From:
"Jones, DonnaLee"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Fri, 23 Sep 2022 15:16:27
To:
Jay Cornelius<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
FW: CORRECTION ABC Coke - Coke Oven RTR, ICR Enclosure 2 (Part) - Cooling Tower Testing Plan

Sorry. A correction. See below from Kevin.
"..there should be 7 runs for THC, so if they amended table 2-1, it should be to indicate THC on all testing runs, i.e. THC and VOHAP for the second line of testing and THC, H2S, COS, and CS2 for the 3rd. The first line would still be 1 for THC, and the subsequent lines would still be 3.  They are doing 7 total runs, we just want to be sure that THC is included as a parameter in all 7 runs."
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711
Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

-----Original Message-----

-----Original Message-----
From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, September 23, 2022 2:43 PM
To: Cornelius, Jay<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Shappley, Ned<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mcginn, Kevin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: ABC Coke - Coke Oven RTR, ICR Enclosure 2 (Part) - Cooling Tower Testing Plan

Hi. We need some clarification and correction for your test plan. The 114 requires, in Table 1B "Perform at least seven (7) test runs of standard Appendix P, AND three (3) test runs of Appendix P with the TO-15A finish" (emphasis added with the "AND"). Then under TRS, the 114 requires facilities to "perform at least three (3) test runs on the cooling tower inlets." In Table 2-1 of the ABC plan, the schedule indicates THC testing only during Run 1 (i.e., # runs are equal to "1"). We want to confirm whether during subsequent runs (i.e., not just Run 1) the ABC plan also includes "performing the THC analysis that is standard with Appendix P to acquire the 7 test runs for THC required by the ICR" during ALL THREE runs? The bulleted list in the ABC plan's Section 2.1 seems to imply this, but to be sure that there is no confusion, we would like a clarification and correction.
Please submit a revised plan with this correction. In Table 2-1, in the row for THC, the number of runs should equal "3".
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711
Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jones, DonnaLee
Sent: Friday, September 23, 2022 1:41 PM
To: Cornelius, Jay<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Shappley, Ned<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mcginn, Kevin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: ABC Coke - Coke Oven RTR, ICR Enclosure 2 (Part) - Cooling Tower Testing Plan

Yes! Thank you very much. Fast work.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711
Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

-----Original Message-----
From: Cornelius, Jay<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, September 23, 2022 1:28 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Shappley, Ned<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mcginn, Kevin<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: ABC Coke - Coke Oven RTR, ICR Enclosure 2 (Part) - Cooling Tower Testing Plan

Good afternoon.
Please see attached. Hopefully this one opens.
Jay Cornelius
ABC Coke


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 204 (Tuesday, October 22, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56452-56453]
[FR Doc No: 2019-22968]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

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

    Docket Numbers: EC19-142-000.
    Applicants: Energy Center Dover LLC, DB Energy Assets, LLC.
    Description: Supplement to September 26, 2019 Joint Application for
Authorization Under Section 203 of the Federal Power Act, et al. of
Energy Center Dover LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 10/11/19.
    Accession Number: 20191011-5109.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/25/19.

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

    Docket Numbers: ER16-1255-014; ER15-2679-013; ER15-2680-013; ER15-
762-017; ER16-1609-007; ER16-1738-011; ER16-1901-011; ER16-1955-011;
ER16-2201-010; ER16-2224-010; ER16-2541-010; ER16-2578-011; ER16-468-
011; ER16-474-012; ER16-890-012; ER17-1864-009; ER17-1871-009; ER17-
1909-009; ER17-306-010; ER17-544-010; ER18-1667-004; ER18-2327-003;
ER18-2492-005; ER19-846-004; ER19-847-004.
    Applicants: Antelope Big Sky Ranch LLC, Antelope DSR 1, LLC,
Antelope DSR 2, LLC, Antelope DSR 3, LLC, Antelope Expansion 2, LLC,
Bayshore Solar B, LLC, Bayshore Solar A, LLC, Bayshore Solar C, LLC,
Beacon Solar 1, LLC, Beacon Solar 3, LLC, Beacon Solar 4, LLC, Central
Antelope Dry Ranch C LLC, Elevation Solar C LLC, FTS Master Tenant 1,
LLC, FTS Master Tenant 2, LLC, ID Solar 1, LLC, Latigo Wind Park, LLC,
North Lancaster Ranch LLC, Pioneer Wind Park I, LLC, Riverhead Solar
Farm, LLC, San Pablo Raceway, LLC, Sandstone Solar LLC, Sierra Solar
Greenworks LLC, Solverde 1, LLC, Summer Solar LLC, Western Antelope
Blue Sky Ranch A LLC, Western Antelope Blue Sky Ranch B LLC, Western
Antelope Dry Ranch LLC, 65HK 8me LLC, 67RK 8me LLC, 87RL 8me LLC.
    Description: Supplement to June 28, 2019 Triennial Market Power
Analysis for the Northwest Region of Antelope Big Sky Ranch LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 10/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20191015-5371.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2383-002.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: SA772 AEPTX-Karankawa Wind
Interconnection Agr 1st Amend & Restat--Amendment to be effective 6/20/
2019.
    Filed Date: 10/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20191016-5160.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-956-001.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., ITC
Midwest LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 2019-10-16_Amendment to ITCM
Intangible Plant Filing to be effective 1/1/2020.
    Filed Date: 10/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20191016-5056.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 10/28/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-122-000.
    Applicants: Crowned Ridge Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Crowned Ridge
Interconnection, LLC Application for Market-Based Rates to be effective
12/4/2019.
    Filed Date: 10/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20191015-5323.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-123-000.
    Applicants: J. Aron & Company LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: CIS & NW Cat 2 Notice to be
effective 10/16/2019.
    Filed Date: 10/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20191015-5358.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-124-000.
    Applicants: Evergy Missouri West, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Request for Cancellation, KCP&L
GMO Vol. 28 (MBR) Tariff Title Database to be effective 12/16/2019.
    Filed Date: 10/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20191015-5359.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-125-000.
    Applicants: Evergy Missouri West, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Cancellation: Request for Cancellation, KCP&L
GMO Vol. 33 (CB) Tariff Title Database to be effective 12/16/2019.
    Filed Date: 10/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20191015-5361.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/5/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-126-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Original ISA
No. 4401, Queue No. AA1-095 to be effective 1/25/2016.
    Filed Date: 10/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20191016-5077.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-127-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: BPA Construct Agmt for Lost
Creek BAA Move to be effective 12/16/2019.
    Filed Date: 10/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20191016-5105.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/19.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-128-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Orginal ISA SA No. 5492;
Queue No. AE2-272 to be effective 9/17/2019.
    Filed Date: 10/16/19.
    Accession Number: 20191016-5106.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/6/19.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following qualifying
facility filings:

    Docket Numbers: QF20-57-000.
    Applicants: Eco Green Generation LLC.
    Description: Form 556 of Eco Green Generation LLC [Clean Power #5]
under QF20-56, et al.
    Filed Date: 10/15/19.
    Accession Number: 20191015-5400.
    Comments Due: Non Applicable.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 16, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-22968 Filed 10-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


  MacroButton macIb01 i

EPA BIOPESTICIDES AND POLLUTION PREVENTION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF
FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division contact: Michael
Glikes,

703-305-6502

SUBMISSION: Email the completed template to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
TEMPLATE:

Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc.

