State and local governments recommended that the standards for newly manufactured engines of already certified models should be implemented one year after the effective date of the final rulemaking. At a minimum, EPA should have an implementation date that prohibits engine manufacturers from selling already certified engines unless the engines were recertified or redesigned to meet the proposed standards. Such a provision would be consistent with a stated objective of the rulemaking, which is to assure that progress in reducing aircraft engine emissions is not reversed in the future. Without such standards high emitting engines can continue to be produced and brought into service, further adding to the long term growth in Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 78 aircraft emissions that is anticipated without a more aggressive approach to regulating this source.

Airlines commented that as the proposal acknowledges, market incentives lead manufacturers to bring their engines to the levels of the CAEP/ 4 NOx standards as soon as possible once the standards take effect. Airlines investing in costly, long lasting assets prefer to buy engines that meet the latest standards, and demand engines that perform better than the standard without regulatory intervention of a production cut off ( applying standards to newly manufactured engines of already certified models). Such market forces together with EPA's four year delay in proposing to adopt the CAEP/ 4 NOx standards, account for the fact that 94 percent of in production engines already meet the standard.

In addition, airlines expressed that for the same reasons that the Agency should generally align with ICAO standards, it should be consistent with ICAO on whether to apply CAEP/ 4 standards to newly manufactured engines of already certified models. If EPA differed from ICAO on this provision, there would be the very inconsistency between domestic and international practice that aligning with ICAO requirements avoids. Furthermore, if EPA adopts such a provision prior to ICAO, such action would potentially place U. S. manufacturers and airlines at a competitive disadvantage for what EPA acknowledges to be minimal environmental benefit.

In addition, one airline expressed that it presently has the JT8D 219 engine on some of its commercial jets. The proposal indicated that the JT8D 219 would be used in supersonic business jets, which the airline does not operate; however, it ( and maybe other domestic airlines)

operates this engine in our commercial aircraft fleet. Therefore, the implication of these Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 79 provisions has not been fully investigated by EPA as mandated by the CAA. ( See the Summary and Analysis of Comments for this rulemaking for further discussion of comments.)

In response, as indicated earlier, the implementation date applicable to newly designed and certified engines under CAEP/ 4, December 31, 2003, has already occurred for the CAEP/ 4 standards, and at this late date to promulgate a provision to apply today's standards to newly manufactured engines of already certified models ( a production cut off) could be disruptive to the production planning of engine manufacturers. EPA and ICAO ( as we mentioned in the proposal and as one commenter noted in its comments) have historically adopted production cutoffs for previous standards, but in today's unique case the lateness of the rule may not provide manufacturers enough lead time for such planning. However, as we discussed earlier in section 1, we intend to consider more stringent NOx standards in a future rulemaking, and similar to CAEP/ 6' s future plans described above, we also intend to consider applying more stringent standards to newly manufactured engines of already certified models for such a future rulemaking. This provision is an important issue that we expect to fully consider for future standards.

While we solicited comment on extending the CAEP/ 4 standards to newly manufactured engines of already certified models, we did not develop a record that fully analyzes the emissions benefits ( if any) and the implementation costs of going beyond CAEP in this manner. Therefore,

the public has not been provided an opportunity to analyze and comment upon these important factors. We believe that our analysis of these factors would need to be weighed through a noticeand comment process in determining whether a production cut off, with a specific lead time period, would be appropriate under CAA section 231 in this case. Particularly regarding the cost Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 80 of compliance within necessary lead time issue, we are concerned that there is insufficient data that specifically addresses the appropriate lead time for subjecting the few remaining inproduction engine models to the CAEP/ 4 standards, and that our selection of a production cut off date could therefore be viewed as arbitrarily chosen.

Since we have not yet provided that opportunity for public comment on our analysis of this issue, and since attempting to do so now would in our view unacceptably slow down this rulemaking, in the interests of expediency and of bringing U. S. domestic law into conformity with our obligations under the Chicago Convention ( albeit tardily), we have decided that the most appropriate course for now, under CAA section 231 ( a), is to simply update our regulations to track CAEP/ 4 in terms of both stringency levels and scope of applicability. Similarly, without having developed the necessary record and analysis, at this time we are unable to respond to the substantive comments offered by commenters regarding the production cutoff issue, and our decision today should in no way be viewed as either endorsing or rejecting the concept of a production cut off. Given the need to quickly promulgate standards that are at least as stringent as CAEP/ 4, we must decline to resolve the numerous issues raised either in favor of or in opposition to applying the CAEP/ 4 standards to newly manufactured engines of already certified models.

IV. Amendments to Criteria on Calibration and Test Gases for Gaseous Emissions Test and Measurement Procedures Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 81 In today's rulemaking, EPA will incorporate by reference ICAO's 1997 amendments to the criteria on calibration and test gases for the test procedures of gaseous emissions ( ICAO International Standards and Recommended Practices Environmental Protection, Annex 16,

Volume II, " Aircraft Engine Emissions," Second Edition, July 1993; Amendment 3, March 20,

1997, Appendices 3 and 5) in 40 CFR 87.64 . ICAO's amendments, which became effective on March 20, 1997, apply to subsonic ( newly certified and newly manufactured engines95) and supersonic gas turbine engines. The technical changes will correct a few inconsistencies between the specifications for carbon dioxide ( CO2) analyzers ( Attachment B of Appendices 3 and 5) and the calibration and test gases ( Attachment D of Appendices 3 and 5) of gaseous emissions. The test procedure amendments incorporated by reference will be effective 30 days after the publication of the final rule.

