[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2424-2425]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00429]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2020-0664]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number 1625-0119

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension
of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0119,
Coast Guard Exchange System Scholarship Application; without change.
Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public.
Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork burdens
commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: You may submit comments to the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
February 11, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Comments to the Coast Guard should be submitted using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Search for
docket number [USCG-2020-0664. Written comments and recommendations to
OIRA for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30
days of publication of this notice to https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting
``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using
the search function.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available
from: COMMANDANT (CG-6P), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S.
COAST GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. AVE SE, STOP 7710, WASHINGTON,
DC 20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy
Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions
on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public Participation and Request for
Comments
    This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the

Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Consistent with the requirements of Executive Order 13771, Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, and Executive Order 13777,
Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda, the Coast Guard is also
requesting comments on the extent to which this request for information
could be modified to reduce the burden on respondents. These comments
will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred to in this
Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2020-0664], and must be received by February 11,
2021.

Submitting Comments

    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, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are 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.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments to the Coast Guard 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 to the Coast Guard in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020). For more about privacy and submissions to OIRA in
response to this document, see the https://www.reginfo.gov, comment-
submission web page. OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each
ICR. An OMB Notice of Action on each ICR will become available via a
hyperlink in the OMB Control Number: 1625-0119.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (85 FR 66574, October 20, 2020)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That notice elicited no comments.
Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collection.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Coast Guard Exchange System Scholarship Application.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0119.
    Summary: This information collected on this form allows the Coast
Guard Exchange System Scholarship Program Committee to evaluate and
rank scholarship applications in order to award the annual
scholarships.
    Need: Community Services Command Staff Instruction, CSCINST 1780
(series), provides policy and procedure for the award of annual
scholarships from the Coast Guard Exchange System to dependents of
Coast Guard members and employees. The information collected by this
form allows for the awarding of scholarships based upon the criteria
and procedures outlined in the Instruction under the auspices of 5
U.S.C. 301.
    Forms: CG-5687.
    Respondents: Coast Guard dependents.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains 120 hours per
year.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: January 7, 2021.
Kathleen Claffie,
Chief, Office of Privacy Management, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2021-00429 Filed 1-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on January 12, 2006

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2004-19188

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  Air-India Limited  					Date Filed:  November 15, 2005

Relief requested:  Renew exemption from 49 U.S.C. § 41301 to engage in
scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail (1)
between a point or points in India, and Chicago, Illinois, via the
intermediate points Toronto, Canada; London, England; Paris, France; and
Frankfurt, Germany, and (2) between a point or points in India, on the
one hand, and Detroit, Michigan; Denver, Colorado; and Washington, D.C.,
on the other hand, via Frankfurt, Germany, pursuant to a code-share
agreement with Deutsche Lufthansa AG.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  November 19, 2004 in this
docket

Applicant representatives:  Marshall S. Sinick<PHONE_NUMBER>

DOT Analyst:  Shelita A. Smith<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None

DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved 				       			  Action date: January 12, 2006

Effective dates of authority granted:  January 12, 2006 – January 12,
2008

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity): U.S.-India Opens
Skies Air Transport Agreement

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

    X    Standard exemption conditions (attached)           X    Foreign
air carrier permit conditions (Order  95-4-36)

	Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:

Action taken by:  Paul L. Gretch, Director

		   Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) the applicant is qualified to perform the
proposed operations; (2) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied

all requests in the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke
the authority granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our
discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR §
385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date of
issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and the
filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

Foreign Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

(2)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

(3)  Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage
contained in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any
operations under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the
form of a completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation
Administration’s Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards
Service (any changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be
filed with that office);

(4)  Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

(5)  Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

(6)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(7)  Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: (a)  based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or (b)  based
on a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term "international air transportation" means "international
transportation" as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

(8)  Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

(9)  Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

(10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department's rules
governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

(11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department, with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S.
agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

 The Governments of the United States and India signed an open skies
agreement on April 14, 2005.

05/2004


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request EPA/ OSWER/ OSW 2. OMB control number b. None a 2050  0171 __ __ __ __

3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. Q New collection b. X Revision of a currently approved collection c. Q Extension of a currently approved collection d. Q Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. Q Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. Q Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. Q Emergency  Approval requested by: c. Q Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Q Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. Three years from approval date b. Other Specify: / /___

7. Title: NESHAP for Hazardous Waste Combustors ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart EEE) ( Final Phase 1 Rule)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable): ICR # 1773.08 9. Keywords : Hazardous Waste Combustors, Combustion, Hazardous Waste Incinerators, Lightweight Aggregate Kilns, Cement Kilns, Boilers, Hydrochloric Acid Production Furnaces, Reporting Requirements, Recordkeeping Requirements 10. Abstract : This ICR has been prepared to show the paperwork burden based on the provisions of the final rule that is being promulgated for Phase I facilities ( Incinerators, Cement and Lightweight Aggregate Kilns). The existing burden on these facilities is covered EPA ICR # 1773.06 ( OMB Control No. 2050 0171). This ICR also covers the additional burden on Phase II ( Boilers and Hydrochloric Acid Production Furnaces), which are currently regulated under BIF rule and covered by ICR # 1361.09 ( OMB Control # 2050 0073), because these Phase II facilities will now be covered by this MACT final rule. Thus the additional burden shown in columns 13( e) and 14( e) below is the burden imposed by this rule.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. P Business or other for profit e. X Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. Q Voluntary b. Q Required to obtain or retain benefits c. P Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 238 b. Total annual responses 3,975 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically : 5 % c. Total hours requested 201,527 d. Current OMB inventory 151,339 e. Difference 50,188 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 50,188 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 108 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 5,159 c. Total annualized cost requested 5,267 d. Current OMB inventory 3,925 e. Difference 1,342 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 1,342 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. P _ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. X Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. X Annually 7. Q Biennially 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Shiva Garg Phone: 703 308 8459 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

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

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

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

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

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

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

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

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

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

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

Signature of Program Official James R. Berlow, Director Hazardous Waste Minimization and Management Division Office of Solid Waste Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information ( OEI) Date OMB 83 I