4F8271

	EPA has received a pesticide petition 4F8271 from Marrone Bio
Innovations, Inc.  1540 Drew Avenue, Davis, CA 95618 requesting,
pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180

	1. by establishing a tolerance for residues of NA-Remove

	2. to establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for

	3. to establish an amendment/expansion of an existing tolerance
exemption for the NA-Remove

	1. microbial pesticide sterile grain inoculated with Muscodor albus
strain SA-13

	2. biochemical pesticide NA-Remove

	3. plant-pesticide NA-remove in or on NA-remove.

Pursuant to section 408(d)(2)(A)(i) of  FFDCA, as amended, Marrone Bio
Innovations, Inc. has submitted the following summary of information,
data, and arguments in support of their pesticide petition. This summary
was prepared by Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc. and  EPA has not fully
evaluated the merits of the pesticide petition. The summary may have
been edited by EPA if the terminology used was unclear, the summary
contained extraneous material, or the summary unintentionally made the
reader conclude that the findings reflected EPA’s position and not the
position of the petitioner.

I. Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc.  Petition Summary

	4F8271

A. Product Name and Proposed Use Practices

	Sterile grain inoculated with Muscodor albus strain SA-13 is the active
ingredient in MBI-601 EP which is proposed for use as a soil treatment
to control or suppress soil-borne plant diseases and plant parasitic
nematodes and insects in horticultural and agricultural soils. When
activated with moisture, sterile grain inoculated with Muscodor albus
strain SA-13 produces volatile organic compounds that inhibit the growth
or kill target pests. MBI-601 EP is incorporated into the soil before
planting or applied in furrow post planting along the planting rows and
watered in to activate the volatile compounds.

B. Product Identity/Chemistry

	1. Identity of the pesticide and corresponding residues. Muscodor albus
strain SA-13 is a naturally-occurring microbe originally isolated from
the honey mesquite host plant in South Africa. Phylogenetic analysis of
Muscodor albus strain SA-13 was performed by acquisition of the ITS-58S
ribosomal gene sequence. The Muscodor albus strain SA-13 rRNA was
compared with rRNAs from other Muscodor species and strains of M. albus.
The ITS rRNA sequence had a high similarity with other isolates of M.
albus and M. crispans. Muscodor albus strain SA-13 grows as a white
sterile mycelium and does not produce spores or other reproductive
structures. The active ingredient, sterile grain inoculated with
Muscodor albus strain SA-13 works to inhibit or kill target pests by
production of a number of volatiles. These volatiles are primarily
simple alcohols and esters that are known natural and synthetic
flavoring substances.  Information regarding the name, identity and
composition of MBI-601 EP and the volatiles released upon hydration has
been submitted to EPA and can be found in MRID No. 493176-01.

	2. Magnitude of residues at the time of harvest and method used to
determine the residue. Residues of sterile grain inoculated with
Muscodor albus strain SA-13 are not expected on food or feed items
because the active ingredient will not be in direct contact with treated
commodities. The seven primary volatiles released by sterile grain
inoculated with Muscodor albus strain SA-13 were identified using GC/MS
and are primarily simple alcohols and esters that are known natural and
synthetic flavoring substances. When used as proposed, MBI-601 EP would
not result in residues of sterile grain inoculated with Muscodor albus
that are of toxicological concern.

	3. A statement of why an analytical method of detecting and measuring
the levels of the pesticide residue are not needed. An analytical method
for detecting and measuring the levels of sterile grain inoculated with
Muscodor albus strain SA-13 is not needed. Residues of sterile grain
inoculated with Muscodor albus strain SA-13 are not expected on food or
feed items because the active ingredient will not be in direct contact
with treated commodities. There should be no residues of sterile grain
inoculated with Muscodor albus strain SA-13 because the active
ingredient has limited survivability once the nutrient source is
exhausted. The primary volatiles produced by sterile grain inoculated
with Muscodor albus strain SA-13 are simple alcohols and esters that are
known natural and synthetic flavoring substances. An analytical method
for residues is not required for an exemption from tolerance because
when used as proposed MBI-601 EP would not result in residues of sterile
grain inoculated with Muscodor albus that are of toxicological concern.
The volatiles compounds that are produced by the active ingredient occur
naturally or are known synthetic flavoring substances and dissipate
rapidly in soil and water.

C. Mammalian Toxicological Profile

Acute Oral Toxicity (OCSPP 870.1100):  MBI 601 EP was low in toxicity in
an acute oral toxicity testing in albino rats following the up-and-down
procedure (MRID No. 493176-06). Female albino rats received a gavage
dose of 5,000 mg/kg of the test article and there were no clinical signs
of toxicity.  No mortality occurred during the 14-day observation
period.    The LD50 for MBI-601 EP was determined to be >5000 mg/kg body
weight, classifying it as a Category IV substance for acute oral
toxicity.

Acute Dermal Toxicity (OCSPP 870.1200): MBI 601 EP was not toxic in an
acute dermal study conducted on albino rats (MRID No. 493176-07). Single
undiluted doses of 5050 mg/kg body weight of the test article were
applied to the intact skin of 10 albino rats and exposure was maintained
for 24 hours. There was no mortality observed in the study.  All male
rats gained weight weekly, as did 2 of the females.  Three females
either lost or didn’t gain weight during the first or second week of
the study. No abnormalities were identified in any of the rats in the
gross necropsy at study termination.  The LD50 for dermal exposure to
MBI-601 EP is greater than 5,050 mg/kg

Acute Inhalation Toxicity (OCSPP 870.1300: A mixture of the seven
volatiles released by MBI 601 EP was not toxic in an acute inhalation
toxicity study conducted in rats (MRID No. 493176-08). The potential for
acute inhalation toxicity of the active volatiles released by MBI-601 EP
was evaluated in 5 male and 5 female albino rats.  Rats were exposed via
inhalation to an atmosphere composed of the primary volatiles released
by MBI-601 in nose-only chambers for four hours.  No mortality occurred
during or after exposure to a concentration of 5.28 mg/L volatiles.  All
exposed rats exhibited irregular respiration after the exposure, though
they recovered and appeared active and healthy by day 3.  All rats
gained body weight from day 1 to 14, and no gross abnormalities were
identified at the terminal necropsy.  The LC50 for inhalation exposure
to the active volatiles released by MBI-601 EP is greater than 5.28
mg/L.