For CAEP/ 3 in 1995, the Russian Federation presented a working paper entitled,

" Corrections to Annex 16, Volume II," that stated the following: 96 95Such engines include newly manufactured engines of already certified models.

96Russian Federation, " Corrections to Annex 16, Volume II," Agenda Item 2: Review of reports of working groups relating to engine emissions and the development of recommendations to the Council thereon, Working Paper 19, Presented by A. A. Gorbatko, November 11, 1995 ( distributed November 30, 1995), CAEP/ 3, Montreal, December 5 to 15, 1995. A copy of this paper can be found in Docket OAR 2002 0030. Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 82 According to CAEP/ 2 recommendations, in the list of calibration and test gases ( see the table in Attachment of Appendices 3 and 5) " CO2 in N2" was replaced with " CO2 in air" gas. At the same time the following sub paragraph was newly introduced into Attachment B ( Appendices 3 and 5) :

( g) The effect of oxygen ( O2) on the CO2 analyzer response shall be checked. For a change from 0 percent O2 to 21 percent O2 the response of a given CO2 concentration shall not change by more than 2 per cent of reading. If this limit cannot be met and appropriate correction factor shall be applied.

Since the best way to carry out this checking procedure is to calibrate the analyzer first with CO2 in nitrogen and then with CO2 in air, both " CO2 in N2" and " CO2 in air" gases have to be retained in the list. It seems then that " CO in air," " CO2 in air," " NO in N2" and now " CO2 in N2" have to be replaced with " CO in zero air," " CO2 in zero air," " CO2 in zero nitrogen" and " NO in zero nitrogen" just by analogy with the gaseous mixtures of different hydrocarbons diluted by zero air and listed in the same table. Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 83 In addition, at CAEP/ 3 the United Kingdom then presented a working paper on this same issue. 97 They indicated that CAEP's Working Group 3 ( Emissions Working Group) had accepted the above proposals of the Russian Federation paper on correcting inconsistencies in the list of calibration and test gases specified in Annex 16, Volume II, Attachment D to Appendices 3 and 5, and Working Group 3 had recommended that these proposals be presented at CAEP/ 3. The United Kingdom also recommended the adoption of these Russian Federation proposals   to utilize CO2 in nitrogen gas mixture to check the effect of oxygen on CO2 analyzers. In addition, they recommended the specification of all calibration and test gases required for all the gaseous emissions tests required in Annex 16.

At CAEP/ 3, the CAEP members agreed that the above amendments to the calibration and test gases were justified, and thus, these amendments were then adopted. 98 Today, EPA will incorporate by reference the amendments to the criteria on calibration and test gases for the test 97United Kingdom, " Amendments to Annex 16, Volume II, Attachment D to Appendices 3 and 5 ( Calibration and Test Gases)," Agenda Item 2: Review of reports of working groups relating to engine emissions and the development of recommendations to the Council thereon,

Working Paper 20, Presented by M. E. Wright, November 14, 1995 ( distributed November 30,

1995), CAEP/ 3, Montreal, December 5 to 15, 1995. A copy of this paper can be found in Docket OAR 2002 0030.

98ICAO/ CAEP, Report of Third Meeting, Montreal, Quebec, December 5 15, 1995,

Document 9675, CAEP/ 3. Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 84 procedures of gaseous emissions, because the changes improve the test procedures by correcting inconsistencies and distinguishing between calibration and test gases. The amendments will include the following: ( 1) listing all calibration gases separately from test gases for HC, CO2, CO and NOx analyzers, ( 2) changing " N2" to " zero nitrogen" in relation to the test gases for the HC and NOx analyzers, ( 3) adding " CO2 in zero nitrogen" as a test gas for CO2 analyzer, ( 4)

changing " air" to " zero air" in relation to the test gas for CO and CO2 analyzers, ( 5) revising the accuracy to "+ 1 percent" for the " propane in zero air" test gas of HC analyzer, ( 6) amending the accuracy to "+ 1 percent" for the " CO2 in zero air" test gas of CO2 analyzer, ( 7) adding the accuracy "+ 1 percent" for the " CO2 in zero nitrogen" test gas of CO2 analyzer, ( 8) changing accuracy to "+ 1 percent" for test gas of CO analyzer, and ( 9) revising accuracy to "+ 1 percent"

for test gas of NOx analyzer.

Manufacturers are already voluntarily complying with ICAO's 1997 amendments to the criteria on calibration and test gases for the test procedures of gaseous emissions. Thus, formal adoption of these ICAO test procedure amendments will require no new action by manufacturers.

In addition, the existence of ICAO's requirements will ensure that the costs of compliance ( as well as the air quality impact) with these test procedures will be minimal. ( In the 1982 and 1997 final rules on aircraft engine emissions ( 47 FR 58462, December 30, 1982 and 62 FR 25356,

May 8, 1997, respectively), EPA incorporated by reference the then existing ICAO testing and measurement procedures for aircraft engine emissions ( ICAO International Standards and Recommended Practices Environmental Protection, Annex 16, Volume II, " Aircraft Engine Emissions," First and Second Editions, Appendices 3 and 5 were incorporated by reference in 40 Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 85 CFR 87.64) in order to eliminate confusion over minor differences in procedures for demonstrating compliance with the U. S. and ICAO standards.)

