones within and approaching Apra Harbor.
These regulations, included in 33 CFR 165.1401, 165.1402, 165.1404 and
165.1405, while intended to improve the safety and security of Apra
Harbor and the mariners operating therein, are potentially confusing,
overlapping, and do not adequately address current needs. The purpose
of this ANPRM is to solicit comments on how to revise and simplify the
current rules, taking into account relevant safety and security
navigational requirements for the waters of Apra Harbor (including
approaches). This proposed rulemaking will create a regulatory scheme
that ensures the needs of all stakeholders are addressed in a concise,
understandable format.

7. Discussion

    As noted, the regulatory scheme in Apra Harbor does not meet
current needs. A thorough review and consolidation of the Regulated
Navigation Areas and Limited Access Areas (Safety or Security Zones)
will simplify harbor transit communication, lessen confusion regarding
harbor transit requirements, and address current safety and security
concerns of all stakeholders.
    A Regulated Navigation Area is a water area within a defined
boundary for which regulations for vessels navigating within the area
have been established. See 33 CFR 165.10.
    A Safety Zone is a water area, shore area, or water and shore area
to which, for safety or environmental purposes, access is limited to
authorized persons, vehicles, or vessels. It may be stationary and
described by fixed limits or it may be described as a zone around a
vessel in motion. See 33 CFR 165.20.
    A Security Zone is an area of land, water, or land and water which
is so designated by the Captain of the Port or District Commander for
such time as necessary to prevent damage or injury to any vessel or
waterfront facility, to safeguard ports, harbors, territories, or

waters of the United States or to secure the observance of the rights
and obligations of the United States. See 33 CFR 165.30.
    The Coast Guard is considering:
     Consolidating the existing four RNAs, (33 CFR
165.1405(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(4) and 165.1402(a)), into one Regulated
Navigational Area that addresses the waters of the Apra Harbor Channel
entrance and all waters of the Apra Harbor outer harbor.
     Expanding the radius of the existing Kilo Wharf Safety
Zone (33 CFR 165.1401(b)) into a series of two or three safety zone
radius options based upon the volume and type of cargo transferred at
Kilo Wharf, thereby optimizing harbor operations viability and personal
safety.
     Removing Hotel Wharf Safety Zones A and B (33 CFR
165.1405.1(a) and (b)) due to obsolescence.
     Retaining Security Zone C, Buoy 702 (33 CFR 165.1404).
This zone surrounds a permanent mooring buoy reserved for specific
vessels.

B. Information Requested

    Public participation is requested to assist in determining the
optimal way forward. The Coast Guard is seeking to identify what
problems mariners and the public are experiencing with the current
regulatory scheme, including but not limited to: The impacts of
existing safety and security zones; suggestions for regulatory
amendment to improve navigation while assuring safety concerns are
adequately addressed; and potential impacts if the Kilo Wharf Safety
Zone is amended to include a flexible expansion capability during
periods of increased munitions cargo volume operations. The Coast Guard
also seeks to determine the viability of alternative vessel transit and
cargo operations methodologies (e.g., night vs. daylight cargo
transfers, or alteration of charter operator schedules or locations).
    Again, the Coast Guard seeks input for aid in developing a proposed
rule. Please submit any comments or concerns you may have in accordance
with the ``submitting comments'' section above.
    This document is issued under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 33
CFR 1.05-1, and 1.05-30.

    Dated: December 18, 2013.
C.B. Thomas,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fourteenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2014-00280 Filed 1-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: August 16, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 158)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 47161-47162]
[DOCID:fr16au06-34]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2004-NH-0001; A-1-FRL-8210-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Hampshire; Withdrawal of Proposed Rulemaking To Control Gasoline
Fuel Parameters and Remove the Reformulated Gasoline Program From Four
Counties in New Hampshire

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In a letter dated May 31, 2006, the New Hampshire Department
of Environmental Services (DES) requested withdrawal of their
previously submitted State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for
oxygen flexible reformulated gasoline (OFRFG). EPA had proposed to
approve this revision on February 2, 2004 (69 FR 4903), and received
comments from five parties which outlined concerns. For reasons
outlined below, New Hampshire has withdrawn this SIP revision request.
Therefore, EPA is also withdrawing its proposed approval of the SIP
revision.