Primary Dermal Irritation (OCSPP 870.2500: The results from an acute
dermal irritation study (MRID No. 493176-10) demonstrate that MBI-601 EP
is not a dermal irritant.  In the acute dermal irritation study, single
undiluted doses of 500 mg of MBI-601 EP were applied to the intact skin
of 3 albino rats and moistened with 0.5 ml of water, then covered with a
semi-permeable dressing for 4 hours.  Observations for possible dermal
irritation were made at 1, 24, 48 and 72 hours after exposure.  Erythema
and edema were not reported to occur during the observation period.
This study supports an EPA Toxicity Category IV for primary dermal
irritation.

Dermal Sensitization (OCSPP 870.2600): A skin sensitization study was
conducted on 15 male and 15 female albino guinea pigs to determine if
MBI- 601 EP elicited a sensitizing reaction (MRID No. 493176-11).  Naive
control group animals remained untreated during the induction phase of
the study. Test group animals were treated with 400 mg of test substance
moistened with 0.4 mL of water. Test animals were treated once weekly
for three weeks, for a total of three treatments. After a two-week rest
period, all animals (both groups) were challenged at a virgin test site
with an application of 400 mg test substance moistened with 0.4 mL of
water. The test substance challenge produced no reaction in test animals
or naïve control animals after the challenge treatment, and therefore
did not elicit a sensitizing reaction in guinea pigs. The MBI- 601 EP is
not a sensitizer.

Acute Pulmonary Toxicity / Pathogenicity (OCSPP 885.3150): MBI-601 EP
was not toxic or pathogenic and showed clearance following pulmonary
exposure.  An acute study was conducted to evaluate the pulmonary
toxicity, pathogenicity and infectivity of MBI-601 EP  following a
single pulmonary dose of 0.3 ml / 100 g body weight (approximately 21.45
mg dry mycelial weight (DMW)/rat) (MRID No. 493176-05).  Animals were
observed daily for 21 days after dosing for mortality and signs of
toxicity.  Tissue and blood samples were collected at interim sacrifices
to provide a quantitative record of the clearance pattern of the
microbe.  No behavioral or physical abnormalities were observed for any
of the animals on study, and all necropsy samples were negative for any
toxic or pathogenic effects due to exposure.  All blood and tissue
samples collected were considered clear of any test substance by day 3,
given that quantification results on that day yielded two consecutive
results below the clearance threshold.  MBI-601 EP was determined to be
non-toxic and non-pathogenic to rats following tracheal injection.

Sterile grain inoculated with Muscodor albus strain SA-13 produces
volatile organic compounds that control or suppress soil-borne plant
diseases and plant parasitic nematodes and insects. The volatile
compounds occur naturally or are known synthetic flavoring substances.
None of these compounds are toxic to humans.

D. Aggregate Exposure

	i. Dietary exposure. Dietary exposure from use of MBI-601 EP is
expected to be minimal based on the proposed use pattern of
incorporation into the soil. The intended use of MBI 601 EP is as a soil
pest control agent.  The application methods specified on the label for
MBI-601 EP are intended to restrict treatment to target soils.  The
microbe is firmly attached to the sterile barley substrate that is
covered with soil after application and has limited survivability once
its carrier nutrient source is exhausted. For this application method,
the poor survivability of the active ingredient will limit any dietary
exposure and precludes dispersion to nontarget areas via drift, run-off
or other mechanisms. The results of acute oral, dermal and pulmonary
toxicity/pathogenicity testing indicates there is little if any risk to
human health or the environment from exposure to sterile grain
inoculated with Muscodor albus strain SA-13. There are no reports of
ecological or human health hazards caused by sterile grain inoculated
with Muscodor albus strain SA-13. The volatile compound released from
sterile grain inoculated with Muscodor albus strain SA-13 in the highest
proportion at 30.6% is ethanol which is the alcohol in alcoholic
beverages and a solvent exempt from tolerance as an inert ingredient in
pesticides.  The volatile released in the second highest proportion at
30.1% is 3-methyl-1-butanol, a naturally occurring flavoring component
of fruits and vegetables.  This flavor is present in apple juice from
three different varieties (Fuji, Gala and Lisgala) at all stages of
ripeness in concentrations from 0.66 to 7.27 mg/L (Braga et al., 2013).
3-methyl-1-butanol has also been measured in tomatoes at concentrations
from 0.4 to 1.5 mg/L (Ortiz-Serrano & Gil, 2010).  The volatile released
in the third highest proportion is 2-methyl-1-butanol, which has been
measured in young wines at levels of 0.048 to 0.14 mg/L (Wondra &
Berovic 2001).  In the same wines, 3-methyl-1-butanol levels ranged from
0.126 to 0.482 mg/L.  The remaining four volatiles, ethyl acetate,
isobutanol, ethyl isobutyrate, and methyl isobutyrate make up 20% of the
total released.  These include: 1) inert ingredients exempt from
tolerance (ethyl acetate, and isobutanol), and 2) FDA approved synthetic
flavoring substances (21 CFR 172.515; isobutanol, ethyl isobutyrate and
methyl isobutyrate.  The results of acute toxicity and pathogenicity
testing and the current presence of the volatiles in the diets indicate
there is little if any risk to human health from exposure to sterile
grain inoculated with Muscodor albus strain SA-13. The absence of
toxicity or pathogenicity in laboratory animals demonstrates the lack of
toxicological concern for any incremental increase in dietary exposure
from use of MBI-601 EP.

ii. Food. Residues of sterile grain inoculated with Muscodor albus
strain SA-13 are not expected on food or feed items because the active
ingredient will not be in direct contact with treated commodities. The
seven primary volatiles released by sterile grain inoculated with
Muscodor albus strain SA-13 were identified using GC/MS and are
primarily simple alcohols and esters that are known natural and
synthetic flavoring substances. When used as proposed, MBI-601 EP would
not result in residues of sterile grain inoculated with Muscodor albus
that are of toxicological concern.

iii. Drinking water. Similarly, exposure to humans from residues of
sterile grain inoculated with Muscodor albus strain SA-13 consumed in
drinking water would be unlikely because the microbe is incorporated
into soil attached to a sterile barley substrate. MBI-601 EP label
instructions require that the product be incorporated into the soil for
optimal performance, reducing any likelihood that sterile grain
inoculated with Muscodor albus strain SA-13 would enter surface water
(Mileson, 2014; MRID # 493176-18). Further, sterile grain inoculated
with Muscodor albus strain SA-13 has limited survivability once its
carrier nutrient source is exhausted. This short life cycle minimizes
the likelihood that sterile grain inoculated with Muscodor albus strain
SA-13 could leach through the soil and enter ground or drinking water in
significant

	iii. Non-dietary exposure. The potential for non-dietary exposure to
the general population, including infants and children, is reasonably
low given the primary uses are for agricultural and ornamental
treatments, and residential uses are expected to be occasional or
periodic.  The intended use of MBI-601 EP is for application to soil to
control or suppress soil-borne plant diseases. Sterile grain inoculated
with Muscodor albus strain SA-13 has limited survivability once its
carrier nutrient source is exhausted. Volatile compounds released from
sterile grain inoculated with Muscodor albus strain SA-13 are not of
toxicological concern and dissipate rapidly in the environment. Personal
Protective Equipment (PPE) mitigates the potential for exposure to
applicators and handlers of the proposed product when used in
agricultural settings.  Label mitigation measures are included on
packaging for residential use, intended to minimize exposures to infants
and children.  In addition, the product is incorporated into the soil
and not readily available for accidental exposure.