V. Correction of Exemptions for Very Low Production Models Because of an editorial error, the section in the aircraft engine emission regulations regarding exemptions for very low production models is incorrectly specified ( see section 40 CFR 87.7( b)( 1) and ( 2)). In the October 18, 1984 final rulemaking ( 49 FR 41000), EPA intended to amend the low production engine provisions of the aircraft regulations by revising paragraph ( b) and deleting paragraphs ( b)( 1) and ( b)( 2) in order to eliminate the maximum annual production limit of 20 engines per year. In the revisions to paragraph ( b), EPA retained the maximum total production limit of 200 units for aircraft models certified after January 1,

1984.99 For § 87.7( b), Today, EPA will correct this editorial error by eliminating paragraph ( b)( 1) and ( b)( 2).

As discussed further in the 1984 final rulemaking, this action will provide more flexibility for engine manufacturers in scheduling during the last few engine production years.

Also, the air quality impact of eliminating the annual production limit will be very small.

VI. Coordination with FAA 99This action was taken in 1984 to provide greater flexibility to manufacturers for scheduling engine production rates during the final years. Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 86 The requirements contained in this action are being promulgated after consultation with the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA). Section 231( a)( 2)( B)( i) of the CAA requires EPA to " consult with the Administrator of the [ FAA] on aircraft engine emission standards" and section 231( a)( 2)( B)( ii) indicates that EPA " shall not change the aircraft engine emission standards if such change would significantly increase noise...." Section 231( b) of the CAA states that "[ a] ny regulation prescribed under this section ( and any revision thereof) shall take effect after such period as the Administrator finds necessary ( after consultation with the Secretary of Transportation) to permit the development and application of the requisite technology, giving appropriate consideration to the cost of compliance within such period." Section 231( c) provides that any regulation under section 231 " shall not apply if disapproved by the President  on the basis of a finding by the Secretary of Transportation that any such regulation would create a hazard to aircraft safety." Under section 232 of the CAA, the Department of Transportation ( DOT) has the responsibility to enforce the aircraft emission standards established by EPA under section 231.100 As in past rulemakings and pursuant to the above referenced sections of the CAA, EPA has coordinated with the FAA of the DOT with respect to today's action.

Moreover, FAA is the official U. S. delegate to ICAO. FAA agreed to the 1997 and 1999 amendments at ICAO's Third and Fourth Meetings of the Committee on Aviation Environmental 100The functions of the Secretary of Transportation under part B of title II of the Clean Air Act ( § § 231 234, 49 U. S. C. § § 7571 7574) have been delegated to the Administrator of the FAA. 49 C. F. R. § 1.47( g). Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 87 Protection ( CAEP/ 3 and CAEP/ 4) after advisement from EPA. 101 FAA and EPA were both members of the CAEP's Working Group 3 ( among others), whose objective was to evaluate emissions technical issues and develop recommendations on such issues for CAEP/ 3 and CAEP/ 4. After assessing emissions test procedure amendments and new NOx standards,

Working Group 3 made recommendations to CAEP on these elements. These recommendations were then considered at the CAEP/ 3 and CAEP/ 4 meetings, respectively, prior to their adoption by ICAO in 1997 and 1999.

In addition, as discussed above, FAA will have the responsibility to enforce today's requirements. As a part of its compliance responsibilities, FAA conducts the emission tests or delegates that responsibility to the engine manufacturer, which is then monitored by the FAA.

Since the FAA does not have the resources or the funding to test engines, FAA selects engineers at each plant to serve as representatives ( called designated engineering representatives ( DERs))

for the FAA while the manufacturer performs the test procedures. DERs' responsibilities include evaluating the test plan, the test engine, the test equipment, and the final testing report sent to FAA. DERs' responsibilities are determined by the FAA and today's rulemaking will not affect their duties.

VII. Possible Future Aviation Emission Reductions ( EPA/ FAA Voluntary Aviation Emissions Reduction Initiative)

101The Third Meeting of CAEP ( CAEP/ 3) occurred in Montreal, Quebec from December 5 through 15 in 1995. CAEP/ 4 took place in Montreal from April 6 through 8, 1998. Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 88 As discussed in the proposal, there is growing interest, particularly at the state and local level, in addressing emissions from aircraft and other aviation related sources. Such interest is often related to plans for airport expansion which is occurring across the country. It is possible that other approaches may provide effective avenues to achieve additional aviation emission reductions, beyond EPA establishing aircraft engine emission standards.

Concerns by state and local air agencies and environmental and public health organizations about aviation emissions, led to EPA and FAA signing a memorandum of understanding ( MOU) in March 1998 agreeing to work to identify efforts that could reduce aviation emissions. 102 FAA and EPA participated in a national stakeholder initiative led by states and industry whose goal was to develop a voluntary program to reduce pollutants from aircraft and other aviation sources that contribute to local and regional air pollution in the United States. The major stakeholders that participated in this initiative included representatives of the aviation industry ( passenger and cargo airlines and engine manufacturers), airports, state and local air pollution control officials, environmental organizations, and NASA.

102FAA and EPA, " Agreement Between Federal Aviation Administration and Environmental Protection Agency Regarding Environmental Matters Relation to Aviation,"

signed on March 24, 1998 by FAA's Acting Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning, and International Aviation, Louise Maillet, and EPA's Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Richard Wilson. A copy of this document can be found in Docket OAR 2002 0030. Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 89 Initially, the discussions with stakeholders focused on the prospect of aircraft engine emission reduction retrofit kits, which might be applied to certain existing aircraft engines. 103 However, as the initiative evolved, the focus was expanded by the stakeholders to identify strategies for various types of ground service equipment ( GSE) in use at airports, 104 in addition to strategies to reduce aircraft emissions. 105 ( At the same time, FAA developed a program, with Congressional approval, to fund conversion of airport infrastructure and ground support vehicles to alternative fuels technologies. 106) Unfortunately, the state and industry stakeholders did not 103Two engine models were indeed certificated with emissions retrofit kits, and a number of these engines have been purchased for aircraft with the retrofit kits installed in their stock configuration. However, retrofit kits have not to date provided widescale emissions improvements because it seems they may have limited applicability to certain engine types, small emission benefits, and cost issues.