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 185 (Wednesday, September 24, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57090-57092]
[FR Doc No: 2014-22740]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0651; FRL-9916-79]

Registration Review Final and Interim Decisions; Notice of
Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's final
registration review decisions. Registration review is EPA's periodic
review of pesticide registrations to ensure that each pesticide
continues to satisfy the statutory standard for registration, that is,
that the pesticide can perform its intended function without causing
unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment.
Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's
registration is based on current scientific and other knowledge,
including its effects on human health and the environment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For pesticide specific information, contact: The Chemical Review
Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in the table in Unit
II.A.
    For general information on the registration review program,
contact: Richard Dumas, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 308-8015; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the pesticide specific contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0651, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

A. What action is the Agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58(c), this notice announces the
availability of EPA's final registration review decision for dioctyl
sodium sulfosuccinate (Case 4029), polybutene resins (Case 4076), and
undecylenic acid (Case 4095) and interim decisions for ancymidol (Case
3017), DEET (Case 0002), denatonium saccharide (Case 7625), and
metofluthrin (Case 7445).
    In addition to the final and interim registration review decision
document, the registration review dockets for ancymidol, DEET,
denatonium saccharide, dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate, metofluthrin,
polybutene resins, and undecylenic acid also include other relevant
documents related to the registration review of these cases. The
proposed registration review decisions or interim decisions were posted
to the respective dockets and the public was invited to submit any
comments or new information. EPA is addressing the comments or
information received during the 60-day comment period in the discussion
for each pesticide listed in this document, see Unit II. for the
discussions.

         Table--Registration Review Final and Interim Decisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Chemical review
 Registration review case name   Pesticide docket    manager, telephone
            and No.                   ID No.         No., email address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ancymidol (Case 3017).........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0  Christina Scheltema,
                                 482.<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>DEET (N,N-diethyl-meta-         EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0  Susan Bartow, (703)
 toulamide) (Case 0002).<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                                    .
Denatonium saccharide (Case     EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0  Cathryn Britton,
 7625).                          441.<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate   EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-1  Garland Waleko, (703)
 (Case 4029).<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Metofluthrin (Case 7445)......  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0  Veronica Dutch, (703)
<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Polybutene resins (Case 4076).  EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0  Joel Wolf, (703) 347-
                                 649.               0228,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Undecylenic acid (Case 4095)..  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0  Garland Waleko, (703)
<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ancymidol (Interim Decision). The registration review docket for
ancymidol (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0482) opened in June 2011. EPA issued the
Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision for ancymidol on June 4,
2014 and took comments for 60 days. The Agency received one comment
from the Center for Biological Diversity, which supported the Proposed
Interim Registration Review Decision. Therefore, EPA is issuing the
Interim Registration Review Decision for ancymidol. Ancymidol is a
plant growth regulator registered for treating container-grown
herbaceous plants, ornamental woody shrubs, and bedding plants grown in
greenhouses and in outdoor plant bedding areas. It is also registered
for use as a seed treatment for ornamental plants, and treated seeds
are used to start plants. Use of ancymidol is limited to nursery-grown
ornamentals. There are no food, feed, or residential uses registered
for ancymidol. No pesticide tolerances have been established. EPA
conducted a