E. Cumulative Effects

The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 requires the EPA to consider the
cumulative effects of chemicals with a common mechanism of toxicity in
its tolerance assessment decisions.   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 There is no
indication that sterile grain inoculated with Muscodor albus strain
SA-13, or the volatiles produced by sterile grain inoculated with
Muscodor albus strain SA-13, act by a common mechanism of action with
other compounds to result in any cumulative effects

F. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. Acute   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 toxicity studies have
shown that sterile grain inoculated with Muscodor albus strain SA-13 and
the volatiles released upon rehydration are not toxic or irritating to
mammals. These results indicate sterile grain inoculated with Muscodor
albus strain SA-13 is not of toxicological concern for the general
population when used as proposed on the label.  Further, sterile grain
inoculated with Muscodor albus strain SA-13 was not pathogenic or
infective following tracheal injection, indicating that sterile grain
inoculated with Muscodor albus strain SA-13 is not of concern for
pathogenicity or infectivity when used as proposed.  Based on the data
available, there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to the general US
population from exposure to sterile grain inoculated with Muscodor albus
strain SA-13.

	2. Infants and children. As mentioned above, it is expected that, when
used as proposed, sterile grain inoculated with Muscodor albus strain
SA-13 would not result in residues that are of concern for potential
toxicity or pathogenicity.  Based on the data provided, there is a
reasonable certainty of no harm for infants and children from exposure
sterile grain inoculated with Muscodor albus strain SA-13 from the
proposed uses.

G. Effects on the Immune and Endocrine Systems

	To date there is no evidence to suggest that sterile grain inoculated
with Muscodor albus strain SA-13 functions in a manner similar to any
known hormone, or that it acts as an endocrine disrupter.

H. Existing Tolerances

	There is no US EPA tolerance or tolerance exemption for sterile grain
inoculated with Muscodor albus strain SA-13.

I. International Tolerances

	A Codex Alimentarium Commission Maximum Residue Level (MRL) is not
established for sterile grain inoculated with Muscodor albus strain
SA-13.

 PAGE

 PAGE   6


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 30, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52854-52856]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18722]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 29

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0183; Special Conditions No. 29-056-SC]

Special Conditions: The Boeing Company, Leonardo S.p.a. Model
AW139 Helicopter; Use of New Hovering Out of Ground Effect Utility
Power on the Model AW139 Helicopter

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Leonardo S.p.a.
(Leonardo) Model AW139 helicopter. This helicopter as modified by The
Boeing Company (Boeing) will have a novel or unusual design feature
when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the
airworthiness standards for helicopters. This design feature
incorporates a 2.5-minute all engines operating (AEO) power restricted
for use at helicopter operating speeds below 60 knots indicated
airspeed (KIAS), and hovering out of ground effect (HOGE). This power
is referred to as 2.5-minute HOGE utility power (HUP), or 2.5-minute
HUP. The 2.5-minute HUP is greater than the transmission power
limitations associated with takeoff and AEO. The applicable
airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety
standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the
additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary
to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: Effective September 29, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dorina Mihail, Propulsion and Energy
Section, AIR-624, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and
Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; telephone
781-238-7153; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On September 18, 2020, Boeing applied for a supplemental type
certificate for performance envelope expansion of the Leonardo Model
AW139 helicopter. The AW139 helicopter as changed, is a medium twin-
engine 14 CFR part 29 transport category B helicopter with a 15,521
pounds (7040 Kg) maximum takeoff weight and a maximum seating capacity
of nine passengers and two crew. This helicopter takeoff and landing
altitude is 10,000 feet density altitude (Hd), and the forward flight
altitude is 11,000 feet Hd. This helicopter has the capability for
Category II instrument landing system (ILS) approaches. The Model AW139
helicopter as changed will be equipped with two PT6C-67C1 engines. The
Model AW139 helicopter as changed will have a 2.5-minute HUP for use in
HOGE that exceeds the transmission power limitations associated with
takeoff and AEO.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, Boeing must show that the
Leonardo Model AW139 helicopter, as changed, continues to meet the
applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No.
R00002RD, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of
application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed
upon by the FAA. The proposed certification basis for this supplemental
type certificate is as follows:
    14 CFR 21.29 and Part 29, Amendment 29-1 through Amendment 29-45
with 14 CFR 29.25, 29.143, 29.173, 29.175, 29.177 at Amendment 29-51,
and 14 CFR 29.773 at Amendment 29-57.
    Equivalent Level of Safety Findings issued against:
    14 CFR 29.1305, as documented in the AB139 FAA Memo, dated December
20, 2004.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (e.g., 14 CFR part 29) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Leonardo Model AW139 helicopter
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type
certificate to modify any other model included on the same type
certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature,
these special conditions would also apply to the other model under
Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Leonardo Model AW139 helicopter must comply with the
noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Feature

    The Leonardo Model AW139 helicopter will incorporate a novel or
unusual design feature, which is a 2.5-minute AEO power that is greater
than the transmission takeoff power limitations associated with takeoff
and AEO. This power is restricted for use when HOGE and at helicopter
operating speeds below 60 KIAS. The applicable airworthiness
regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for
this design feature.