DATES: The proposed rule is withdrawn as of August 16, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Judge, EPA New England
(CAQ), 1 Congress Street, suite 1100, Boston MA 02203; telephone, 617-
918-1045; fax,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>SUMMARY: On February 2, 2004 (69 FR 4903), EPA proposed approval of a
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services (DES) on October 31, 2002 and
October 3, 2003, establishing fuel emissions performance requirements
for gasoline distributed in southern New Hampshire which includes
Hillsborough, Merrimack, Rockingham, and Strafford Counties. Final EPA
approval of this SIP revision would ultimately result in New Hampshire
no longer utilizing Federal reformulated gasoline (RFG) in this area 90
days after the effective date of the rule. New Hampshire had hoped
their program would result in gasoline with less methyl tertiary butyl
ether (MTBE) being distributed in the State.
    On May 31, 2006, DES submitted a letter by which the State of New
Hampshire withdrew their request to adopt their own State specific fuel
program (OFRFG), and their request to opt-out of the Federal
reformulated gasoline program. In this letter, New

Hampshire outlined several reasons for withdrawing this SIP revision
request. They explained that since the time of their initial SIP
submission and EPA's subsequent proposed approval in February 2004,
several circumstances that impact New Hampshire's choice to opt-out of
RFG and implement their own State fuel program have changed.
Specifically, they noted that MTBE bans were implemented in 2004 in
Connecticut and New York areas with Federal reformulated gasoline
without supply or price disruptions. Informed by this development, the
New Hampshire General Court passed House Bill 58 in 2005 which banned
(effective January, 2007) the importation and distribution of gasoline
containing MTBE in New Hampshire. (Other similar MTBE ban legislation
was also enacted in Maine, Vermont, and Rhode Island). And finally, New
Hampshire pointed to the enactment of Federal energy legislation (the
Energy Policy Act of 2005) with provisions that eliminated the Clean
Air Act (CAA) minimum 2 percent oxygen mandate for RFG (the requirement
that had resulted in between 3 and 10 times higher MTBE levels in RFG
than conventional gasoline), mandated increased use of renewable fuels
(primarily ethanol) nationally, and limited EPA's ability to approve
new ``boutique'' fuel blends.
    Given those circumstances, New Hampshire felt that their state, as
well as many other areas of the country, would soon be receiving
cleaner fuels with significantly reduced levels of MTBE. As such, they
feel they achieved the state's objective of reducing MTBE in its
gasoline without removing itself from the Federal RFG program and its
associated toxics emission reduction benefits. Therefore, New Hampshire
has requested that EPA no longer consider this SIP revision request,
and has withdrawn the SIP revision request from EPA. As a result, EPA
is also withdrawing its previous proposed approval of New Hampshire's
SIP revision request.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, and Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 7, 2006.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA-New England.
[FR Doc. E6-13492 Filed 8-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                                 Attachment I

Explanation of Methodology and Data Used to Calculate Respondent Burdens and Costs

 Burden Hours for Respondents

 As required, EPA sent consultation questions about the burden and cost estimates to three respondents  -  the Agricultural Handler Exposure Task Force (AHETF), the Antimicrobial Exposure Assessment Task Force II (AEATF), and another third-party study sponsor who has conducted human research studies. The three organizations are experienced in submitting human research to the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), and are expected to make additional submissions over the next several years.  The workload of one organization did not allow for a response to EPA's request. Consultation responses were received from AHETF and AEATF and are provided in Attachment H. To calculate new burden and cost estimates for this renewal ICR, EPA relied upon the estimates provided in the two consultation responses and knowledge of the range of protocols/studies to be submitted for review. EPA calculated an average of the different responses, recognizing that some study types are more complicated and costly to conduct than others.

 The respondent burden and cost estimates that appear in Table 1 in the ICR, for research involving intentional exposure of human subjects, are the averages of the values in Table A (burden hour estimates for agricultural handler studies, from the AHETF's consultation response), Table B (burden hour estimates for antimicrobial exposure studies, from the AEATF's consultation response), and Table C (burden hour estimates for insect repellant studies, based on consultation responses from the last ICR which are still applicable today).  The consultation responses influenced the expected annual number of studies used in the calculations.

 Hourly Rates for Respondents

 In determining the rates, OPP uses a single source of data, the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, and selects the appropriate occupational category. Using the BLS data allows EPA to be consistent between across sectors and occupations. If OPP were to separately research wages for each ICR, the methodology in determining the wages would not be consistent and the wage rates could not be compared between sectors and occupations.  Some wages would be biased high, while others would be biased low. The BLS wages are categorized by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, and therefore are industry-specific. They are, however, national averages.  Therefore, some of the high wages earned by specialists in high cost localities are offset by others who are less specialized in lower cost localities.

 To estimate costs for regulated entities for this renewal ICR, EPA used wage rates from NAICS 541710 (Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences). The BLS fully-loaded hourly rates for this industry are $195/hour for management, $99/hour for technical staff, and $59/hour for clerical staff.

 Agency Burden and Costs

 The estimated burden and costs to the Agency are derived from input from EPA staff members who have prepared reviews for studies that were presented to the HSRB. Recognizing that some study types are more complicated and time consuming to review that others, EPA calculated a weighted average using the staff time estimates and the expected frequency of receiving different types of studies.  The weighted averages are provided in ICR Tables 3 and 4. The wage rates EPA used to estimate Agency costs for this renewal ICR were from NAICS 999100 (Federal Executive Branch). The BLS fully-loaded hourly rates for Agency staff are $139/hour for management, $92/hour for technical staff, and $51/hour for clerical staff.

