[Federal Register: December 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 243)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 71757-71758]
[DOCID:fr19de07-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29011; Airspace Docket No. 07-AAL-14]

Revision of Class D and E Airspace; Kenai, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action revises Class D and E airspace at Kenai, AK to
provide adequate controlled airspace to contain aircraft executing
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs). Five SIAPs are being
amended for the Kenai Municipal Airport at Kenai, AK. Additionally, one
textual departure procedure (DP) is being amended. This action revises
existing Class D and E airspace upward from the surface, from 700 feet
(ft.) and 1,200 ft. above the surface at the Kenai Municipal Airport,
Kenai, AK.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, February 14, 2008. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Rolf, AAL-538G, Federal Aviation
Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587;
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet address: http://www.alaska.faa.gov/at.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On Tuesday, October 16, 2007, the FAA proposed to amend part 71 of
the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to revise Class D and
E airspace upward from the surface, from 700 ft. above the surface and
from 1,200 ft. above the surface at Kenai, AK (72 FR 58561). The action
was proposed in order to create Class D and E airspace sufficient in
size to contain aircraft while executing SIAPs for the Kenai Municipal
Airport. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contained an incorrect
mileage annotation in the Class E5 description. It is corrected in this
rule. Additionally, the Class E2 surface area was omitted, which has
the same dimension as the Class D airspace. It should have been
included and is addressed in this rule. Class D and E controlled
airspace extending upward from the surface, from 700 ft. above the
surface and from 1,200 ft. above the surface, in the Kenai Municipal
Airport area is revised by this action.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments were received. The rule is adopted as proposed with the
correction to the mileage annotation and the inclusion of the Class E2
airspace description.
    The area will be depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot
reference. The coordinates for this airspace docket are based on North
American Datum 83. Class D airspace is published in paragraph 5000 of
FAA Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed
August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace areas
designated as surface areas are published in paragraph 6002 and 6004 of
FAA Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed
August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace areas
designated as 700/1,200 ft. transition areas are published in paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

The Rule

    This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 revises Class D and E airspace at
the Kenai Municipal Airport, Alaska. This Class D and E airspace is
revised to accommodate aircraft executing amended SIAPs, and will be
depicted on aeronautical charts for pilot reference. The intended
effect of this rule is to provide adequate controlled airspace for
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the Kenai Municipal
Airport, Kenai, Alaska.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore--(1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle 1, section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart 1, section 40103, Sovereignty and use of
airspace. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing
regulations to ensure the safe and efficient use of the navigable
airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because
it creates Class D and E airspace sufficient in size to contain
aircraft executing instrument procedures for the Kenai Municipal
Airport and represents the FAA's continuing effort to safely and
efficiently use the navigable airspace.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND
CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, signed August 15, 2007, and effective

September 15, 2007, is amended as follows:
* * * * *

Paragragh 5000 General.

* * * * *

AAL AK D Kenai, AK [Revised]

Kenai, Kenai Municipal Airport, AK
    (Lat. 60[deg]34'23'' N., long. 151[deg]14'42'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,600 feet MSL within a 5.2-mile radius of the Kenai Municipal
Airport, excluding the airspace below 1,100 feet MSL beyond 4 miles
from the Kenai Municipal Airport extending from the 310[deg] bearing
clockwise to the 350[deg] bearing from the Kenai Municipal Airport.
This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates
and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective date and time will thereafter be continuously published in
the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

AAL AK E2 Kenai, AK [Revised]

Kenai, Kenai Municipal Airport, AK
    (Lat. 60[deg]34'23'' N., long. 151[deg]14'42'' W.)
Kenai VOR/DME
    (Lat. 60[deg]36'53'' N., long. 151[deg]11'43'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,600 feet MSL within a 5.2-mile radius of the Kenai Municipal
Airport, excluding the airspace below 1,100 feet MSL beyond 4 miles
from the Kenai Municipal Airport extending from the 310[deg] bearing
clockwise to the 350[deg] bearing from the Kenai Municipal Airport;
and that airspace extending upward from the surface within 3.7 miles
each side of the 031[deg] radial of the Kenai VOR/DME extending from
the 5.2-mile radius of the Kenai Municipal Airport to 10.2 miles
northeast of the Kenai Municipal Airport. This Class E airspace area
is effective during the specific dates and times established in
advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and time will
thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/Facility
Directory.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to
a Class D Surface Area.