Discussion

    The design feature will incorporate a 2.5-minute HUP that allows
the pilot to enter HOGE, operate in HOGE, and depart from HOGE at high
altitudes and ambient atmospheric temperatures. The use of the 2.5-
minute HUP is limited to periods of no longer than 2.5 minutes each
use, under AEO conditions, at helicopter operating speeds below 60 KIAS
and HOGE. Use of the 2.5-minute HUP is not part of, or combined with a
takeoff operation.
    Helicopter operation at the 2.5-minute HUP will use the engine
power higher than the rated maximum continuous power and limits but
lower than the rated takeoff power and limits and does not exceed the 5
minute takeoff rating for which the engines are type certificated.
Existing part 33 regulations for the engines are adequate for the
helicopter 2.5-minute HUP.
    Use of the 2.5-minute HUP exceeds the helicopter transmission power
limitations associated with takeoff and AEO. Existing part 29
regulations do not recognize helicopter operation that exceeds the
transmission power limitations associated with takeoff and AEO. The
special conditions that address the use of the 2.5-minute HUP on this
model of helicopter, as modified by Boeing, are as follows.
    The Rotorcraft Flight Manual must specify that the use of the 2.5-
minute HUP is limited to periods no longer than 2.5 minutes each, under
AEO conditions, at helicopter operating speeds below 60 KIAS and HOGE.
Additionally, the Rotorcraft Flight Manual must specify that use of the
2.5-minute HUP is not part of, or combined with, a takeoff operation.
    The requirement added to Sec.  29.49(c) provides for the
development of helicopter performance data for 2.5-minute HUP
utilization.
    The testing requirement added to Sec.  29.923(d) consists of two
applications of 2.5-minute HUP torque and the maximum speed per 10-hour
cycle. The 10-hour cycle represents a run of 10 hours in length that is
repeated 20 times, for a total of (at least) 200 hours of endurance
testing as required by Sec.  29.923(a). Therefore, the testing added to
Sec.  29.923(d) provides for 40 applications of the 2.5-minute HUP
during the 200-hour endurance test specified in Sec.  29.923(a). This
testing is added to Sec.  29.923(d) ``Endurance tests; 90 percent of
maximum continuous run,'' since the 2.5-minute HUP is not part of, or
combined with, a takeoff operation, as stated in these special
conditions and is expected to be used during mid-mission.
    The flight-test requirement added to Sec.  29.1049 is intended to
address the hovering cooling provisions at the 2.5-minute HUP and HOGE
following thermal stabilization at maximum weight, mission
representative power, maximum altitude, and ambient temperatures
specified in Sec.  29.1043(b). The flight-test continues with cycling
in and out of the HUP mode, in a manner representative of the intended
use of the 2.5-minute HUP, per the instructions specified in the
Rotorcraft Flight Manual. The repeated successive HUP applications and
time duration between HUP cycles result in the most critical condition
for the cooling provisions required by Sec.  29.1041(a) and Sec.
29.1041(b). The flight-test continues with departing the hover and
transitioning to a maximum continuous power climb at the best rate of
climb speed. Climb is continued for 5 minutes after the highest
temperatures are observed or until the service ceiling is reached.
    The requirements added to Sec.  29.1305 are means for the pilot to
identify when the 2.5-minute HUP level is achieved, when the event
begins, and when the time interval expires. These means will assist the
pilot in managing the 2.5-minute HUP short time duration in a pilot
high-workload environment.
    The requirements added to Sec.  29.1521 are similar to the
powerplant limitations for takeoff operations in Sec.  29.1521(b),
modified to reflect the 2.5-minute HUP.
    The requirement added to Sec.  29.1587(b)(8) will require
publishing the performance data developed under paragraph (b) of these
special conditions in the Rotorcraft Flight Manual. These data must be
clearly referenced to the appropriate hover charts and specify that
they are not to be used for take-off or landing determinations.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Discussion of Comments

    The FAA issued Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 29-22-01-
SC for the Leonardo Model AW139 helicopter, which was published in the
Federal Register on May 3, 2022 (87 FR 26143). The FAA did not receive
any comments.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Leonardo Model AW139 helicopter. Should Boeing apply at a later date
for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included
on Type Certificate No. R00002RD, to incorporate the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that
model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature
on the Leonardo Model AW139 helicopter. It is not a rule of general
applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for
approval of this feature on the helicopter.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 29

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701-44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for the Leonardo S.p.a. Model AW139
helicopter, as modified by The Boeing Company.
    (a) The Rotorcraft Flight Manual must state the following:
    (1) Use of the 2.5-minute Hovering Out of Ground Effect (HOGE)
Utility Power (2.5-minute HUP) is limited to a period no longer than
2.5 minutes each, under all engine operating (AEO) conditions, at
helicopter operating speeds below 60 knots indicated airspeed (KIAS)
and HOGE.
    (2) Use of the 2.5-minute HUP is not part of, or combined with, a
takeoff operation.
    (b) In addition to the requirements of Sec.  29.49(c), the out-of-
ground effect hover performance must be determined over

the ranges of weight, altitude, and temperatures for which
certification is requested with the 2.5-minute HUP.
    (c) In addition to the requirements of Sec.  29.923(d) when
performing the endurance test, the 2.5 minute all engines operating
must be performed using two applications of 2.5-minute HUP torque and
the maximum speed for use with 2.5-minute HUP torque, per 10-hour
cycle.
    (d) In addition to the requirements of Sec.  29.1049, the hovering
cooling provisions at the 2.5-minute HUP must be shown as follows--
    (1) Conduct a thermal stabilization at maximum weight, mission
representative power, maximum altitude, and ambient temperatures
specified in Sec.  29.1043(b); following stabilization, increase power
to the 2.5-minute HUP and HOGE for a duration of 2.5 minutes (150
seconds).
    (2) Cycle in and out the HUP mode in a manner representative of the
intended use of the 2.5-minute HUP, and per the instructions specified
in the Rotorcraft Flight Manual, if any. The HUP cycles should account
for repeated successive HUP applications and time duration between HUP
cycles resulting in the most critical condition for the cooling
provisions required by Sec.  29.1041(a) and Sec.  29.1041(b).
    (3) Following the tests in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of these
special conditions, depart the hover and transition to a maximum
continuous power climb at the best rate of climb speed. Continue the
climb until 5 minutes after the highest temperatures are observed or
until the service ceiling is reached.
    (e) In addition to the requirements of Sec.  29.1305, the pilot
must have the means to identify the 2.5-minute HUP time limit
associated with its use as follows--
    (1) When the power level is achieved,
    (2) when the event begins, and
    (3) when the time interval expires.
    These indications must be clear and unambiguous to the pilot and
must not cause pilot confusion. The use of these indications must be
evaluated in operationally relevant scenarios in accordance with Sec.
29.1523 for crew workload.
    (f) In addition to the requirements of Sec.  29.1521, the use of
the 2.5-minute HUP must be limited by the following:
    (1) The maximum rotational speed, which may not be greater than--
    (i) The maximum value determined by the rotor design; or
    (ii) The maximum value demonstrated during the type tests;
    (2) The maximum allowable turbine inlet or turbine outlet gas
temperature (for turbine engines);
    (3) The maximum allowable power or torque for each engine,
considering the power input limitations of the transmission with all
engines operating;
    (4) The maximum allowable power or torque for each engine
considering the power input limitations of the transmission with one
engine inoperative;
    (5) The time limit for the use of the power corresponding to the
limitations established in paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(4) of these
special conditions; and
    (6) The maximum allowable engine and transmission oil temperatures,
if the time limit established in paragraph (f)(5) of these special
conditions exceeds 2 minutes.
    (7) Use of 2.5-minute HUP is limited to HOGE only.
    (g) In addition to the requirements of Sec.  29.1587(b)(8), the
Rotorcraft Flight Manual must contain the out-of-ground effect hover
performance determined under paragraph (b) of these special conditions,
and the maximum safe wind demonstrated under the ambient conditions for
the data presented. In addition, the Rotorcraft Flight Manual must
include the maximum weight for each altitude and temperature condition
at which the rotorcraft can safely hover out-of-ground-effect in winds
not less than 17 knots from all azimuths. These data must be clearly
referenced to the appropriate hover charts and specify that they are
not to be used for take-off or landing determinations.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 25, 2022.
Patrick R. Mullen,
Manager, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-18722 Filed 8-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 82 (Friday, April 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23038-23042]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09049]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2018-0095, Notice 1]

Receipt of Petitions for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petitions.