104The stakeholders considered the impact, operation and design of GSE at airports, and whether to undertake projects at several airports to reduce overall emissions.

105Operational strategies, such as reducing the time in which aircraft are in idle and taxi modes and the impact of auxiliary power units ( APUs) were also considered.

106 The Vision 100   Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, signed into law on December 12, 2003 ( P. L. 108 176), directs the FAA to establish a national program to reduce airport ground emissions at commercial service airports located in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas. The new Voluntary Airport Low Emissions ( VALE) program will allow airport sponsors to use the Airport Improvement Program ( AIP) and Passenger Facility Charges ( PFCs) to finance low emission vehicles, refueling and recharging stations, gate electrification, and other airport air quality improvements. See the FAA website located at http:// www. faa. gov/ arp/ environmental/ vale. Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 90 reach consensus on a national aviation emissions reduction program. The Agencies are currently contemplating next steps following from the national stakeholder initiative and discussions of potential voluntary programs.

In addition, in the proposal EPA invited comment on the national stakeholder initiative and any other approaches for aviation emission reductions, and we received many suggestions from commenters. We may consider these suggested approaches during our current reflection on the stakeholder initiative and for future voluntary programs.

Finally, FAA has two other initiatives that will assist in addressing concerns with respect to emissions from aircraft. First, in September 2003 it created a Center of Excellence   Partnership for Reduction of Air Transportation Noise and Emissions Reduction ( PARTNER) a consortium of 8 universities, 29 industry representatives as well as NASA and Transport Canada

to develop new approaches and solutions to reduce aviation's environmental impacts. Second,

with the assistance of the National Academy of Sciences, FAA is developing the next generation of aviation noise and emissions models and analytical tools improve measurement,

understanding, and targeted solutions. See the Summary and Analysis of Comments for further discussion of approaches to additional aviation emission reductions.

VIII. Regulatory Impacts Aircraft engines are international commodities, and thus, they are designed to meet international standards. Today's action will have the benefit of establishing consistency between Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 91 U. S. and international emission standards and test procedures. Thus, an emission certification test which meets U. S. requirements will also be applicable to all ICAO requirements. Engine manufacturers are already developing improved technology in response to the ICAO standards that match standards promulgated here, and EPA does not believe that the costs incurred by the aircraft industry as a result of the existing ICAO standards should be attributed to today's regulations. Also, the test procedure amendments ( revisions to criteria on calibration and test gases) necessary to determine compliance are already being adhered to by manufacturers during current engine certification tests. Therefore, EPA believes that today's regulations will impose no additional burden on manufacturers.

The existence of ICAO's requirements results in minimal cost as well as air quality benefits from today's requirements. 107 Since aircraft and aircraft engines are international commodities, there is commercial benefit to consistency between U. S. and international emission standards and control program requirements. Also, the adoption of the ICAO standards and related test procedures is consistent with our treaty obligations.

107CAEP's Forecasting and Economic Analysis Support Group ( FESG) concluded at CAEP/ 4 that their assessment of these new NOx standards indicates that the direct costs of the standards would be minimal, and the benefits would be modest. ( ICAO, CAEP/ 4, Working Paper 4, " Economic Assessment of the EPG NOx Stringency Proposal," March 12, 1998,

Presented by the Chairman of FESG, Agenda Item 1: Review of proposals relating to NOx emissions, including the amendment of Annex 16, Volume II.. A copy of this paper can be found in Docket OAR 2002 0030. Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 92 IX. Public Participation A number of interested parties participated in the rulemaking process that culminates with this final rule. This process provided opportunity for submitting written public comments following the proposal that we published on September 30, 2003 ( 68 FR 56226). We considered these comments in developing the final rule. In addition, we held a public hearing on the proposed rulemaking on November 13, 2003, and we have considered comments presented at the hearing.

We have prepared a detailed Summary and Analysis of Comments document, which describes comments we received on the proposal and our response to each of these comments.

The Summary and Analysis of Comments is available in the e docket for this rule, as well as on the Office of Transportation and Air Quality homepage ( www. epa. gov/ otaq/ aviation. htm). In addition, comments and responses for key issues are included throughout this preamble.

X. Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority The statutory authority for today's proposal is provided by sections 231 and 301( a) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U. S. C. 7571 and 7601( a). See section II of today's rule for discussion of how EPA meets the CAA's statutory requirements.

XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 93 A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether this regulatory action is " significant" and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines " significant regulatory action" as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

( 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;

( 2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

( 3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( 4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified EPA that it considers this a " significant regulatory action" within the meaning of the Executive Order. EPA has submitted this action to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 94 This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. Any reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with these standards would be defined by the Secretary of Transportation in enforcement regulations issued later under the provisions of section 232 of the Clean Air Act. Since most if not all manufacturers already measure NOx and report the results to the FAA, any additional reporting and record keeping requirements associated with FAA enforcement of today's regulations would likely be very small.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 95 EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis in connection with this final rule. The EPA has also determined that the final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: ( 1) a small business that meet the definition for business based on SBA size standards; ( 2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,

school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; or ( 3) a small organization that is any not for profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field. The following Table XI C 1 provides an overview of the primary SBA small business categories potentially affected by this regulation.