  Number of Transactions

  	The estimated number of transactions is based on the responses from the two respondents received during the recent consultation, information on other types of studies received during the previous consultation, EPA's historical experience, and knowledge of upcoming submissions.

                    RESPONDENT BURDEN HOUR ESTIMATES

  Table A. Agricultural Handler Exposure Studies  -  Burden Hour Estimates from AHETF's Consultation Response
                                  Activities
                      Average Burden Hours Per Occurrence
                              Total Per Response

                                    Manage-
                                     ment
                                   Technical
                                   Clerical
                                     Total
                                     Hours
                                   Cost ($)
                                 Estimated by
                                      EPA
                                    Actual
                                   Cost ($)
                                      To
                                     AHETF

                                     $195
                                     $99
                                     $59

Rule familiarization and training (per protocol)
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                            $0
Prepare and submit protocol for IRB review
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                            $0
Prepare and submit protocol for EPA and HSRB review
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                            $0
Document ethical conduct of a completed study for which EPA and the HSRB have reviewed the protocol
                                                                             65
                                                                           2000
                                                                             60
                                                                           2125
                                                                      $196,077
                                                                      $213,651
Store, file, and maintain records
                                                                              5
                                                                              5
                                                                              5
                                                                             15
                                                                        $1,412
                                                                        $1,762
TOTALS
                                                                             70
                                                                           2005
                                                                             65
                                                                           2140
                                                                      $197,489
                                                                        215,414

  Table B. Antimicrobial Exposure Studies  -  Burden Hour Estimates from AEATF's Consultation Response
                                      Activities
                           Average Burden Hours Per Occurrence
                                 Total Per Response

                                     Manage-
                                       ment
                                   Technical

                                     Total
                                     Hours
                                    Cost ($)
                                    Based on
                                    EPA Nos.
                                    Based on
                                    Industry
                                    Cost ($)

                                   Clerical

                                       $195
                                      $99
                                       $59

 Rule familiarization and training (per protocol)
                                       8
                                      10
                                       7
                                      25
                                    $2,392
                                    $2,959
 Prepare and submit protocol for IRB review
                                      25
                                      225
                                      30
                                      280
                                    $22,222
                                    $28,850
 Prepare and submit protocol for EPA and HSRB review
                                      100
                                      500
                                      40
                                      640
                                    $48,026
                                    $71,221
 Document ethical conduct of a completed study for which EPA and the HSRB have reviewed the protocol
                                      20
                                      150
                                      20
                                      190
                                    $14,815
                                    $19,884
 Prepare and submit final report for EPA and HSRB review*
                                      40
                                      800
                                      40
                                      880
                                    $75,620
                                    $89,130
 Store, file, and maintain records
                                      10
                                      40
                                      10
                                      60
                                    $4,188
                                    $6,487
 TOTALS
                                      203
                                     1,765
                                      147
                                     2,075
                                    $167,263
                                   $218,530

  Note:  EPA combined the two figures in the shaded rows 4 and 5 above in order to fully reflect the respondent's input.  This was necessary because the respondent added row 5* (above) entitled "prepare and submit final report for EPA and HSRB review." From EPA's perspective, row 4 is the essential activity in light of the required activities encompassed by this ICR and the language in the federal rule on protection of human subjects.  Nonetheless, EPA combined the two figures in the shaded rows 4 and 5 above to fully reflect the respondent's input.

  Table C. Insect Repellant Studies  -  Burden Hour Estimates from Consultation during Previous ICR Renewal Process
                                  Activities
                      Average Burden Hours Per Occurrence

                                     Total
                                     Hours*

                                   Cost ($) *

                                       Mgt
                                   Technical
                                    Clerical

                                      $195
                                      $99
                                       $59

 Rule familiarization and training (per protocol)
                                                                              1
                                                                              2
                                                                              2
                                                                              5
                                                                           $510
 Prepare and submit protocol for IRB review
                                                                              7
                                                                             25
                                                                             10
                                                                             42
                                                                         $4,420
 Prepare and submit protocol for EPA and HSRB review
                                                                              5
                                                                              3
                                                                              7
                                                                             15
                                                                         $1,682
 Document ethical conduct of a completed study for which EPA and the HSRB have reviewed the protocol
                                                                              5
                                                                             10
                                                                              5
                                                                             20
                                                                         $2,256
 Store, file, and maintain records
                                                                              2
                                                                              0
                                                                             10
                                                                             12
                                                                           $977
 TOTALS
                                                                             20
                                                                             40
                                                                             34
                                                                             94
                                                                         $9,845
*Note: The total hours and cost above are per response.