qualitative assessment for both human health, and environmental fate,
and ecological risks. No risks of concern were identified in the human
health risk assessment. The environmental fate and ecological risk
assessment indicated that there was no reasonable expectation for any
registered use of ancymidol to cause direct or indirect adverse effects
to threatened and endangered species or designated critical habitat.
EPA made a ``no effect'' determination was all federally listed species
and designated critical habitat. Ancymidol has not been evaluated under
the endocrine disruptor screening program (EDSP). Therefore, the
Agency's final registration review decision is dependent upon the
result of the evaluation of potential endocrine disruptor risk.
    DEET (Interim Decision). EPA has completed an interim registration
review decision for DEET (N,N-diethyl-meta-toulamide). The registration
review docket for DEET opened in June 2014 (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0162). EPA
issued a combined Work Plan and Proposed Interim Decision for DEET on
June 4, 2014 and took comment for 60 days. The public comments received
did not affect the Agency's interim decision. DEET is a broad-spectrum
insect repellent registered for use against biting flies, biting
midges, black flies, chiggers, deer flies, fleas, gnats, horse flies,
mosquitoes, no-see-ums, sand flies, stable flies, and ticks. It is
currently registered for non-food uses and residential uses. It can be
directly used on clothing, applied to the skin, and used on horses. EPA
conducted a qualitative assessment for both human health and ecological
risks. No risks of concern were identified. The ecological risk
assessment made a ``no effect'' determination for federally listed
species and designated critical habitat. DEET has not been evaluated
under the EDSP. Therefore, the Agency's registration review decision is
dependent upon the result of the evaluation of potential endocrine
disruptor risk.
    Denatonium saccharide (Interim Decision). EPA has completed an
interim registration review decision for denatonium saccharide. The
registration review docket for denatonium saccharide (EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-
0441) opened in June 2008. EPA issued the proposed interim decision for
denatonium saccharide on June 4, 2014 and took comment for 60 days. The
Agency received one comment from the Center for Biological Diversity,
which supported the Proposed Interim Registration Review Decision.
Denatonium saccharide is a bittering agent in squirrel, vole, dog, and
cat repellents used on outdoor surfaces and structures such as trees,
fences, poles, decks, planters, siding, garbage cans, furniture, seeds,
and bulbs. EPA conducted a qualitative human health risk assessment and
did not identify any risks of concern. The ecological risk assessment
identified potential risks for birds and listed mammals. However, due
to the number of conservative assumptions included in the assessment,
there are no labeling changes at this time. The risk assessment for
denatonium saccharide did not come to a conclusion of ``no effect'' to
listed species. Therefore, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) on the potential risk of denatonium saccharide to
listed species will be necessary. Denatonium saccharide has not been
evaluated under the EDSP. Therefore, the Agency's final registration
review decision is dependent upon the result of Section 7 Endangered
Species consultation with the USFWS and the evaluation of potential
endocrine disruptor risk.
    Dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate (Registration Review Decision). EPA
has completed a registration review decision for dioctyl sodium
sulfosuccinate (DSS). The registration review docket for DSS (EPA-HQ-
OPP-2010-1006) opened in December 2010. EPA issued the proposed
decision for DSS on June 4, 2014 and took comment for 60 days. The
Agency received one comment from the Center for Biological Diversity,
which supported the proposed registration review decision. DSS is
registered as an insecticide and miticide in pet shampoos and spray
products in combination with Undecylenic Acid (UDA). As a pesticidal
active ingredient, there are no food uses and, thus, no tolerances are
established. DSS is used as an active ingredient in over the counter
stool-softener and laxative products for infants, children, and adults;
it is also used in pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and food products. EPA has
conducted a qualitative assessment for both human health and ecological
risks, including listed species for DSS. The human health risk
assessment did not identify any risks of concern for DSS. The
ecological risk assessment made a ``no effect'' determination for
federally listed species and designated critical habitat. Pursuant to
section 408(p)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
EPA has exempted DSS from the requirements of the EDSP in an
Administrative Order entitled ``Exemption of Dioctyl Sodium
Sulfosuccinate (DSS) and Undecylenic Acid (UDA) from the Requirements
of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program'' which is available in
the registration review docket.
    Metofluthrin (Interim Decision). EPA has completed an interim
registration review decision for metofluthrin. The registration review
docket for metofluthrin (EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0105) opened in June 2013. EPA
opened a 60-day comment period on the proposed interim decision for
metofluthrin in June 2014. Three comments were received during that
period. The Center for Biological Diversity commented that it agreed
with the Agency's proposed decision. Two other comments, from
California Water Board representatives, expressed the view that
metofluthrin should undergo a comprehensive ecological assessment, like
the other pyrethroids. The commenters also expressed concern that
metofluthrin (particularly the bed bug use and the tabletop mister) had
the potential to contaminate urban waters. These comments have been
addressed in a new response to comments document available on the
docket. None of the comments resulted in changes to the interim
decision. Metofluthrin is a Type 1 synthetic pyrethroid insect
repellent and insecticide with products registered for use in
residential and commercial areas, including barns, stables, and
kennels. There are no registered food/feed uses. Metofluthrin has
minimal potential for human health and ecological exposure. No risks of
concern were identified. In addition, the Agency made a ``no effect''
determination for federally listed species and designated critical
habitat. No additional data or changes to the affected registrations or
their labeling are needed at this time. Metofluthrin has not been
evaluated under the EDSP. Therefore, the Agency's final registration
review decision will be dependent on evaluation of potential endocrine
disruptor risk.
    Polybutene resins (Registration Review Decision). EPA has completed
a registration review decision for polybutene resins. The registration
review docket for polybutene resins (EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0649) opened in
June 2010. EPA issued the proposed decision for polybutene resins on
June 4, 2014 and took comment for 60 days. The Agency received one
comment from the Center for Biological Diversity, which supported the
proposed registration review decision. Polybutene is a sticky polymer
registered for use as a bird and small mammal repellent. It is used to
prevent house sparrows, pigeons, and starlings from roosting inside and
outside of buildings, as well as to prevent beavers from attacking

trees and shrubs. There are no food/feed uses and, it is exempt from a
tolerance requirement when used as a sticker agent in packaging of
insect control products used on food crops. Polybutene is approved by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as an indirect food
additive and is used as an ingredient in cosmetic products that are
applied directly to the skin such as sun block or moisturizer, and that
may be incidentally ingested, such as lipstick. EPA conducted a
qualitative assessment for both human health and ecological risks. No
risks of concern were identified in the human health risk assessment.
The ecological risk assessment indicated that there was no reasonable
expectation for any registered use of polybutene to cause direct or
indirect adverse effects to threatened and endangered species. A ``no
effect'' determination was made for all federally listed species and
designated critical habitat. Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(p)(4), EPA
has exempted polybutene from the requirements of the EDSP in an
Administrative Order (AO) entitled ``Exemption of Polybutene from the
Requirements of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program'' which is
available in the registration review docket.
    Undecylenic acid (Registration Review Decision). EPA has completed
a registration review decision for undecylenic acid (UDA). The
registration review docket for UDA (EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0910) opened in
December 2011. EPA issued the proposed decision for UDA on June 4, 2014
and took comment for 60 days. The Agency received one comment from the
Center for Biological Diversity, which supported the proposed
registration review decision. UDA is registered as an insecticide and
miticide in pet shampoos and spray products in combination with dioctyl
sodium sulfosuccinate (DSS). As a pesticidal active ingredient, there
are no food uses and, thus, no tolerances are established. UDA is
approved by the FDA as an active ingredient in over the counter anti-
fungal products, and it is also used as a flavoring agent. EPA has
conducted a qualitative assessment for both human health and ecological
risks, including listed species for UDA. The human health risk
assessment did not identify any risks of concern for UDA. The
ecological risk assessment made a ``no effect'' determination for
federally listed species and designated critical habitat. Pursuant to
FFDCA section 408(p)(4), EPA has exempted UDA from the requirements of
the EDSP in an AO entitled ``Exemption of Dioctyl Sodium Sulfosuccinate
(DSS) and Undecylenic Acid (UDA) from the Requirements of the Endocrine
Disruptor Screening Program'' which is available in the registration
review docket.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.57, a registration review decision is the
Agency's determination whether a pesticide meets, or does not meet, the
standard for registration in FIFRA. EPA has considered Ancymidol, DEET,
Denatonium Saccharide, Dioctyl Sodium Sulfosuccinate, Metofluthrin,
Polybutene Resins, and Undecylenic Acid in light of the FIFRA standard
for registration. The Ancymidol, DEET, Denatonium Saccharide, Dioctyl
Sodium Sulfosuccinate, Metofluthrin, Polybutene Resins, and Undecylenic
Acid Final or Interim Decision documents in the respective dockets
describe the Agency's rationale for issuing a registration review final
or interim decision for these pesticides.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58(c), the registration review case docket
for Ancymidol, DEET, Denatonium Saccharide, Dioctyl Sodium
Sulfosuccinate, Metofluthrin, Polybutene Resins, and Undecylenic Acid
will remain open until all actions required in the final decision have
been completed.
    Background on the registration review program is provided at:
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registrationreview. Links to
earlier documents related to the registration review of this pesticide
are provided at: http://www2.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation/individual-pesticides-registration-review.