Table XI. C 1   Primary SBA Small Business Categories Potentially Affected by This Regulation Industry NAICSa Codes Defined by SBA as a small business if: b Manufacturers of new aircraft engines 336412 < 1,000 employees Manufacturers of new aircraft 336411 < 1,500 employees Scheduled passenger and freight air transportation 481111 481112 < 1,500 employees a North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 96 b According to SBA's regulations ( 13 CFR part 121), businesses with no more than the listed number of employees or dollars in annual receipts are considered " small entities" for purposes of a regulatory flexibility analysis.

After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule will not impose any requirements on small entities. Because of the limited classes of aircraft engines to which today's regulations apply, no small entities will be affected. Our review of the list of manufacturers of commercial aircraft gas turbine engines with rated thrust greater than 26.7 kN indicates that there are no U. S. manufacturers of these engines that qualify as small businesses. We are unaware of any foreign manufacturers with a U. S.

based facility that will qualify as a small business. In addition, the rule will not impose significant economic impacts on engine manufacturers. As discussed earlier, today's action will codify emission standards that manufacturers currently adhere to ( nearly all in production engines already meet the standards). These standards are equivalent to the ICAO international consensus standards. Today's emission standards will not impose any additional burden on manufacturers because they are already designing engines to meet the ICAO standards. Also, the test procedure amendments ( revisions to criteria on calibration and test gases) necessary to determine compliance are already being adhered to by manufacturers during current engine certification tests. Therefore, EPA believes that today's regulations will impose no additional burden on manufacturers. The existence of ICAO's requirements results in minimal cost from these requirements. Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 97 D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), Public Law 104 4,

establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with " Federal mandates" that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any one year.

Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted.

Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 98 intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditure of $ 100 million or more for State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate or the private sector in any one year. This rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Today's action will codify emission standards that manufacturers currently adhere to ( nearly all in production engines already meet the standards). These standards are equivalent to the ICAO international consensus standards.

Today's emission standards will not impose any additional burden on manufacturers because they are already designing new engines to meet the ICAO standards. Thus, the annual effect on the economy of today's standards will be minimal. Today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism Executive Order 13132, entitled " Federalism" ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure " meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications."

" Policies that have federalism implications" is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have " substantial direct effects 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." Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 99 Today's rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132. As discussed earlier, section 233 of the CAA preempts states from adopting or enforcing aircraft engine emission standards that are not identical to our standards. This rule merely modifies existing EPA aircraft engine emission standards and test procedures and therefore will merely continue an existing preemption of State and local law.

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed rule from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled " Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments" ( 65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure " meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications."

This rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. The promulgated emission standards and other related requirements for private industry in this rule have national applicability and therefore do not uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal Governments. As discussed earlier, section 233 of the CAA preempts states from adopting or Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 100 enforcing aircraft engine emission standards that are not identical to our standards. This final rule merely modifies existing EPA aircraft engine emission standards and test procedures and therefore will merely continue an existing preemption of State and local law. In addition,

today's rule will be implemented at the Federal level and impose compliance obligations only on engine manufacturers. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health & Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, " Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that ( 1) is determined to be " economically significant" as defined under Executive Order 12866, and ( 2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, Section 5 501 of the Order directs the Agency to evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children,

and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. EPA believes that the NOx emission reductions ( NOx is a precursor to the formation of ozone and PM) from this rulemaking will further improve air quality and will further improve children's health. Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 101 H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule is not a " significant energy action" as defined in Executive Order 13211,

" Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use"

( 66 FR 28355 ( May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. As discussed earlier, today's action will codify emission standards that manufacturers currently adhere to ( nearly all in production engines already meet the standards). These standards are equivalent to the ICAO international consensus standards.

The final standards will have no likely adverse energy effects because manufacturers are already designing engines to meet the ICAO standards. Also, the test procedure amendments ( revisions to criteria on calibration and test gases) necessary to determine compliance are already being adhered to by manufacturers during current engine certification tests. Thus, we have concluded that this rule is not likely to have any adverse energy effects.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act Section 12( d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (" NTTAA"), Public Law 104 113, section 12( d) ( 15 U. S. C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e. g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 102 directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This final rulemaking involves technical standards for testing emissions for commercial aircraft gas turbine engines. EPA will use test procedures contained in ICAO International Standards and Recommended Practices Environmental Protection, with the modifications contained in this rulemaking. 108 These procedures are currently used by all manufacturers of commercial aircraft gas turbine engines ( with thrust greater than 26.7 kN) to demonstrate compliance with ICAO emissions standards.

J. Congressional Review Act 108ICAO International Standards and Recommended Practices Environmental Protection,

Annex 16, Volume II, " Aircraft Engine Emissions," Second Edition, July 1993  Amendment 3,

March 20, 1997. Copies of this document can be obtained from ICAO ( www. icao. int). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 103 will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U. S. Senate, the U. S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a " major rule" as defined by 5 U. S. C.

804( 2). This rule will be effective [ Insert date 30 days after date of publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER].

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 87 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Aircraft, Incorporation by reference.

Dated: _______ XX, 200X Stephen L. Johnson,

Acting Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 87  CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION FROM AIRCRAFT AND AIRCRAFT ENGINES 1. The authority citation for part 87 continues to read as follows: Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 104 Authority: Secs. 231, 301( a), Clean Air Act, as amended ( 42 U. S. C 7571, 7601( a)).