  Table D.  Documentation of Ethical Conduct of a Completed Study for which EPA and HSRB have NOT reviewed the Protocol (per requirements at §26.1303)  -  Using information compiled during previous ICR renewal process

     Activities
           Average Burden Hours Per Occurrence
    Total Per Response

                                  Management
                                     $139
                                   Technical
                                      $92
                                   Clerical
                                      $51
 Hours
   Cost ($)
 Document ethical conduct of a completed study for which EPA and the HSRB have not reviewed the protocol

                                                                              2

                                                                             24

                                                                              2

    28

   2,588

  Table 1. Average Burden and Cost Estimates for Respondents  -  Research Involving Intentional Exposure of Human Subjects

  Note: This table takes into account the different types of studies submitted for review.

                                  Activities
Average Burden Hours Per Response
Total Per Response

                                  Management
                                   Technical
                                   Clerical
                                     Hours
                                   Cost ($)

                                     $195
                                      $99
                                      $59

Rule familiarization and training
                                                                              3
                                                                              4
                                                                              3
                                                                             10
                                                                         $1,156
Prepare and submit protocol for IRB review
                                                                             11
                                                                             83
                                                                             13
                                                                            107
                                                                        $11,103
Prepare and submit protocol for EPA and HSRB review
                                                                             35
                                                                            168
                                                                             16
                                                                            219
                                                                        $24,353
Document ethical conduct of a completed study for which EPA and the HSRB have reviewed the protocol; prepare and submit completed study for IRB, EPA, and HSRB Review
                                                                             43
                                                                            987
                                                                             51
                                                                          1,081
                                                                       $108,822
Store, file, and maintain records
                                                                              6
                                                                             15
                                                                              8
                                                                             29
                                                                         $3,121
Total per response
                                                                             98
                                                                           1257
                                                                             91
                                                                          1,446
                                                                       $148,555
  Annual Burden:	1,446 hours per response * 7 responses per year = 10,122 hours Annual Costs:	$148,555 per response * 7 responses per year = $1,051,896

Table 2. Respondent Burden and Cost Estimates  -  All Other Submitted Research with Human Subjects
                                  Activities
                       Average Burden Hours Per Response
                              Total Per Response

                                  Management
                                   Technical
                                   Clerical
                                     Hours
                                   Cost ($)

                                     $195
                                     $99
                                     $59

Rule familiarization and training
                                                                              1
                                                                              1
                                                                              0
                                                                              2
                                                                           $294
Prepare and Submit Ethics Information of Completed Human Studies to EPA
                                                                              0
                                                                              8
                                                                              1
                                                                              9
                                                                           $848
Store, file, and maintain records
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              1
                                                                              1
                                                                            $59
Total per response
                                                                              1
                                                                              9
                                                                              2
                                                                             12
                                                                         $1,201
  Annual Burden:  12 hours per study * 10 studies submitted per year = 120 hours Annual Costs:     $1,201 per study * 10 studies submitted per year = $12,009

Agency Burden Hour Estimates

Table 3.    Weighted average Agency burden and cost estimates for research involving intentional exposure
                                  Activities
                       Average Burden Hours Per Response
                              Total Per Response

                                  Management
                                   Technical
                                   Clerical
                                     Hours
                                   Cost ($)

                                     $139
                                      $92
                                      $51

Rule familiarization and training
                                                                              1
                                                                              2
                                                                              0
                                                                              3
                                                                          $323
Primary Review of Scientific and Ethical Aspects of a Protocol
                                                                              3
                                                                            210
                                                                              0
                                                                            213
                                                                       $19,734
Primary Review of Scientific and Ethical Aspects of a Completed Study Report
                                                                              3
                                                                            235
                                                                              0
                                                                            238
                                                                       $22,034
Secondary Review of Scientific and Ethical Aspects of a Protocol

                                                                            197

                                                                        $4,694
Secondary Review of Scientific and Ethical Aspects of a Completed Report

                                                                            197

                                                                        $4,694
Store, file, and maintain records
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              2
                                                                              2
                                                                          $102
Total per response
                                                                              7
                                                                            841
                                                                              2
                                                                            850
                                                                       $51,581

   *	HSRB members are special government employees; their time should be reflected as part of Agency burden. Cost of HSRB members working on the HSRB report (collectively spending 197 hours per HSRB report in FY 2011, compensated at the 2020 rate of $59/hour), plus the cost of EPA Office of the Science Advisor (OSA) technical staff working on the HSRB report (30 hours per report, at the technical staff rate of $82/hour). Each HSRB report covers an average of 3 protocols and/or completed studies per report, so each topic costs an average of $4,694.

   Annual Burden:  	850 hours per response x 7 per year = 5,950 hours plus 30 for OSA review of HSRB report = 5,980 hours
   Annual Costs:	47,002 x 7 responses/year = $329,014

   Please note that the estimated 7 "responses" per year include 7 protocols plus 7 studies.  This definition of responses is consistent with that used and approved for this ICR in previous years.