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

SUMMARY: Ricon Corporation (Ricon), has determined that certain Mirage,
S-Series, and K-Series wheelchair lifts do not fully comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 403, Platform Lift
Systems for Motor Vehicles. Because of Ricon's determination, various
vehicle manufacturers who installed the S-Series, and K-Series
wheelchair lifts in their motor vehicles determined that their motor
vehicles do not comply with FMVSS No. 404, Platform Lift Installation
in Motor Vehicles. Ricon and the various vehicle manufacturers,
collectively referred to as the ``the petitioners,'' filed the
appropriate noncompliance reports and subsequently petitioned NHTSA for
a decision that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety. This document announces receipt of the
petitioners' petitions.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is June 1, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket number cited in the title of this notice and may be submitted by
any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that comments you have submitted by mail were
received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard along with
the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered fully possible.
    When the petitions are granted or denied, notice of the decision
will also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the
authority indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Ricon determined that certain Mirage, S-Series, and K-
Series wheelchair lifts do not fully comply with paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> of
FMVSS No. 403, Platform Lift Systems for Motor Vehicles (49 CFR
571.403) and filed noncompliance reports, dated May 15, 2018, and May
25, 2018, (and later amended their May 15, 2018 noncompliance report on
June 12, 2019) pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports. Ricon subsequently petitioned NHTSA on June
13, 2018, for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556,
Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    Because of Ricon's determination, the following vehicle
manufacturers who installed the S Series, and K Series wheelchair lifts
in their motor vehicles determined that their motor vehicles do not
fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404, Platform Lift
Installation in Motor Vehicles (49 CFR 571.404). The various vehicle
manufacturers also filed noncompliance reports, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports and
subsequently petitioned NHTSA, for an exemption from the notification
and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556,
Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    ElDorado Mobility, Inc. (ElDorado) has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2014-2018 Revability Advantage Ram Promaster 1500 and
2500 motor vehicles do not fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS
No. 404. ElDorado filed a noncompliance report dated July 3, 2018, and
later amended

it on August 11, 2018. ElDorado petitioned NHTSA on August 6, 2018.
    Champion Bus, Inc. (Champion) has determined that certain MY 2012-
2018 Champion buses do not fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS
No. 404. Champion filed a noncompliance report dated July 5, 2018 and
later amended that report on August 11, 2018. Champion petitioned NHTSA
on August 8, 2018.
    Collins Bus Corporation (Collins) has determined that certain MY
2012-2018 Collins school buses do not fully comply with paragraph
S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404. Collins filed a noncompliance report dated
July 10, 2018, and later amended it on August 11, 2018. Collins
petitioned NHTSA on August 7, 2018.
    ElDorado National Kansas (ENC) has determined that certain MY 2012-
2018 ENC buses do not fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No.
404. ENC filed a noncompliance report in July 3, 2018, and later
amended it on August 11, 2018. ENC petitioned NHTSA on August 6, 2018.
    Daimler Trucks North America, LLC (DTNA) has determined that
certain MY 2013-2019 Thomas Built Buses do not fully comply with
paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404. DTNA filed two noncompliance
reports, both dated July 18, 2018, and later amended both reports on
August 15, 2018. DTNA petitioned NHTSA on August 15, 2018.
    Navistar, Inc. (Navistar) has determined that certain MY 2013-2019
IC buses do not fully comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404.
Navistar filed two noncompliance reports both dated June 20, 2018, and
both were later amended August 17, 2018. Navistar petitioned NHTSA on
July 19, 2018 and amended the petition on September 24, 2018.
    This notice of receipt of petitions is published under 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or other
exercises of judgment concerning the merits of the petitions.
    II. Equipment and Vehicles Involved: On May 15, 2018, Ricon
submitted a noncompliance report that reported approximately 29,245 S-
Series and K-Series wheelchair lifts, manufactured between May 7, 2012,
and May 9, 2018, were potentially involved. In conjunction with its May
15, 2018, noncompliance report, Ricon submitted a second noncompliance
report on May 25, 2018, that reported approximately 2,454 Mirage
wheelchair lifts, manufactured between October 2, 2012, and May 18,
2018, were also potentially involved. On June 13, 2018, Ricon filed an
inconsequential noncompliance petition that reported 23,379 S-Series
and K-Series wheelchair lifts and 2,454 Mirage wheelchair lifts were
involved. NHTSA contacted Ricon to inquire about the differences in the
number of S-Series and K-Series wheelchair lifts potentially involved
as reported in its petition and noncompliance report. This led to Ricon
amending their May 15, 2018 noncompliance report on June 12, 2019
changing the number of S-Series and K-Series wheelchair lifts
potentially involved from 29,245 to 23,379 and the production dates
from May 7, 2012, through May 9, 2018, to October 2, 2012, through May
9, 2018.
    In concert with Ricon's filings, 6 original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs) who Ricon sold lifts to and who installed the S-Series and K-
Series lifts in its vehicles also filed noncompliance reports and
inconsequential noncompliance petitions. Appropriately, ElDorado,
Champion, Collins, ENC, DTNA, and Navistar determined the following
vehicles are potentially involved:
    Approximately 42 MY 2014-2018 Eldorado Revability Advantage Ram
Promaster 1500/2500 motor vehicles, manufactured between September 1,
2014, and June 30, 2018.
    Approximately 1,500 MY 2012-2018 Champion Challenger, Defender,
Crusader, American, American Coach, American Crusader, CTS-FE, CTS-RE,
HC American, Platinum Shuttle, and Stacked Rail Impulse buses,
manufactured between May 7, 2012, and May 9, 2018.
    Approximately 1,947 MY 2012-2018 Collins multi-function school
activity buses (MFSAB) and Commercial buses, manufactured between May
1, 2012, and June 1, 2018.
    Approximately 1,447 MY 2012-2018 Eldorado, Aerotech, Aerolite, Aero
Elite, Transtech, Advantage, World Trans, and Impulse buses,
manufactured between May 1, 2012, and June 1, 2018.
    Approximately 31 MY 2013-2019 Thomas Built Buses Saf-T-Liner C2,
Saf-T-Liner EFX, and Saf-T-Liner HDX commercial buses, manufactured
between July 21, 2012, and April 4, 2018, and approximately 3,834 MY
2013-2019 Thomas Built Buses Saf-T-Liner C2, Saf-T-Liner EFX, and Saf-
T-Liner HDX school buses, manufactured between May 5, 2012, and July 4,
2018.
    Approximately 2,892 MY 2013-2014 IC Bus AE, MY 2013-2015 IC Bus BE,
MY 2013-2019 IC Bus CE, MY 2013-2014 IC Bus RE, and 2016-2017 IC Bus RE
school buses, manufactured between May 10, 2012, and May 2, 2018, and
approximately 29 MY 2013-2018 IC Bus CE and RE commercial buses,
manufactured between May 10, 2012, and November 7, 2017.
    Ricon reported that 2,454 Mirage wheelchair lifts and 23,379 S-
Series and K-Series wheelchair lifts are potentially involved while the
OEMs reported, in total, 11,722 vehicles with the noncompliant S-Series
and K-Series wheelchair lifts are potentially involved. To date, no
OEMs have filed for the Mirage wheelchair lifts. On multiple occasions,
NHTSA made inquiries to Ricon to reconcile the difference in the number
of lifts Ricon reported as containing the noncompliance versus the
number of vehicles equipped with these lifts. On June 10, 2020, Ricon
provided a table that reported that 30,127 S-Series and K-Series
wheelchair lifts were produced, with 7,055 going to dealers, 22,850
going to OEMs, and 222 to its parent company Wabtec Corporation
(Wabtec). Below is a table that outlines the different numbers as
reported by Ricon, by date, for the S-Series and K-Series wheelchair
lifts and the total number of vehicles as reported by the OEMs.