Subpart A   [ Amended]

2. Section 87.7 is amended by removing paragraphs ( b)( 1) and ( b)( 2).

3. A new section 87.8 is added to read as follows:

§ 87.8 Incorporation by reference.

We have incorporated by reference the documents listed in this section. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference as prescribed in 5 U. S. C. 552( a)

and 1 CFR part 51. Anyone may inspect copies at the U. S. EPA, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room B102, EPA West Building,

Washington, DC 20460 or the Office of the Federal Register, 800 N. Capitol St., NW., 7th Floor,

Suite 700, Washington, DC.

( a) ICAO material. Table 1 of § 87.8 lists material from the International Civil Aviation Organization that we have incorporated by reference. The first column lists the number and name of the material. The second column lists the sections of this part where we reference it. Anyone may purchase copies of these materials from the International Civil Aviation Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 105 Organization, Document Sales Unit, 999 University Street, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3C 5H7.

Table 1 follows:

Table 1 of § 87.8   ICAO Materials Document number and name Part 87 reference International Civil Aviation Organization Annex 16, Environmental Protection, Volume II, Aircraft Engine Emissions, Second Edition, July 1993, Including Amendment 3 of March 20, 1997. 87.8, 87.64, 87.71, 87.82,

87.89 ( b) [ Reserved]

Subpart C   [ Amended]

4. Section 87.21 is amended by adding paragraph ( d)( 1)( vi) and ( d)( 1)( vii) to read as follows: Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 106 § 87.21 Standards for exhaust emissions.

* * * * *

( d) * * *

( 1) * * *

( vi) Engines of a type or model of which the date of manufacture of the first individual production model was after December 31, 2003:

( A) Engines with a rated pressure ratio of 30 or less:

( 1) Engines with a maximum rated output greater than 89 kilonewtons:

Oxides of Nitrogen: ( 19 + 1.6( rPR)) grams/ kilonewtons rO.

( 2) Engines with a maximum rated output greater than 26.7 kilonewtons but not greater than 89 kilonewtons:

Oxides of Nitrogen: ( 37.572 + 1.6( rPR)  0.2087( rO)) grams/ kilonewtons rO.

( A) Engines with a rated pressure ratio greater than 30 but less than 62.5: Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 107 ( 1) Engines with a maximum rated output greater than 89 kilonewtons:

Oxides of Nitrogen: ( 7 + 2( rPR)) grams/ kilonewtons rO.

( 2) Engines with a maximum rated output greater than 26.7 kilonewtons but not greater than 89 kilonewtons:

Oxides of Nitrogen: ( 42.71 + 1.4286( rPR)  0.4013( rO) + 0.00642( rPR × rO))

grams/ kilonewtons rO.

( A) Engines with a rated pressure ratio of 62.5 or more:

Oxides of Nitrogen: ( 32 + 1.6( rPR)) grams/ kilonewtons rO.

( i) The emission standards prescribed in paragraph ( d)( 1)( vi) of this section shall apply as prescribed beginning [ Insert date 30 days after date of publication in the FEDERAL REGISTER].

* * * * *

Subpart G   [ Amended] Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 108 5. Section 87.64 is revised to read as follows:

§ 87.64 Sampling and analytical procedures for measuring gaseous exhaust emissions.

The system and procedures for sampling and measurement of gaseous emissions shall be as specified by Appendices 3 and 5 to ICAO Annex 16 ( incorporated by reference in § 87.8).

6. Section 87.71 is revised to read as follows:

§ 87.71 Compliance with gaseous emission standards.

Compliance with each gaseous emission standard by an aircraft engine shall be determined by comparing the pollutant level in grams/ kilonewton/ thrust/ cycle or grams/ kilowatt/ cycle as calculated in § 87.64 with the applicable emission standard under this part. An acceptable alternative to testing every engine is described in Appendix 6 to ICAO Annex 16 ( incorporated by reference in § 87.8). Other methods of demonstrating compliance may be approved by the Secretary with the concurrence of the Administrator.

7. Section 87.82 is revised to read as follows:

§ 87.82 Sampling and analytical procedures for measuring smoke exhaust emissions. Preliminary Draft   Do not Cite, Quote, or Distribute 1/ 13/ 05 109 The system and procedures for sampling and measurement of smoke emissions shall be as specified by Appendix 2 to ICAO Annex 16 ( incorporated by reference in § 87.8).

8. Section 87.89 is revised to read as follows:

§ 87.89 Compliance with smoke emission standards.

Compliance with each smoke emission standard shall be determined by comparing the plot of SN as a function of power setting with the applicable emission standard under this part.

The SN at every power setting must be such that there is a high degree of confidence that the standard will not be exceeded by any engine of the model being tested. An acceptable alternative to testing every engine is described in Appendix 6 to ICAO Annex 16 ( incorporated by reference in § 87.8).


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 222 (Tuesday, November 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 68750]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27224]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2014-127]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before December 8, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2014-
0606 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Robeson, ARM-210, Federal
Aviation Administration, Office of Rulemaking, 800 Independence Ave.
SW., Washington, DC 20591; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202) 267-
4712.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 12, 2014.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2014-0606.
    Petitioner: Michael Starck.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 61.33 (b)(1).
    Description of Relief Sought: Michael Starck requests relief from
section 61.133(b)(1). The relief sought would allow Mr. Starck to carry
passengers for hire, in an airplane and at night, without holding an
airplane-instrument rating on his commercial pilot certificate.
[FR Doc. 2014-27224 Filed 11-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 189 (Friday, September 30, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59415-59416]
[FR Doc No: 2022-21237]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10233-01-OW]

Notice of Public Meeting of the Environmental Financial Advisory
Board (EFAB) With Webcast

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public EFAB meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces a public
meeting with a webcast of the Environmental Financial Advisory Board
(EFAB). The meeting will be shared in real-time via webcast and public
comments may be provided in writing in advance or virtually via
webcast. Please see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further details. The
purpose of the meeting will be for the EFAB to provide workgroup
updates and work products, consider possible future advisory topics,
and receive updates on EPA activities. The meeting will be conducted in
a hybrid format of in-person and virtual via webcast.