Table 4. Weighted Average Burden and Cost Estimates for Agency  -  Research Involving Intentional Exposure  -  All Other Submitted Research with Human Subjects
                                  Activities
                       Average Burden Hours Per Response
                              Total Per Response

                                  Management
                                    $139/hr
                                   Technical
                                    $92/hr
                                   Clerical
                                    $51/hr
                                     Hours
                                   Cost ($)
Rule familiarization and training
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
Primary Review of Ethical Aspects of a Completed Study Report
                                                                              0
                                                                              6
                                                                              0
                                                                              6
                                                                            552
Store, file, and maintain records
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
Total per response
                                                                              0
                                                                              6
                                                                              0
                                                                              6
                                                                            552

   Annual Burden:  	6 hours per study x 20 per year = 120 hours
   Annual Costs:	522 x 20 responses/year = $11,038

   Please note that, as discussed in section 6(c), for the pre-rule human research which does not require HSRB review, EPA assumes that 10 of the 20 studies will be located at the Agency's own initiative and therefore will not be subject to 40 CFR 26.1303. This approach is consistent with that used previously for this ICR.

   Table 5.  Total Annual Bottom Line Burden and Costs/Master Table
                              Collection Activity
                              Annual Burden Hours
                                 Annual Costs
                      Annual Respondent Burden and Costs
Research Involving Intentional 	Exposure of Human Subjects (Table 1)
                                                                         10,122
                                                                     $1,039,886
All Other Submitted Research with Human Subjects (Table 2)
                                                                            120
                                                                        $12,009
                                                               Respondent Total
                                                                         10,242
                                                                     $1,051,896
                             Annual Agency Burden
Research Involving Intentional 	Exposure of Human Subjects (Table 3)
                                                                          5,980
                                                                       $361,066
All Other Submitted Research with 	Human Subjects (Table 4)
                                                                            120
                                                                        $11,038
                                                                   Agency Total
                                                                          6,100
                                                                       $372,104

             Number of Transactions: September 2012  -  August 2015

Intentional Exposure Studies
 AHETF Monitoring Program
 See the consultation responses in Attachment H.
 In Table 2 of consultation responses, AHETF estimates 2 completed studies per year for FY 17 and FY 18.
 Figures used in ICR: 2 "transactions" per year

 AEATF Monitoring Program
 See the consultation responses in Attachment H.
 In Table 2 of consultation responses, AEATF estimates 4 protocols in FY 2017, 3 studies in FY 2017, and 1 study in FY 2018, for a total of 8 over 3 years.
 Figures used in ICR: 2 "transactions" per year (2 protocols + 2 completed study reports)

 Insect Repellent Efficacy Testing
 Figures used in ICR: 2 "transactions" per year (2 protocols + 2 completed study reports)

 Other Post-Rule Studies
 These could include exposure studies from sources other than the task forces, ADME studies, skin patch tests of irritation or sensitization, systemic toxicity tests, or others.
 All would require submission of a protocol before execution and of a completed report after execution; both the protocol and the report would require EPA and HSRB review.
 Estimate: 1 protocol and 1 completed study per year. (This is likely an over-estimate)

Studies which are Not Intentional Exposure
 Pre-Rule Completed Studies which do not measure or identify a toxic effect
 These studies do not go to the HSRB, but they do require an EPA ethics review. Historical level: 20 reviews per year.
 Assume workload to remain constant over the time period of the ICR
 Estimate: 20 per year (estimated that 10 studies/year are submitted from outside parties, and therefore subject to the requirements of 40 CFR 26.1303 requiring submitters to document the ethical conduct; estimated that 10 studies/year are located by the Agency at its own initiative, and therefore not subject to 40 CFR 26.1303)

 TOTAL RESPONSES PER YEAR TO BE USED IN ICR ESTIMATES:
 7 intentional exposure human studies (rule familiarization + protocol stage where applicable + completed report stage + records storage)
 20 studies/year requiring EPA ethics review, but not HSRB review (pre-rule studies that do not measure or identify a toxic effect)


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 198 (Wednesday, October 14, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61722-61725]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25710]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-3224; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-026-AD;
Amendment 39-18290; AD 2015-20-11]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH
Sailplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Models Duo Discus and Duo Discus T
powered sailplanes. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as excessive
load on the air brake system. We are issuing this AD to require actions
to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 18, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of November 18,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3224; or in person at Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Schempp-
Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH, Krebenstrasse 25, 73230 Kirchheim/Teck,
Germany; telephone: +49 7021 7298-0; fax: +49 7021 7298-199; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://

www.schempp-hirth.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for Docket No. FAA-2015-3224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to add an AD that would apply to Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH
Models Duo Discus and Duo Discus T powered sailplanes. The NPRM was
published in the Federal Register on August 4, 2015 (80 FR 46206). The
NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products
and was based on mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
originated by an aviation authority of another country. The MCAI
states:

    Operational experience shows that application of an excessive
load on the air brake system may induce damage to the drive funnels
in the fuselage and to the air brake bellcrank at the root rips of
the wing.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to an
uncontrolled actuation of the air brakes (symmetric and asymmetric),
possibly resulting in reduced control of the (powered) sailplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Schempp-Hirth
Flugzeugbau GmbH issued Technical Note (TN) 380-2, 396-17, 868-22
and 890-14 (published as a single document) to provide inspection
instructions.
    Consequently EASA issued AD 2015-0139 to require to repetitive
inspections of the air brake bellcrank, the air brake drive funnels
and the airbrake control system, and replacement of damaged parts.
    Since that AD was issued, it was found that the drawing number
of the reinforced air brake drive funnel was incorrectly stated in
the original issue of the Schempp-Hirth TN. The wrongly referred
drawing S14FB703 refers to an existing part, different from air
brake drive funnel and cannot be installed as a replacement part for
air brake drive funnel. Consequently, Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH
issued Revision 1 of TN 380-2, 396-17, 868-22 and 890-14, hearafter
referenced to as `the revised TN' in this AD.
    For the reasons described above, this AD is revised to require
using the revised TN.

The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-3224-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 46206, August 4,
2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (80 FR 46206, August 4, 2015) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 46206, August 4, 2015).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note No. 380-
2/396-17/868-22/890-14, Revision 1, issued July 13, 2015 (published as
a single document), and Working instruction for Technical Note No. 380-
2/396-17/868-22/890-14, Ausgabe (English translation: issue) 1, Datum
(English translation: dated) May 11, 2015. The service information
describes procedures for inspecting and replacing the airbrake bell
crank and the airbrake drive funnels and inspecting the airbrake
control system for proper clearance and making necessary adjustments.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 31 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per product to
comply with the basic inspection requirements of this AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this portion of the
AD on U.S. operators to be $5,270, or $170 per product.
    We estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product to
comply with the airbrake bell crank replacement requirement of this AD.
The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost
about $500 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this portion of the
AD on U.S. operators to be $26,040, or $840 per product.
    We estimate that it will take about 4 work-hours per product to
comply with the airbrake drive funnel replacement requirement of this
AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will
cost about $500 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this portion of the
AD on U.S. operators to be $26,040, or $840 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions to
make any necessary adjustments to the airbrake control system will take
about 2 work-hours for a cost of $170 per product. We have no way of
determining the number of products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

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

    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
3224; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2015-20-11 Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH: Amendment 39-18290;
Docket No. FAA-2015-3224; Directorate Identifier 2015-CE-026-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective November 18,
2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Model Duo
Discus powered sailplanes, serial numbers 1 through 639, and Model
Duo Discus T powered sailplanes, serial numbers 1 through 110 and
112 through 247, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 27: Flight
Controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as excessive load
on the air brake system. We are issuing this AD to prevent
uncontrolled actuation of the air brakes (symmetric or asymmetric),
which could result in reduced control.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the actions in paragraph (f)(1) through
(f)(5) of this AD.
    (1) Within 40 days after November 17, 2015 (the effective date
of this AD) and repetitively thereafter at intervals not to exceed
100 hours time-in-service until the terminating replacement action
required in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of this AD (as applicable)
is done, inspect the airbrake bell crank, the airbrake drive
funnels, and the airbrake control system.
    (i) Inspect the airbrake bell crank and the airbrake drive
funnels for cracks and damage following Action 1 in Schempp-Hirth
Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note No. 380-2/396-17/868-22/890-14,
Revision 1, issued July 13, 2015 (published as a single document).
    (ii) Inspect the airbrake control system for proper clearance
following Paragraph 2.d. of Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Working
instruction for Technical Note No. 380-2/396-17/868-22/890-14,
Ausgabe (English translation: issue) 1, Datum (English translation:
dated) May 11, 2015.
    (2) If cracks or damage is found on the airbrake bell cranks or
the airbrake drive funnels during any inspection required in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, replace each
cracked or damaged part with a reinforced part. Installing a
reinforced part terminates the repetitive inspections required in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD for that part.
    (i) For replacement of the airbrake bell cranks, follow Picture
2: Reinforced version of airbrake bell crank according to HS 11-
50.016, Revision a or later, in Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH
Working instruction for Technical Note No. 380-2/396-17/868-22/890-
14, Ausgabe (English translation: issue) 1, Datum (English
translation: dated) May 11, 2015.
    (ii) For replacement of the airbrake drive funnels, follow
Picture 5: Airbrake drive funnel in fuselage ``Reinforcement of
airbrake drive funnel according to drawing S14RB703, Revision a, in
Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Working instruction for Technical
Note No. 380-2/396-17/868-22/890-14, Ausgabe (English translation:
issue) 1, Datum (English translation: dated) May 11, 2015.
    (3) If no cracks or damage were found on the airbrake bell
cranks or the airbrake drive funnels during any inspection required
in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, within 12 months after November 17,
2015 (the effective date of this AD), replace each of the airbrake
bell cranks and airbrake drive funnels with a reinforced part. These
replacements terminate the repetitive inspections required in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.
    (i) For replacement of the airbrake bell cranks, follow Picture
2: Reinforced version of airbrake bell crank according to HS 11-
50.016, Revision a or later, in Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH
Working instruction for Technical Note No. 380-2/396-17/868-22/890-
14, Ausgabe (English translation: issue) 1, Datum (English
translation: dated) May 11, 2015.
    (ii) For replacement of the airbrake drive funnels, follow
Picture 5: Airbrake drive funnel in fuselage, ``Reinforcement of
airbrake drive funnel according to drawing S14RB703, Revision a,''
in Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Working instruction for Technical
Note No. 380-2/396-17/868-22/890-14, Ausgabe (English translation:
issue) 1, Datum (English translation: dated) May 11, 2015.
    (4) If the airbrake control system is found to not have proper
clearance during the inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this
AD, before further flight, make all necessary corrective adjustments
following Paragraph 2.d. of Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Working
instruction for Technical Note No. 380-2/396-17/868-22/890-14,
Ausgabe (English translation: issue) 1, Datum (English translation:
dated) May 11, 2015.
    (5) As of November 17, 2015 (the effective date of this AD),
only install an airbrake bell crank or an airbrake drive funnel that
corresponds to Picture 2: Reinforced version of airbrake bell crank
according to HS 11-50.016, Revision a or later, and Picture 5:
Airbrake drive funnel in fuselage, ``Reinforcement of airbrake drive
funnel according to drawing S14RB703, Revision a,'' in Schempp-Hirth
Flugzeugbau GmbH Working instruction for Technical Note No. 380-2/
396-17/868-22/890-14, Ausgabe (English translation: issue) 1, Datum
(English translation: dated) May 11, 2015, as applicable.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any
sailplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2015-0139R1, dated July 15, 2015, for related information. You may
examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2015-3224-0002.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note No. 380-2/396-
17/868-22/890-14, Revision 1, issued July 13, 2015 (published as a
single document).
    (ii) Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Working instruction for
Technical Note No. 380-2/396-17/868-22/890-14, Ausgabe (English
translation: issue) 1, Datum (English translation: dated) May 11,
2015.
    (3) For Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH service information
identified in this AD, contact Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH,
Krebenstrasse 25, 73230 Kirchheim/Teck, Germany; telephone: +49 7021
7298-0; fax: +49 7021 7298-199; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet: http://www.schempp-hirth.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148. In addition, you can access this service information
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2015-3224.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 1, 2015.
Melvin Johnson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.