B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 3(g) of FIFRA and 40 CFR part 155, subpart C, provide
authority for this action.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: September 16, 2014.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2014-22740 Filed 9-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 18, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 42300]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17414]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
members of the Commission's staff may attend the following meetings
related to the transmission planning activities of the Midwest
Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc. (MISO):

Advisory Committee--July 18, 2012
Order 1000 Right of First Refusal Task Team--July 30, 2012
Order 1000 Right of First Refusal Task Team--July 31, 2012

    The above-referenced meeting will be held at: MISO Headquarters,
720 City Center Drive, Carmel, IN 46032.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to the public.
    Further information may be found at www.misoenergy.org.
    The discussions at the meeting described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:

Docket No. ER12-1577-000, Midwest Independent Transmission System
Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-715, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER12-480, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER12-309, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. ER11-1844, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.
Docket No. EL11-56, FirstEnergy Service Company
Docket No. EL11-30, E.ON Climate & Renewables North America, LLC v.
Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. EL12-24-000, Pioneer Transmission LLC v. Midwest Independent
Transmission System Operator, Inc.
Docket No. EL12-28-000, Xcel Energy Services Inc. v. American
Transmission Company, LLC.
Docket No. OA08-53, Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator,
Inc.

    For more information, contact Christopher Miller, Office of Energy
Markets Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at (317) 249-
5936 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: July 11, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17414 Filed 7-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 12 (Thursday, January 21, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6271-6273]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00672]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-1174; Project Identifier MCAI-2019-00135-E]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG
(Type Certificate Previously Held by Rolls-Royce Deutschland GmbH,
Formerly BMW Rolls-Royce GmbH) Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD) BR700-710A1-10,
BR700-710A2-20 and BR700-710C4-11 model turbofan engines. This proposed
AD was prompted by an investigation by RRD, which revealed a quality
escape during the high-pressure turbine (HPT) stage 1 disk rim cooling
air hole manufacturing process. This proposed AD would require removing
affected HPT disks from service prior to reaching specified compliance
times or at the next engine shop visit, whichever occurs first. The FAA
is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 8,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: 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 to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Rolls-
Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Eschenweg 11, Dahlewitz 15827, Germany;
exception occurred on : 2021-00672.htm
exception occurred on : 2021-00672.htm
phone: +49 0 33 7086 1200; email: royce.com">[email protected]royce.com. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products
Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington,
MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-1174; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI), any comments
received, and other information. The street address for Docket
Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wego Wang, Aviation Safety Engineer,
ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington MA 01803; phone:
(781) 238-7134; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2020-1174; Project Identifier
MCAI-2019-00135-E'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR

11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Wego
Wang, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

Background

    The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has
issued EASA AD 2019-0299, dated December 10, 2019 (referred to after
this as ``the MCAI''), to address the unsafe condition on these
products. The MCAI states:

    An occurrence was reported of an HPT stage 1 disc burst on an
industrial gas turbine engine. Subsequent investigation revealed a
quality escape during HPT stage 1 disc rim cooling air hole
manufacturing process. A review revealed that 28 HPT stage 1 discs
were subject to a similar quality escape, two of which have been
recovered and removed from service. The consequence of this
manufacturing error is that the affected parts can no longer safely
reach their Declared Safe Cyclic Life (DSCL).
    This condition, if not corrected, may lead to failure of an
affected part, possibly resulting in release of high-energy debris,
with consequent damage to, and/or reduced control of, the aeroplane.
To address this potentially unsafe condition, RRD issued the NMSB,
providing instructions to remove the engine from service for in-shop
replacement of the affected part.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD reduces the DSCL
for the affected parts, requires identification of the affected
parts and removal from service of each affected engine for
replacement of the affected part. This [EASA] AD also prohibits
(re)installation of affected parts.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2020-1174.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by EASA and is approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement
with the European Community, EASA has notified us of the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced
above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM because the agency evaluated all
the relevant information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other
products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed RRD Alert Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB)
SB-BR700-72-A900659, Revision 1, dated November 5, 2019 (the NMSB). The
NMSB provides the part numbers and serial numbers for affected HPT
disks, the serial numbers for all engines with an affected HPT disk
installed, and instructions for replacement of the affected HPT disk.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in ADDRESSES.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require replacement of the affected HPT disk
before reaching specified compliance times or at the next engine shop
visit, whichever occurs first.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 21 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
    The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace HPT disk....................  20 work-hours x $85 per        $550,000         $551,700      $11,585,700
                                       hour = $1,700.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate.
According to the manufacturer, however, all of the costs of this
proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost
impact on affected operators.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (Type Certificate previously
held by Rolls-Royce Deutschland GmbH, formerly BMW Rolls-Royce
GmbH): Docket No. FAA-2020-1174; Project Identifier MCAI-2019-00135-
E.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by March 8, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG (RRD)
(Type Certificate previously held by Rolls-Royce Deutschland GmbH,
formerly BMW Rolls-Royce GmbH) BR700-710A1-10, BR700-710A2-20 and
BR700-710C4-11 model turbofan engines with a high-pressure turbine
(HPT) stage 1 disk having a part number and serial number listed in
Planning Information, paragraph 1.A., of RRD Alert Non-Modification
Service Bulletin (NMSB) SB-BR700-72-A900659, Revision 1, dated
November 5, 2019, installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine
Compressor Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by an investigation by RRD, which revealed
a quality escape during the HPT stage 1 disk rim cooling air hole
manufacturing process. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure
of the HPT stage 1 disk. The unsafe condition, if not addressed,
could result in the release of high-energy debris, damage to the
airplane, and reduced control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions

    Before the affected HPT stage 1 disk exceeds 2,840 flight cycles
(FCs) since new, or within 60 days after the effective date of this
AD, whichever occurs later, but not to exceed 8 years after the
effective date of this AD if using FCs, remove the affected HPT
stage 1 disk from service and replace with a part eligible for
installation. Guidance on replacing the HPT stage 1 disk can be
found in the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 3.B., of RRD
Non-Modification Service Bulletin (NMSB) SB-BR700-72-A900659,
Revision 1, dated November 5, 2019.