DATES: The meeting will be held on October 18, 2022, from 9 a.m. to 4
p.m. Mountain Time and October 19, 2022, from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Mountain
Time.

ADDRESSES:
    In-Person: Hyatt Regency Denver Tech Center, 7800 East Tufts
Avenue, Denver, CO 80237.
    Webcast: Information to access the webcast will be provided upon
registration in advance of the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public who wants
information about the meeting may contact Tara Johnson via telephone/
voicemail at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email to [email protected]. General
information concerning the EFAB is available at www.epa.gov/waterfinancecenter/efab.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The EFAB is an EPA advisory committee chartered under
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, to provide
advice and recommendations to EPA on innovative approaches to funding
environmental programs, projects, and activities. Administrative
support for the EFAB is provided by the Water Infrastructure and
Resiliency Finance Center within EPA's Office of Water. Pursuant to
FACA and EPA policy, notice is hereby given that the EFAB will hold a
public meeting with a webcast for the following purposes:
    (1) Provide workgroup updates and work products;
    (2) Discuss potential future EFAB charges; and
    (3) Receive briefings on environmental finance topics from invited
speakers from EPA.
    Registration for the Meeting: To register for the meeting, please
visit www.epa.gov/waterfinancecenter/efab#meeting. Interested persons
who wish to attend the meeting must register by October 6, 2022, to
attend in person or by October 13, 2022, to attend via webcast. Pre-
registration is strongly encouraged. In the event the in-person

component of the meeting cannot be held due to relevant pandemic
protocols, the meeting will be conducted fully via webcast.
    Availability of Meeting Materials: Meeting materials, including the
meeting agenda and briefing materials, will be available on EPA's
website at www.epa.gov/waterfinancecenter/efab.
    Procedures for Providing Public Input: Public comment for
consideration by EPA's federal advisory committees has a different
purpose from public comment provided to EPA program offices. Therefore,
the process for submitting comments to a federal advisory committee is
different from the process used to submit comments to an EPA program
office. Federal advisory committees provide independent advice to EPA.
Members of the public may submit comments on matters being considered
by the EFAB for consideration as the Board develops its advice and
recommendations to EPA.
    Oral Statements: In general, individuals or groups requesting an
oral presentation at a public meeting will be limited to three minutes
each. Persons interested in providing oral statements at the October
2022 meeting should register in advance and provide notification, as
noted in the registration confirmation, by October 11, 2022, to be
placed on the list of registered speakers.
    Written Statements: Written statements should be received by
October 11, 2022, so that the information can be made available to the
EFAB for its consideration prior to the meeting. Written statements
should be sent via email to [email protected]. Members of the public should
be aware that their personal contact information, if included in any
written comments, may be posted to the EFAB website. Copyrighted
material will not be posted without explicit permission of the
copyright holder.
    Accessibility: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities or to request accommodations for a
disability, please register for the meeting and list any special
requirements or accommodations needed on the registration form at least
10 business days prior to the meeting to allow as much time as possible
to process your request.

Andrew D. Sawyers,
Director, Office of Wastewater Management, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 2022-21237 Filed 9-29-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 138 (Thursday, July 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 38731]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15624]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4506-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Pennsylvania; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (FEMA-4506-DR), dated March 30,
2020, and related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on July 6, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, MaryAnn
Tierney, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating
Officer for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Janice P. Barlow as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-15624 Filed 7-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 10, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13841-13843]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04806]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0144
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Cocos Lagoon, Merizo, GU

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety
zone for navigable waters within Cocos Lagoon. This safety zone will
encompass the designated swim course for the Cocos Crossing swim event
in the waters of Cocos Lagoon, Merizo, Guam. We invite your comments on
this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before April 9, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0144 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Chief Petty Officer Robert Davis,
Sector Guam, U.S. Coast Guard, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The Cocos Crossing swim event is a recurring annual event that
occurs on the Sunday before Memorial Day. We have established safety
zones for this swim event in past years.
    The purpose of this rule is to ensure the safety of the
participants and the navigable waters in the safety zone before,
during, and after the scheduled swim event. The Coast Guard is
proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034
(previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Captain of the Port (COTP) is proposing to establish a safety
zone from 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Sunday May 24, 2020 for the Cocos
Crossing swimming event. This safety zone is necessary to protect all
persons and vessels participating in this marine event from potential
safety hazards associated with vessel traffic in the area. Race
participants, chase boats, and organizers of the event will be exempt
from the safety zone. Entry of persons or vessels into this safety zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP. The regulatory text we are
proposing appears at the end of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
will be able to safely transit around this safety zone, which will
impact a small designated area of the Cocos Lagoon for approximately 7
hours. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to
Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule
allows vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of
information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-
3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves This
proposed rule involves a safety zone lasting approximately 7 hours that
would prohibit entry within 100-yards for swim participants. Normally
such actions are categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-
01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket. For
instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without

jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. 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.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's Correspondence
System of Records notice (84 FR 48645, September 26, 2018).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--SAFETY ZONE; COCOS LAGOON, MERIZO, GU

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034; 46 U.S.C. 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1,
6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T14-0144 to read as follows:

Sec.  165. T14-0144  Safety Zone; Cocos Lagoon, Merizo, GU.