[FR Doc. 2015-25710 Filed 10-13-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 155)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 48895-48896]
[DOCID:fr12au10-19]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1987-0002; FRL-9188-7]

National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan
National Priorities List: Intent To Delete the Rogers Road Municipal
Landfill Superfund Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 is issuing
a Notice of Intent to Delete the Rogers Road Municipal Landfill
Superfund Site located near Jacksonville, Pulaski County, Arkansas from
the National Priorities List (NPL) and requests public comments on this
proposed 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 Arkansas, through the Arkansas Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ), have determined that all appropriate response actions
under CERCLA, other than operation and maintenance and five-year
reviews, have been completed. However, this deletion does not preclude
future actions under Superfund.

DATES: Comments Site must be received by September 13, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-1987-0002, by one of the following methods:
    http://www.regulations.gov (Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments)
    E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail: Donn Walters, Community Involvement, U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-
TS), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733,<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-
533-3508.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
1987-0002. EPA policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://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 thorough http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov website
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 http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will
automatically be 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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: U.S. EPA Region 6,
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
by appointment only Monday through Friday 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. and 1 p.m.
to 4 p.m.; or Jacksonville City Hall, 1 Municipal Drive, Jacksonville,
AR 72076,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ;
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), 5301 Northshore
Drive, North Little Rock, Arkansas 72118,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Monday
through Friday 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shawn Ghose M.S., P.E., Remedial
Project Manager (RPM), U.S. EPA Region 6 (6SF-RA), 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, TX 75202-2733<EMAIL_ADDRESS>665-6782 or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the ``Rules and Regulations'' Section of
today's Federal Register, we are publishing a direct final Notice of
Deletion of the Rogers Road Municipal Landfill Superfund because we
view this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipate no adverse
comment. We have explained our reasons for this deletion in the
preamble to the direct final Notice of Deletion, and those reasons are
incorporated herein. If we receive no adverse comment(s) on this
deletion action, we will not take further action on this Notice of
Intent to Delete. If we receive adverse comment(s), we will withdraw
the direct final Notice of Deletion, and it will not take effect. We
will, as appropriate, address all public comments in a subsequent final
Notice of Deletion based on this Notice of Intent to Delete. We will
not institute a second comment period on this Notice of Intent to
Delete. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
    For additional information see the Direct Final Notice of Deletion
located in the ``Rules'' section of this Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: August 4, 2010.
Lawrence E. Starfield,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2010-19925 Filed 8-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 194 (Monday, October 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53452-53454]
[FR Doc No: 2019-21757]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2019-0019; OMB No. 1660-0100]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; General Admissions Applications (Long and Short) and
Stipend Forms