(h) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install any affected
HPT stage 1 disk onto any engine.

(i) Definition

    (1) For the purpose of this AD, a ``part eligible for
installation'' is an HPT stage 1 disk that is not listed in
paragraph 1.A. of RRD NMSB SB-BR700-72-A900659, Revision 1, dated
November 5, 2019.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in Related Information. You may email your request to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Wego Wang,
Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2019-0299, dated December 10, 2019, for more information. You may
examine the EASA AD in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2020-1174.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Rolls-Royce Deutschland Ltd & Co KG, Eschenweg 11, Dahlewitz, 15827,
exception occurred on : 2021-00672.htm
exception occurred on : 2021-00672.htm
Germany; phone: +49 0 33 7086 1200; email: royce.com">[email protected]royce.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on January 8, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-00672 Filed 1-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 95 (Thursday, May 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28924-28926]
[FR Doc No: 2013-11623]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69552; File No. SR-CHX-2013-09]

Self Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending Rule Governing the Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Program

May 10, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\, and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on May 2, 2013, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    CHX proposes to amend its Anti-Money Laundering Compliance Program
(the ``AMLCP''), effective May 2, 2013. The proposed rule change would
clarify the frequency with which a Participant Firm must conduct
independent testing of its AMLCP and would establish the qualifications
of the person designated to perform AMLCP testing as well as provide
guidelines for establishing the independence of the person performing
the test. The text of this proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at http://www.chx.com/rules/proposed_rules.htm, at
the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, CHX included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Changes

1. Purpose
    Financial institutions, including broker-dealers, must develop and
implement Anti-Money Laundering (``AML'') programs pursuant to the Bank
Secrecy Act (``BSA''),\3\ as amended by Section 352 of the Uniting and
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to
Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (``PATRIOT Act'').\4\
Consistent with Department of Treasury regulation 31 CFR 103.120 under
the BSA, Exchange Article 6, Rule 12 requires that each Participant
Firm develop and implement a written AMLCP that specifies the minimum
requirement for these programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 31 U.S.C. 5311 et seq.
    \4\ Public Law 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AMLCP must include the development of internal policies,
procedures and controls; the designation of a person to implement and
monitor the day-to-day operations and internal controls of the program

(commonly referred to as an ``AML Officer''); ongoing training for
appropriate persons; and an independent testing function for overall
compliance.
    The Exchange proposes to change CHX Article 6, Rule 12 to clarify
the language governing the frequency with which a Participant Firm must
conduct independent testing of its AMLCP. Additionally, the Exchange
proposes to add a new interpretation and policy to Article 6, Rule 12
that establishes qualifications of the person designated to perform
AMLCP testing and guidelines for establishing the independence of the
person performing the test.

Timeframes for Independent Testing

    The proposed rule change would require that independent testing of
AMLCPs be conducted, at a minimum, on an annual (calendar-year) basis
by Participant Firms, unless the Participant Firm does not execute
transactions for customers or otherwise hold customer accounts or act
as an introducing broker with respect to customer accounts (e.g.,
engages solely in proprietary trading, or conducts business only with
other broker-dealers), in which case such independent testing is
required every two years (on a calendar-year basis). The Exchange
believes that these timeframes are reasonable in that they require more
frequent testing of AMLCPs designed to monitor a business with
customers from the general public, which may be more susceptible to
money laundering schemes than a strictly proprietary business involving
transactions with other broker-dealers. Furthermore, the one-year time
frame for testing is consistent with standard industry practice in that
it is similar to generally accepted guidelines for conducting tests in
the context of, for instance, general audits and branch office visits.
The proposed rule change establishes only a minimum requirement, and
makes clear that Participants should undertake more frequent testing
when circumstances warrant (e.g., should the business mix of the
Participant or Participant Firm materially change; in the event of a
merger or acquisition; in light of systemic weaknesses uncovered via
testing of the AMLCP; or in response to other ``red flags'').

Qualification and Independence Standards for Testing

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to add interpretations and
policies .01 to Article 6, Rule 12 in order to establish qualifications
for the person designated to perform AMLCP testing as well as
guidelines for establishing the independence of the person performing
the test. The proposed rule change would require the person conducting
the independent test to have a working knowledge of the applicable BSA
requirements and related regulations. Such person need not be an
employee of the Participant or Participant Firm since the
responsibility being delegated is essentially an auditing function and,
as such, it would not be unusual or ineffective for it to be performed
by an independent outside party.
    The proposed rule change does not preclude an employee of the
Participant or Participant Firm from conducting the required
independent testing of the AMLCP; however the proposed ``independence''
standard would prohibit testing from being conducted by a person who
performs the functions being tested, or by the designated AML Officer,
or by a person that reports to either.

AML Officer

    The proposed rule change would also clarify that the person
responsible for implementing and monitoring the day-to-day operations
and controls of the program must be an associated person of the
Participant. This would not prohibit a Participant that is part of a
diversified financial institution from designating an AML Officer that
is employed by the Participant's parent company, sister company, or
other affiliate. However, if such a person is designated as a
Participant's AML Officer, the Exchange will consider that person to be
an associated person of the Participant with respect to those
activities performed on behalf of the Participant.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act \5\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \6\ in particular, in that it
is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public
interest. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is
designed to accomplish these ends by requiring Participants to conduct
periodic tests of their AMLCPs and preserve the independence of their
testing personnel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The rule change is designed
to implement the amended AML policy in an equitable and non-
discriminatory way, and in furtherance of the Bank Secrecy Act. The
rule change requires Participant Firms that execute trades for
customers or hold customer accounts conduct AML testing on an annual
basis while other Participant Firms that engage solely in proprietary
trading, or conduct business only with other broker-dealers may conduct
an AML test on a biennial basis. However, the Exchange believes that
the rule change does not impose a disparate burden on competition
either among or between classes of market participants. The Exchange
believes that these timeframes are reasonable in that they require more
frequent testing of AMLCP designed to monitor a business with customers
from the general public, which may be more susceptible to money
laundering schemes than a strictly proprietary business involving
transactions with other broker-dealers.
    In addition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review its rules to remain competitive with other exchanges. For the
reasons described above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change promotes a competitive environment by clearly outlining
Participant Firms' obligations for AML testing while protecting
investors with defined AML oversight in the specified scenarios.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments Regarding the
Proposed Rule Changes Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Changes and Timing for
Commission Action