                        Ricon S-Series and K-Series Wheelchair Lifts Potentially Involved
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Ricon 5/15/18   Ricon 6/12/19   Ricon 6/10/20   Total OEM 573
                                                     reporting       reporting       reporting       reporting
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEALERS.........................................  ..............  ..............           7,055  ..............
OEMs............................................  ..............  ..............          22,850  ..............
WABTEC *........................................  ..............  ..............             222  ..............
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................          29,245          23,379          30,127          11,722
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Ricon is a subsidiary of WABTEC

The total number of vehicles reported by the OEMs has not changed and
the number S-Series and K-Series wheelchair lifts as reported by Ricon
on June 10, 2020, are the most up-to-date numbers. Based on current
numbers as shown in the table above, there are still 18,405 lifts that
have not been accounted for. Despite several meetings and communication
with Ricon aimed at identifying the distribution and disposition of
lifts not sold directly to vehicle manufacturers NHTSA has not been
able to obtain additional information about those lifts. NHTSA also
feels it is prudent to emphasize that any decision on these petitions
does not relieve vehicle or equipment distributors and dealers of the
prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery
for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant lifts and
vehicles under their control after the petitioners notified them that
the subject noncompliance existed.
    III. Noncompliance: Ricon explains that it's S-Series and K-Series
platform lifts and its Mirage platform lifts do not comply with the
outer barrier interlock requirements of FMVSS 403, S<IP_ADDRESS> when
tested in accordance with the test procedure at S<IP_ADDRESS> and S<IP_ADDRESS>.
To that end, the subject lifts, as installed in certain commercial
buses or school buses, do not comply with paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No.
404.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> of FMVSS No. 403,
includes vertical deployment requirements for a platform lift equipped
with an outer barrier when occupied by portions of the passenger's body
or mobility aid during the operation of the lift. When the platform
stops, the vertical change in distance of the horizontal plane (passing
through the point of contact between the wheelchair test device
wheel(s) and the upper surface of the outer barrier) must not be
greater than 13 mm (0.5 in). Verification of compliance with this
requirement is made using the test procedure specified in paragraph
S7.5.1.
    Paragraph S4.1.1 of FMVSS No. 404, requires lift-equipped buses,
school buses, and MPVs other than motor homes with a GVWR greater than
4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) to be equipped with a public use lift certified
as meeting FMVSS No. 403.
    V. Summary of Petitions: The petitioners described the subject
noncompliance and stated their belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. In support of
their petitions, the petitioners submitted the following arguments:
    1. The performance of the Ricon lifts do not create an increased
risk to safety:

S-Series and K-Series Lifts

    (a) Per The petitioners, the S-Series and K-Series lifts are used
as both public use and private use lifts. These lifts have a retention
belt as part of the platform lift design. The retention belt consists
of durable webbing which is attached to and when belted, extends across
each of the handrails. The retention belt serves dual purposes and is a
redundant safety feature. The retention belt is a means to physically
secure an occupant within the lift. In addition, the retention belt
acts as an electrical interlock that is linked to the operation of the
lift. If the retention belt is buckled, the electrical circuit is
closed and the platform and outer barrier can operate when the buttons
on the operator's pendant are pressed. If the belt is not buckled, the
electrical circuit is broken and there is no power sent to any part of
the lift, the platform cannot move and the outer barrier will not
deploy in either direction.
    (b) The petitioners contend the nonconformance to the outer barrier
interlock provision arises only when the unit is tested to the
directions provided in the test procedure itself, when the retention
belt is buckled and the wheelchair test device attempts to access the
outer barrier. However, in actual use the outside of the test
environment, the retention belt would not be buckled (and the lift
would not be powered at any time an occupant is attempting to traverse
the outer barrier).
    (c) The petitioners state that under the test conditions in
S<IP_ADDRESS>, once the platform lift is placed at the ground level loading
position with the outer barrier fully deployed, the wheelchair test
device is placed on the platform. Once the occupant is secured by the
buckled retention belt, the length of the belt prevents the occupant
from physically accessing the outer barrier. If the belt is unbuckled,
no power is sent to either the lift or the outer barrier and they will
not be able to move. Therefore, any time an occupant is present on the
platform portion of the lift, the design of the lift protects the
occupant from inadvertent movement of the outer barrier.
    (d) Alternatively, the petitioners contend the test procedure
provides that if the wheelchair test device cannot access the outer
barrier because of a belt retention type device, the test may
alternatively be conducted with the wheelchair test device on the
ground facing the entrance to the lift. An occupant entering the lift
from the ground level also does not present an increased risk to
safety. As an initial matter, if an occupant were attempting to access
the platform from ground level outside the vehicle, the outer barrier
would not be able to move unless the belt was buckled. If the belt is
buckled, it stretches across the handrails and the occupant cannot
access the platform because the secured belt blocks the way. Once the
lift is maneuvered to ground level and the outer barrier is deployed,
the lift attendant or private individual must unbuckle the belt to
allow access to the platform. At this point, the electrical circuit is
broken and there is no power to the lift or outer barrier and no risk
to the occupant accessing the lift. Once the occupant is safely
positioned on the platform, the belt is re-buckled and power is
restored.
    (e) Per the petitioners, a separate issue is that the test
procedure in S<IP_ADDRESS> provides that when loading from the ground, the
wheelchair test device should be placed on the ground facing the
entrance to the lift. The instruction to have the wheelchair test
facing the entrance to the lift is contrary to the Ricon operator's
manual instructions and industry practice. The industry standard
practice is to load wheelchair occupants onto a lift with their back to
the vehicle. Loading in this direction prevents injury to the
occupant's lower extremities and feet. As written, the instructions in
the test procedure are inconsistent with the industry standard and
Ricon's operator's manual.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ During the FMVSS No. 403 rulemaking process, a manufacturer
noted that portions of the rule had testing conducted in one
direction when the owner's manual provided for a different loading
direction. See 67 FR 425-26. The manufacturer took the position that
such inconsistencies were contrary to the requirements of the ADA.
In response, NHTSA concluded that since the ADA does not apply to
private use lifts, the loading requirements were not inconsistent
with the ADA. Here, however, the Ricon lifts are used as public use
lifts. Although the ADA states that the lift shall permit for
boarding and unboarding in both directions, the industry practice
and Ricon's (and other manufacturers) instructions provide for
boarding in the reverse as an added level of occupant protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (f) The petitioners argue that it provides instructions in the
operator's manual describing how an occupant should board the lift and
how an occupant should exit a vehicle. Ricon also provides decals to
indicate to the operator the correct means to load an occupant onto
each wheelchair lift, which are placed on the vertical arms of the lift
and face outward of the vehicle so that they are visible when loading a
passenger onto the lift from the ground level.