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of
a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning
the admission applications and student stipend agreements for FEMA
courses and programs that are delivered on-campus and throughout the
Nation, in coordination with State and local training officials and
local colleges and universities.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 6, 2019.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA-2019-0019. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-
3100.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov,

and will include any personal information you provide. Therefore,
submitting this information makes it public. You may wish to read the
Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Smiley White, Supervisory Program
Specialist, United States Fire Administration,<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may
contact the Information Management Division for copies of the proposed
collection of information at email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA offers courses and programs that are
delivered at National Emergency Training Center (NETC) in Emmitsburg,
Maryland, the Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP) in Anniston,
Alabama, and throughout the Nation in coordination with State and local
training officials and local colleges and universities to carry out the
authorities listed below. To facilitate meeting these requirements,
FEMA collects information necessary to be accepted for courses and for
the student stipend or travel reimbursement program for these courses.
There are several organizations within FEMA that deliver training and
education in support of the FEMA mission.
    1. Section 7 of Public Law 93-498, Federal Fire Prevention and
Control Act, as amended, established the National Fire Academy (NFA) to
advance the professional development of fire service personnel and of
other persons engaged in fire prevention and control activities.
    2. Section 611.f. of Subchapter VI of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) as amended,
42 U.S.C. 5121-5207, authorizes the Director to conduct or arrange, by
contract or otherwise, for training programs for the instruction of
emergency preparedness officials and other persons in the organization,
operation, and techniques of emergency preparedness; conduct or operate
schools or classes, including the payment of travel expenses, in
accordance with subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, and the Standardized Government Travel Regulations, and per diem
allowances, in lieu of subsistence for trainees in attendance or the
furnishing of subsistence and quarters for trainees and instructors on
terms prescribed by the Director; and provide instructors and training
aids as deemed necessary. This training is conducted through the
Emergency Management Institute (EMI).
    3. Title XIV of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1997,
Public Law 104-201, 110 Stat. 2432; Title I of the Departments of
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act of 1998, Public Law 105-119, 111 Stat. 2440;
Sections 403 and 430 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law
107-296, 116 Stat. 2135; and Section 611 of the Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act of 2006, Public Law 109-295, 120 Stat. 1355, all
authorize CDP to serve as a training facility for all relevant
federally supported training efforts that target State and local law
enforcement, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, and other key
agencies such as public works and State and local emergency management.
The focus of the training is to prepare relevant State and local
officials to deal with chemical, biological, or nuclear terrorist acts
and handle incidents dealing with hazardous materials.
    4. Public Law 110-53, 121 Stat. 386, 6 U.S.C. 1102 established a
National Domestic Preparedness Consortium within the Department of
Homeland Security. According to the enacting legislation, the members
of the Consortium consist of CDP; the National Energetic Materials
Research and Testing Center, New Mexico Institute of Mining and
Technology; the National Center for Biomedical Research and Training,
Louisiana State University; the National Emergency Response and Rescue
Training Center, Texas A&M University; the National Exercise, Test, and
Training Center, Nevada Test Site; the Transportation Technology
Center, Incorporated, in Pueblo, Colorado; and the National Disaster
Preparedness Training Center, University of Hawaii. Other organizations
have been added to the Consortium membership since the passage of the
enacting legislation. The Consortium shall identify, test, and deliver
training to State, local, and tribal emergency response providers,
provide on-site and mobile training at the performance, management, and
planning levels, and facilitate the delivery of training by the
training partners of the Department.
    5. Under the authorities of Executive Orders 12127 and 12148, the
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, is responsible for
carrying out the mandates of the public laws mentioned above.

Collection of Information

    Title: General Admissions Applications (Long and Short) and Stipend
Forms.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0100.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 119-25-0-1, replaces 119-25-1, General
Admissions Application; FEMA Form 119-25-0-6, Training Registration
Form; FEMA Form 119-25-3, Student Stipend Agreement; FEMA Form 119-25-
4, Student Stipend Agreement (Amendment); and FEMA Form 119-25-5,
National Fire Academy Executive Fire Officer Program Application
Admission.
    Abstract: FEMA provides training to advance the professional
development of personnel engaged in fire prevention and control and
emergency management activities through CDP, Emergency Management
Institute, NFA, National Training and Education Division, National
Domestic Preparedness Consortium, and Rural Domestic Preparedness
Consortium.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit
institutions, Federal Government, and State, local or Tribal
Government.
    Number of Respondents: 214,300.
    Number of Responses: 214,300.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 24,400.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $929,163.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: None.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: None.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $2,570,012.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
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; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) 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.

William H. Holzerland,
Sr. Director for Information Management, Mission Support,Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2019-21757 Filed 10-4-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-72-P