* * * * *

AAL AK E4 Kenai, AK [Revised]

Kenai, Kenai Municipal Airport, AK
    (Lat. 60[deg]34'23'' N., long. 151[deg]14'42'' W.)
Kenai VOR/DME
    (Lat. 60[deg]36'53'' N., long. 151[deg]11'43'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within 3.7 miles
each side of the 031[deg] radial of the Kenai VOR/DME extending from
the 5.2-mile radius of the Kenai Municipal Airport to 10.2 miles
northeast of the Kenai Municipal Airport.
* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Extending Upward from 700 feet or
More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Kenai, AK [Revised]

Kenai, Kenai Municipal Airport, AK
    (Lat. 60[deg]34'23'' N., long. 151[deg]14'42'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.7-mile radius of the Kenai Municipal Airport and within 4
miles east and west of the 031[deg] bearing from the Kenai Municipal
Airport extending from the 7.7-mile radius to 11 miles north of the
Kenai Municipal Airport; and that airspace extending upward from
1,200 feet above the surface within a 75-mile radius of the Kenai
Municipal Airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in Anchorage, AK, on December 11, 2007.
Anthony M. Wylie,
Manager, Alaska Flight Services Information Area Group.
 [FR Doc. E7-24402 Filed 12-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: July 16, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 137)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 40756-40760]
[DOCID:fr16jy08-18]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 174

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0346; FRL-8369-3]

 Bacillus thuringiensis Cry 1A.105 protein; Exemption from the
Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of the Bacillus thuringiensis Cry 1A.105
protein in or on corn when used as a plant-incorporated protectant in
the food and feed commodities of corn; corn, field; corn, sweet; and
corn, pop. Monsanto Company submitted a petition to EPA under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food
Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), requesting to amend the existing
temporary tolerance in 40 CFR 174.502 for the Bacillus thuringiensis
Cry 1A.105 protein to establish a permanent exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance for residues of the Bacillus thuringiensis
Cry 1A.105 protein in or on all food commodities when used as a plant-
incorporated protectant in all food commodities. This regulation
eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for
residues of the Bacillus thuringiensis Cry 1A.105 insecticidal protein
in or on the food and feed commodities of corn; corn, field; corn,
sweet; and corn, pop.

DATES: This regulation is effective July 16, 2008. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before September 15, 2008,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0346. To access the
electronic docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced
Search,'' then ``Docket Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where
indicated and select the ``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on
the regulations.gov website to view the docket index or access
available documents. All documents in the docket are listed in the
docket index available in regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or,
if only available in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in
Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr.,
Arlington, VA. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susanne Cerrelli, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be

affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this
unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you
and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain
entities. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies of this Document?

    In addition to accessing an electronic copy of this Federal
Register document through the electronic docket at http://
www.regulations.gov, you may access this ``Federal Register'' document
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register''
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. You may also access a
frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the
Government Printing Office's pilot e-CFR site at http://
www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. Can I File an Objection or Hearing Request?

    Under section 408(g) of FFDCA, as amended by FQPA, any person may
file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request
a hearing on those objections. The EPA procedural regulations which
govern the submission of objections and requests for hearings appear in
40 CFR part 178. You must file your objection or request a hearing on
this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0346 in the subject line on the first page of
your submission. All requests must be in writing, and must be mailed or
delivered to the Hearing Clerk on or before September 15, 2008.
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket that is described in ADDRESSES. Information not marked
confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA
without prior notice. Submit your copies, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0346, by one of the following methods.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Background and Statutory Findings

    In the Federal Register of August 1, 2007 (72 FR 42075) (FRL-8129-
8), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide tolerance
petition (PP 6F7142) by Monsanto Company, 800 North Lindbergh Blvd. St.
Louis, MO 63167. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 174 be amended
by establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for
residues of the Bacillus thuringiensis Cry 1A.105 protein in or on all
food commodities when used as plant-incorporated protectant in all food
commodities. This notice included a summary of the petition prepared by
the petitioner Monsanto Company. One commenter objected to the
petition, expressing concerns about Monsanto obtaining an exemption
from tolerance and potential harmful effects. The Agency understands
the commenter's concerns about potential effects of this particular
plant-incorporated protectant to humans and the environment. Pursuant
to its authority under the FFDCA, EPA conducted a comprehensive
assessment of Cry 1A.105 protein, including a review of acute oral
toxicity data on Cry 1A.105 protein, amino acid sequence comparisons to
known toxins and allergens, as well as data demonstrating that Cry
1A.105 protein is rapidly degraded by gastric fluid in vitro, is not
glycosylated, and is present at low levels in the tissues expressing
the plant-incorporated protectant. Based on these data, the Agency has
concluded that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
from dietary exposure to residues of Cry1A.105 protein in the food and
feed commodities of corn; corn, field; corn, sweet; and corn, pop, when
used as a plant-incorporated protectant. Thus, under the standard in
FFDCA section 408(b)(2), a tolerance exemption is appropriate. In
taking this action, EPA, pursuant to its authority under section
408(d)(4)(A)(i) of the FFDCA, is issuing a final regulation that varies
from the regulation sought by Monsanto in its petition. Specifically,
instead of issuing a tolerance exemption that covers residues of the
subject plant-incorporated protectant in all food commodities, EPA is
issuing a tolerance exemption that covers residues of the subject
plant-incorporated protectant in those commodities in which it will be
used as a plant-incorporated protectant-- in this case, the food and
feed commodities of corn; corn, field; corn, sweet; and corn, pop. In
this way, the tolerance exemption is coextensive with the registered
uses for this particular plant-incorporated protectant.
    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the exemption is ``safe.'' Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Pursuant to section 408(c)(2)(B) of FFDCA, in
establishing or maintaining in effect an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance, EPA must take into account the factors set forth in
section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA, which require EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue.''
Additionally, section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA requires that the Agency
consider ``available information concerning the cumulative effects of a
particular pesticide's residues'' and ``other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA performs a number of analyses to determine the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide residues. First, EPA determines the
toxicity of pesticides. Second, EPA examines exposure to the pesticide
through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as
a result of pesticide use in residential settings.