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) \7\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\ Because
the

proposed rule change does not (i) significantly affect the protection
of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden
on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on
which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant
to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to provide the Commission with written notice
of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \9\ normally
does not become operative for 30 days after the date of filing.
However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \10\ the Commission may
designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, as
it will allow the Exchange to immediately begin requiring Participants
to conduct periodic tests of their AMLCP and preserve the independence
of their testing personnel, and by making the Exchange's program
requirements generally consistent with those at other exchanges and
self-regulatory organizations.\11\ For these reasons, the Commission
designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See e.g., NYSE Arca Equities Rule 6.17, CBOE Rule 4.20 and
FINRA Rule 3310.
    \12\ For purposes of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the
Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency,
competition and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal is
consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-CHX-2013-09 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2013-09. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the CHX's principal office and on its
Internet Web site at www.chx.com. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CHX-2013-09 and
should be submitted on or before June 6, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-11623 Filed 5-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 246 (Thursday, December 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80825-80826]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32275]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0368]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Pet Event Tracking
Network--State, Federal Cooperation To Prevent Spread of Pet Food
Related Diseases

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by January
24, 2011.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-new and
title Pet Event Tracking Network--State, Federal Cooperation to Prevent
Spread of Pet Food Related Diseases. Also include the FDA docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Johnny Vilela, Office of Information
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr., PI50-400B,
Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Pet Event Tracking Network (PETNet)--State, Federal Cooperation To
Prevent Spread of Pet Food Related Diseases--(OMB Control Number 0910-
New)

    In August 2008, FDA sponsored the ``Gateway to Food Protection''
meeting, also known as the ``50-State'' meeting. The meeting included
representatives from other Federal Agencies, the States, localities,
territories, and tribal partners, and was held to address the
challenges necessary to ensure the safety of the U.S. food supply. Work
groups were formed during the meeting which met and produced
recommendations in specific topic areas. One of the workgroups, the
Outbreaks/Food-Borne and Feed-Borne Investigations Workgroup, created a
subgroup consisting of veterinarians, animal feed regulators, and
others involved with animal health issues. This subgroup developed an
ambitious proposal for an early warning system to identify, track, and
report disease outbreaks in companion animals or contamination
incidents concerning pet food or animals feed, which they named ``The
Pet Event Tracking Network'' (PETNet). The PETNet proposal was
developed in response to the 2007 outbreak that occurred in companion
animals that was associated with the deliberate adulteration of pet
food components, such as wheat gluten, with melamine. As envisioned by
the subgroup at that time, PETNet would include a system for reporting
outbreaks and would be supported by adequate diagnostic laboratory
facilities and an established mechanism for conducting national
epidemiological investigations.
    The PETNet subgroup subsequently met twice in face-to-face
meetings, in May and November 2009, during which time the proposed
scope of PETNet was streamlined to focus the program on information
sharing, rather than epidemiology or other aspects. One of the main
concerns of FDA's State regulatory partners regarding FDA's handling of
the melamine incident was that many States provided information to FDA,
but the information reported by the States to FDA and other information
in the possession of FDA was not shared by FDA with the States. States
believed that if they had received more information about what was
going on in a timely manner, they could perhaps have taken appropriate
action to safeguard animal and the public health by using their own
regulatory authorities and resources. The Agency agreed with the
States, and thus decided to focus PETNet on being a system for sharing
information between FDA, other Federal Agencies, and the States about
food-borne illness outbreaks in companion animals. By the end of the
November 2009, meeting, this revised vision of PETNet was firmly
established with many of the details about the system in place.
    FDA is planning to implement an initiative called PETNet that will
allow FDA and its State partners to quickly and effectively exchange
information about outbreaks of illness in companion animals associated
with pet food. FDA has worked closely with its Federal and State
partners to develop the PETNet, and believes that it will serve an
important function in protecting the public and animal health.
    PETNet will be a secure, Internet-based network comprised of FDA,
other Federal Agencies, and State regulatory Agencies/officials that
have authority over pet food. The Network will provide timely and
relevant information about pet food-related incidents to FDA, the
States, and other Federal Government Agencies charged with protecting
animal and public health. FDA intends to identify and invite State
participants from all 50 States to participate in PETNet. Members of
the network will be able to both receive alerts about pet food
incidents, as well as create alerts when they are aware of a pet food
incident within their jurisdiction. The information will be used to
help State and Federal regulators determine how best to use
inspectional and other resources to either prevent or quickly limit the
adverse events caused by adulterated pet food. Many States have
regulatory authority beyond that of FDA and often can be in a position
to act independently of FDA with the information they will receive from
the PetNet.
    Use of the system, including the reporting of incidents by States
to FDA, will be entirely voluntary. The PETNet system will be housed in
Food Shield, a proprietary software system, and will be accessible only
to members via password. The system will make use of a standardized
electronic form housed on FoodShield to collect and distribute basic
information about pet food-related incidents. The form contains the
following data elements, almost all of which are drop down menu
choices: The species involved, clinical signs, number of animals
exposed, number of animals affected, animal ages, date of onset, name
and type of pet food involved, the manufacturer and distributor of the
pet food (if known), the State where the incident occurred, the origin
of the information, whether there are supporting laboratory results,
and contact information for the reporting PETNet member (i.e., name,
telephone number). The form would be filled out and submitted by a
PETNet member on FoodShield, at which time it will be available to
other PETNet members. Thus, the information will be entered and
received by PETNet members in as close to real time as possible. FDA
has designed the form itself to contain only the essential information
necessary to alert PETNet members about pet food-related incidents. For
further information, such as laboratory results, PETNet members