Mirage Lifts

    (a) Per The petitioners, the Mirage lifts are public use lifts. The
Mirage lifts also incorporate a belt retention device into its design,
but the belt interlock functions somewhat differently than the S-Series
and K-Series lifts. The belt on the Mirage lifts acts as an interlock
sensor that detects whether the outer barrier is in a vertical (closed)
position. When the outer barrier is closed and the retention belt is
buckled, the platform can operate. If the belt is unbuckled, the outer
barrier can move from horizontal (open) to vertical (closed), but the
platform itself cannot operate.
    (b) The petitioners state that as with the S-Series and K-Series
lifts, when an occupant is on the platform, he/she is to be secured by
the restraint belt. To exit the lift and cross the outer barrier, the
belt must be unbuckled. Unbuckling the retention belt eliminates power
sent to the platform.
    (c) The petitioners argue that NHTSA's concern in adopting the
outer barrier interlock in 2007 was that occupants could be pitched
from the lift if the lift moved when the outer barrier was occupied.
This concern does not exist in Ricon's design. When the belt is
unbuckled, as it would be anytime a person is entering or exiting the
lift, the platform is not powered and cannot move. If the belt is
buckled and the lift is powered, the retention belt blocks access to
the outer barrier if the occupant is present on the platform.
    2. NHTSA has previously granted petitions where wheelchair lifts
did not meet the performance requirements of FMVSS No. 403.
    (a) Per the petitioners, the Agency has granted inconsequentiality
petitions where the manufacturer has not met the performance
requirements of FMVSS No. 403, finding that the noncompliance did not
pose an increased risk to safety as the lift is used in the real world.
The performance of Ricon's platform lifts are consistent with this
precedent.
    (b) For example, the petitioners contend the Agency granted a
petition for decision of inconsequential noncompliance submitted by The
Braun Corporation (Braun) where the lift handrails did not meet the
values for deflection force. While the handrails collapsed when exposed
to forces above the threshold requirement, the handrail did not
collapse or fail catastrophically. The petitioners state the Agency
explained that its concern in instituting the deflection force
requirement was the possibility of a catastrophic failure of the
handrails which would expose the occupant to a risk of injury. In
granting the petition, the Agency ``anticipated that future tests will
specify placement and direction of forces that will be more focused to
address worst-case handrail displacement and real-world safety
problems.'' The Agency, in the petitioners' view, recognized the
noncompliance, in this case, did not ``pose a safety concern that the
handrail requirements were intended to address.'' See 72 FR 19754
(April 19, 2007).
    (c) The petitioners note that as with the Braun petition, the
technical noncompliance in the Ricon outer barrier emerges only because
of the revisions to the test procedure implemented in 2012. In actual
use and consistent with the operator's manual, the retention belt
should never be buckled (and it would be illogical to do so) when an
occupant is attempting to traverse the outer barrier. As such, the
noncompliance does not create a real-world safety concern and certainly
not the type of safety concern that the outer barrier interlock was
intended to address the movement of the lift platform while the outer
barrier was occupied.
    (d) The petitioners state that NHTSA has also granted an
inconsequentiality petition submitted by Maxon Industry Inc. (Maxon)
where the deployed wheelchair retention device was unable to withstand
the required 1,600 pounds of force. In that case, the Maxon lifts
included some designs where the outer barrier served as the wheelchair
retention device and other designs with both a belt retention device
and an outer barrier. The belt retention device also served as an
electronic interlock that precluded the lift from moving up or down
unless buckled.\2\ Per The petitioners, the Agency granted the petition
as to the units which incorporated the retention belt and noncompliant
outer barrier, finding that such a design did not create an increased
risk to safety since the belt's operation precluded the lift from
moving and prevented the stated safety concern. The petitioners contend
that the Agency denied the petition as to those units without the
retention belt, reasoning that the lift occupant would only be relying
upon a noncompliant outer barrier for protection. See 72 FR 28759 (May
22, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Ricon is aware of multiple manufacturers that use a belt
interlock that functions in the same or similar manner to restrict
the operation of the platform lift.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (e) The petitioners also state that Ricon lifts incorporate a
retention belt that operates in the same manner as the belt described
in the Maxon petition. In both cases, the belt precludes the lift from
operating unless it is buckled. In granting the Maxon petition, the
petitioners argue the Agency recognized the belt acted as a redundant
safety feature (along with the technically noncompliant outer barrier)
that precluded any safety risk. The belt interlock in the Ricon lifts
as well as the operator's manual instructions create similar
redundancies and offer equivalent protection to occupants.
    (f) Finally, the petitioners state the environment in which these
lifts are used diminishes any potential risk to safety. When operated
as a public use lift, there will be a lift attendant present to monitor
the lift to ensure the occupant enters and exits the lift safely. When
the lift attendant or private individual is following the operator's
manual, there should not be an instance where the lift platform is
powered and the occupant is unrestrained. Ricon has used this same
design lift since the start of production for decades and without
incident as it relates to the performance of the outer barrier
interlock.
    The petitioners concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that their petitions to be exempted from providing notification of
the noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    The petitioner's petitions and all supporting documents are
available by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)
website at https://www.regulations.gov and by following the online
search instructions to locate the docket number as listed in the title
of this notice.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
these petitions only applies to the subject lifts and buses that the
petitioners no longer controlled at the time it determined that the
noncompliance existed. However, any decision of these petitions does
not relieve vehicle or equipment distributors and dealers of the
prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery
for introduction into interstate commerce of the noncompliant lifts and
buses under their control after the petitioners

notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021-09049 Filed 4-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:A 75 day comment period is insufficient time for the vapeing industry and the wider vapeing community to comment on the proposed deeming regulations. I would respectfully request that the period for comment be extended to 180 days.