    (a) Location. The following area, within the Guam Captain of the
Port (COTP) Zone (See 33 CFR 3.70-15), all navigable waters within a
100-yard radius of race participants in Cocos Lagoon, Merizo, Guam.
Race participants, chase boats and organizers of the event will be
exempt from the safety zone.
    (b) Effective dates. This rule is effective from 6 a.m. to 1 p.m.
on May 24, 2020.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
section Sec.  165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this
safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated
on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all persons and vessel traffic,
except as may be permitted by the COTP or a designated on-scene
representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the COTP is any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated by the
COTP to act on his or her behalf.
    (4) Persons and Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate
within the safety zone must contact the COTP or an on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The COTP or an on-scene
representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at telephone
number<PHONE_NUMBER>. Vessel operators given permission to enter or
operate in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to
them by the COTP or an on-scene representative.
    (d) Waiver. The COTP may waive any of the requirements of this rule
for any person, vessel, or class of vessel upon finding that
application of the safety zone is unnecessary or impractical for the
purpose of maritime security.
    (e) Penalties. Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject
to the penalties set forth in 46 U.S.C. 70036 (previously codified in
33 U.S.C. 1232) and 46 U.S.C. 70052 (previously codified in 50 U.S.C.
192).

    Dated: March 5, 2020.
Christopher M. Chase,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Guam.
[FR Doc. 2020-04806 Filed 3-9-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top of Form

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USA & Canada
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USA & Canada
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
European
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DE
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EE
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ES
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FR
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IT
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NL
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UK
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FI
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottom of Form
 HOME
 ABOUT CPID
 PRODUCT RECALLS
 CONTACT US
 SEARCH ALL
CPID

                                            Health effects of consumer products

What's in it?
Search Entire CPID Database
Enter Products, Manufacturers, Chemicals, Product Categories and Product Types
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Top of Form

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bottom of Form
Advanced Search
                            You may also search by:
 Brands
 Product Type
 Ingredients
 Manufacturers
 Health Effects - (M)SDS
 First Aid

Important notice to users of the Household Products Database!
The Household Products Database, until recently hosted by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), has been discontinued. You have therefore been redirected to this site, the Consumer Product Information Database (CPID) which has been the source for the Household Products Database for 19 years.
                                                                 Auto Products
                                       1

                                                              Landscaping/Yard
                                       2

                                                              Home maintenance
                                       3

                                                               Inside the Home
                                       4

                                                                   Hobby/Craft
                                       5

                                                                 Personal care
                                       6

                                                                    Pesticides
                                       7

                                                                      Pet Care
                                       8

                                                                   Home Office
                                       9

                                                    Commercial / Institutional
                                      10

Health effects of consumer products
Hand Sanitizers

Dial Professional Antibacterial Hand Sanitizer Foam, Fragrance Free, Professional Use-01/03/2019

Purell Hand Sanitizing Wipes, Fresh Citrus Scent, Canister-11/14/2016

Germ-X Aloe Moisturizing Hand Sanitizer, Pump-01/12/2016

Purell  Advanced Hand Sanitizer Skin Nourishing Gel, Table Top Pump Bottle-02/10/2015

Hydrox Waterless Instant Hand Sanitizers, Citrus Scent-04/29/2015

Hydrox Isopropyl Rubbing Alcohol, First Aid Antiseptic, 99 Percent-01/09/2018

More Products >>
Surface Sanitizers

BROWSE BY PRODUCT CATEGORY
     Auto Products
     Landscaping/Yard
     Home maintenance
     Inside the Home
     Hobby/Craft
     Personal care
     Pesticides
     Pet Care
     Home Office
     Commercial / Institutional
QUICK LINKS
     About cpid
     Site Map
     Glossary
     F.A.Q.s
     Contact Us
     Product Recalls
     Search All
     Copyright Info.
      Note: Brand/Trade Names are trademarks of their respective holders.
              (C) 2001-2020 DeLima Associates. All rights reserved


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 9, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 27225]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11166]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-1707-000]

Liberty Power Wholesale Supply, LLC; Supplemental Notice That
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section
204 Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Liberty Power Wholesale Supply, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is May 23, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: May 3, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-11166 Filed 5-8-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 167)]
[Notices]
[Page 52964]
[DOCID:fr30au10-82]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1934-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

Missouri; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Missouri (FEMA-1934-DR), dated August 17,
2010, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 17, 2010.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated August 17, 2010, the President issued a major disaster
declaration under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Missouri resulting from severe storms, flooding, and tornadoes
during the period of June 12 to July 31, 2010, is of sufficient
severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster declaration under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare
that such a major disaster exists in the State of Missouri.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Jose M. Girot, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Missouri have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Adair, Andrew, Atchison, Buchanan, Caldwell, Carroll, Cass,
Chariton, Clark, Clinton, Daviess, DeKalb, Gentry, Grundy, Harrison,
Holt, Howard, Jackson, Lafayette, Lewis, Livingston, Mercer,
Nodaway, Putnam, Ray, Schuyler, Scotland, Sullivan, and Worth
Counties for Public Assistance.
    All counties within the State of Missouri are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-21604 Filed 8-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P