can contact the reporting PETNet member.
    In the Federal Register of July 27, 2010 (75 FR 43990), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. FDA received 12 comments on the 60-day
notice, 11 from private citizens and one from a veterinary association.
None of the comments addressed paperwork issues. Ten of the comments
generally supported the PETNet concept, while two comments generally
did not support it.
    Several comments suggested that it be mandatory, rather than
voluntary, for all 50 States to participate in PETNet. FDA declines to
follow the comments' suggestion, but we note that invitations have been
sent to all 50 States requesting their participation in PETNet, and at
this time 35 States have responded that they will participate in the
program.
    Several comments stated that the information in PETNet should be
publicly available and not just available to Federal and State pet food
regulators. FDA disagrees with this comment. Much of the information
shared through PETNet will be preliminary reports of potential pet food
problems that turn out to be false or to otherwise have no public
health significance. FDA and State Agencies routinely receive these
types of reports and followup on them without notifying the public. FDA
believes that State and Federal regulators can decide how to best use
the information in PETNet, including how to use their resources to
determine if a pet food incident warranting public notification exists.
    One comment recommended that FDA ``closely assess reported
incidents as soon as possible to ensure no confounding factors bias any
determination of a need for a pet food recall.'' To assist in this
effort, the comment recommended that FDA incorporate drop down menus in
the PETNet reporting form to collect information about whether the
adverse event was confirmed (versus suspected) to have been caused by
pet food, if the exposure was acute or chronic, and the clinical
outcome of the case.
    PETNet will be an additional information resource used by FDA, but
will not change FDA's current process for determining the need for pet
food recalls. The information the American Veterinary Medical
Association recommends FDA collect will be considered by pet food
regulatory professional in deciding whether to enter a report into
PETNet. Some of the recommended information may also be derived from
the current PETNet form. For example, question 11 asks if the reporter
has laboratory results available to share. Laboratory results are key
factors in confirming whether an adverse event is caused by a pet food.
Answers to question 8 will provide an indication about duration of
exposure, and some clinical outcomes can be derived form question 6.
    One comment stated that the focus of PETNet is wrong and that the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) should be involved because it is
their responsibility to inspect pet food plants. FDA notes that it is
FDA, not USDA that is responsible for ensuring the safety of pet food,
and that FDA conducts inspections of pet food manufacturing
establishments. However, USDA is a Federal Agency that can contribute
to PETNet and USDA has been invited/will participate in PETNet. Another
comment stated that PETNet ``lacks data security'' and is a
``needlessly invasive project'' whose object to ``identify tainted
doggie food'' is of questionable value. With respect to data security,
the data shared through PETNet is contained on a database limited to
State and Federal Government officials, and the data collection form
has been designed such that it is highly unlikely to contain
confidential or trade secret information that requires additional data
protection measures. Additionally, the Agency disagrees that the
project is invasive since it is just a method of sharing existing
information among State and Federal regulators. Finally, the objective
of the project is to protect animal health is valid and consistent with
FDA's mission.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   21 U.S.C. 342 & 343/Section                        Annual
     1002(b) of the 2007 FDA         Number of     frequency per   Total annual      Hours per      Total hours
     amendments act/form FDA        respondents      response        responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Form FDA 3756...................              50              10             500           20/60             167
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    FDA estimates that each State will report (i.e., fill out the
PETNet form to alert other PETNet members about a pet food-related
incident) approximately 10 times per year. This estimate represents the
maximum number of reports that FDA expects a State to submit in a year,
and in many cases the number of reports submitted by a State will
probably be far less. FDA believes that, given the form only has 11
items and most are drop down fields, 20 minutes is a sufficient amount
of time to complete the form. State regulatory officials responsible
for pet food already possess computer systems and have the Internet
access necessary to participate in PETNet, and thus there are no
capital expenditures associated with the reporting.
    Regarding recordkeeping, State regulatory officials who report on
PETNet receive the reportable information from consumers in their
States in the course of their customary and regular duties. Further,
these individuals already maintain records of such consumer complaints
in the course of their duties which are sufficient for the purposes of
reporting on PETNet. Therefore, FDA believes that the proposed
collection of information does not have additional recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: December 16, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-32275 Filed 12-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 63 (Monday, April 5, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17594-17595]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06919]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0076; FRL-10020-64-OAR]

Alternative Method for Calculating Off-Cycle Credits Under the
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Program: Application From
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV (FCA)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requesting
comment on an application from Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV (FCA) for
off-cycle carbon dioxide (CO2) credits under EPA's light-
duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards. ``Off-cycle'' emission
reductions can be achieved by employing technologies that result in
real-world benefits, but where that benefit is not adequately captured
on the test procedures used by manufacturers to demonstrate compliance
with emission standards. EPA's light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas
program acknowledges these benefits by giving automobile manufacturers
several options for generating ``off-cycle'' CO2 credits.
Under the regulations, a manufacturer may apply for CO2
credits for off-cycle technologies that result in off-cycle benefits.
In these cases, a manufacturer must provide EPA with a proposed
methodology for determining the real-world off-cycle benefit. FCA has
submitted an application that describes a methodology for determining
off-cycle credits from technologies described in their application.
Pursuant to applicable regulations, EPA is making this off-cycle credit
calculation methodology available for public comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 5, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2021-0076 to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linc Wehrly, Office of Transportation
and Air Quality, Compliance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105. Telephone: (734)
214-4286. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    EPA's light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG) program provides
three pathways by which a manufacturer may accrue off-cycle carbon
dioxide (CO2) credits for those technologies that achieve
CO2 reductions in the real world but where those reductions
are not adequately captured on the test used to determine compliance
with the CO2 standards, and which are not otherwise
reflected in the standards' stringency. The first pathway is a
predetermined list of credit values for specific off-cycle technologies
that may be used beginning in model year 2014.\1\ This pathway allows
manufacturers to use conservative credit values established by EPA for
a wide range of technologies, with minimal data submittal or testing
requirements, if the technologies meet EPA regulatory definitions. In
cases where the off-cycle technology is not on the menu but additional
laboratory testing can demonstrate emission benefits, a second pathway
allows manufacturers to use a broader array of emission tests (known as
``5-cycle'' testing because the methodology uses five different testing
procedures) to demonstrate and justify off-cycle CO2
credits.\2\ The additional emission tests allow emission benefits to be
demonstrated over some elements of real-world driving not adequately
captured by the GHG compliance tests, including high speeds, hard
accelerations, and cold temperatures. These first two methodologies
were completely defined through notice and comment rulemaking and
therefore no additional process is necessary for manufacturers to use
these methods. The third and last pathway allows manufacturers to seek
EPA approval to use an alternative methodology for determining the off-
cycle CO2 credits.\3\ This option is only available if the
benefit of the technology cannot be adequately demonstrated using the
5-cycle methodology. Manufacturers may also use this option to
demonstrate reductions that exceed those available via use of the
predetermined list. Under the regulations, a manufacturer seeking to
demonstrate off-cycle credits with an alternative methodology (i.e.,
under the third pathway described above) must describe a methodology
that meets the following criteria:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(b).
    \2\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(c).
    \3\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Use modeling, on-road testing, on-road data collection, or
other approved analytical or engineering methods;
     Be robust, verifiable, and capable of demonstrating the
real-world emissions benefit with strong statistical significance;
     Result in a demonstration of baseline and controlled
emissions over a wide range of driving conditions and number of
vehicles such that issues of data uncertainty are minimized;
     Result in data on a model type basis unless the
manufacturer demonstrates that another basis is appropriate and
adequate.
    In addition, the regulations specify the following requirements
regarding an application for off-cycle CO2 credits:
     A manufacturer requesting off-cycle credits must develop a
methodology for demonstrating and determining the benefit of the off-
cycle technology and carry out any necessary testing and analysis
required to support that methodology.
     A manufacturer requesting off-cycle credits must conduct
testing and/or prepare engineering analyses that demonstrate the in-use
durability of the

technology for the full useful life of the vehicle.
     The application must contain a detailed description of the
off-cycle technology and how it functions to reduce CO2
emissions under conditions not represented on the FTP and HFET
compliance tests.
     The application must contain a list of the vehicle
model(s) which will be equipped with the technology.
     The application must contain a detailed description of the
test vehicles selected and an engineering analysis that supports the
selection of those vehicles for testing.
     The application must contain all testing and/or simulation
data required under the regulations, plus any other data the
manufacturer has considered in the analysis.
    Finally, the alternative methodology must be approved by EPA prior
to the manufacturer using it to generate credits. As part of the review
process defined by regulation, an application for credits using an
alternative methodology submitted to EPA for consideration must be made
available for public comment, unless EPA has previously approved the
alternative methodology for determining credits and has chosen to waive
the notice and comment period for an application that meets the
regulatory requirements for such a waiver. Further, EPA retains the
option to require a notice and opportunity for public comment in cases
where a new application deviates in significant respects from a
previously approved methodology or raises novel substantive issues.\4\
EPA will consider public comments as part of its final decision to
approve or deny the request for off-cycle credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Off-Cycle Credit Application

Active Climate Control Seat Technology

    Using the alternative methodology approach discussed above, FCA is
requesting off-cycle greenhouse gas (``GHG'') credits for the use of a
Gentherm active climate control seating (``ACCS'') technologies. The
company's analysis in their application yields a GHG credit equal to
2.3 grams CO2 per mile for passenger cars and 2.9 grams
CO2 per mile for trucks on vehicles equipped with this
technology in the front seating locations.
    Active seat ventilation credits were defined in the 2017-2025 light
duty greenhouse gas and CAFE rulemaking and were added to the
predefined list of credits that could be claimed at 1.0 grams
CO2 per mile and 1.3 grams CO2 per mile for
trucks. The credits and their values were determined in a 2005 study
performed by researchers from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(``NREL'') in which they evaluated a seat ventilation system that used
two small fans to pull air through the seat. When occupant comfort is
achieved the air conditioning system no longer needs to work as hard to
cool down the cabin. This translates to lowered air conditioning
consumption and lower GHG emissions due to lowered air conditioning
consumption while improving occupant comfort.
    The NREL study was published as an SAE technical paper in 2007
available at https://www.sae.org/publications/technicalpapers/content/2007-01-1194/. More recent advances in ventilated seat technology offer
higher levels of performance in current vehicles over the simpler
ventilated seat system that was the subject of the 2005 NREL study. The
active climate-controlled seat technology developed by Gentherm and
used in FCA premium products was subsequently evaluated by Gentherm in
cooperation with NREL using comparable methodologies to those employed
by NREL in 2005. The more advanced Gentherm ACCS system provides a
greater level of comfort resulting in lower air conditioning
consumption and air conditioning related emissions through the use of
its active cooling technology. Details are provided in the application
by FCA.
    FCA's request is for approval of similar methodology and for the
same amount of credits per vehicle granted in the General Motors
request to EPA for off-cycle.
    Credit dated September 29, 2017 and subsequently granted in EPA
decision document EPA-420-R-18-014. Details of FCA's analysis and the
approved request by General Motors can be found in the corresponding
the manufacturer's applications.

III. EPA Decision Process

    EPA has reviewed the application for completeness and is now making
the application available for public review and comment as required by
the regulations. The off-cycle credit application submitted by the
manufacturer (with confidential business information redacted) has been
placed in the public docket (see ADDRESSES section above) and on EPA's
website at https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-engine-certification/compliance-information-light-duty-greenhouse-gas-ghg-standards.
    EPA is providing a 30-day comment period on the application for
off-cycle credits described in this notice, as specified by the
regulations. The manufacturer may submit a written rebuttal of comments
for EPA's consideration, or may revise an application in response to
comments. After reviewing any public comments and any rebuttal of
comments submitted by the manufacturer, EPA will make a final decision
regarding the credit request. EPA will make its decision available to
the public by placing a decision document on EPA's website at the same
manufacturer-specific page described above.

Byron Bunker,
Director, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air
Quality, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2021-06919 Filed 4-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P