III. Toxicological Profile

    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other

relevant information in support of this action and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability and the relationship of this
information to human risk. EPA has also considered available
information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major
identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children.
    Mammalian Toxicity and Allergenicity Assessment. Monsanto has
submitted acute oral toxicity data demonstrating the lack of mammalian
toxicity at high levels of exposure to the pure Cry1A.105 protein.
These data demonstrate the safety of the product at a level well above
maximum possible exposure levels that are reasonably anticipated in
corn using submitted Cry1A.105 expression values. Basing this
conclusion on acute oral toxicity data without requiring further
toxicity testing and residue data is similar to the Agency position
regarding toxicity testing and the requirement of residue data for the
microbial Bacillus thuringiensis products from which this plant-
incorporated protectant was derived (See 40 CFR 158.2130). For
microbial products, further toxicity testing and residue data are
triggered by significant adverse acute effects in studies such as the
mouse oral toxicity study, to verify the observed adverse effects and
clarify the source of these effects (Tiers II & III).
    An acute oral toxicity study in mice (MRID 46694603) indicated that
Cry1A.105 is non-toxic to humans. The oral LD50 for mice was
greater than 2,072 milligrams/kiligrams (mg/kg) bodyweight. This dose
level is above 2,000 mg/kg, which is above the limit dose (i.e., the
highest dose used in acute toxicity testing).
    When proteins are toxic, they are known to act via acute mechanisms
and at very low dose levels (Sjoblad, Roy D., et al., ``Toxicological
Considerations for Protein Components of Biological Pesticide
Products,'' Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 15, 3-9 (1992)).
Therefore, since no acute effects were shown to be caused by Cry1A.105,
even at relatively high dose levels, the Cry1A.105 protein is not
considered toxic. Further, amino acid sequence comparisons between the
Cry1A.105 and known toxic proteins in protein databases showed no
similarities that would raise a safety concern. In addition, the
Cry1A.105 protein was shown to be substantially degraded by heat when
examined by immunoassay. This instability to heat would also lessen the
potential dietary exposure to intact Cry1A.105 protein in cooked or
processed foods. These biochemical features along with the lack of
adverse results in the acute oral toxicity test support the conclusion
that there is a reasonable certainty no harm from toxicity will result
from dietary exposure to residues of Cry1A.105 in or on the identified
corn commodities.
    Since Cry1A.105 is a protein, allergenic potential was also
considered. Currently, no definitive tests for determining the
allergenic potential of novel proteins exist. Therefore, EPA uses a
weight-of- evidence approach where the following factors are
considered: source of the trait; amino acid sequence comparison with
known allergens; and biochemical properties of the protein, including
in vitro digestibility in simulated gastric fluid (SGF) and
glycosylation. This approach is consistent with the approach outlined
in the Annex to the Codex Alimentarius ``Guideline for the Conduct of
Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants.''
The allergenicity assessment for Cry1A.105 follows:
    1. Source of the trait. Bacillus thuringiensis is not considered to
be a source of allergenic proteins.
    2. Amino acid sequence. A comparison of the amino acid sequence of
Cry1A.105 with known allergens showed no overall sequence similarity
(35% identity over 80 amino acids) or identity at the level of eight
contiguous amino acid residues, indicating a lack of potential linear
epitopes found in known food allergens.
    3. Digestibility. The Cry1A.105 protein was digested within 30
seconds in simulated gastric fluid containing pepsin. The rapid
degradation of Cry1A.105 in the gastric environment suggests little
possible exposure to intact protein in the intestinal lumen where
sensitization to food allergens occurs.
    4. Glycosylation. Cry1A.105 expressed in corn was shown not to be
glycosylated.
    5. Conclusion. Considering all of the available information, EPA
has concluded that the potential for Cry1A.105 to be a food allergen is
minimal.
    The information on the safety of pure Cry1A.105 protein provides
adequate justification to address possible exposures in all corn crops.

IV. Aggregate Exposures

    In examining aggregate exposure, section 408 of FFDCA directs EPA
to consider available information concerning exposures from the
pesticide residue in food and all other non-occupational exposures,
including drinking water from ground water or surface water and
exposure through pesticide use in gardens, lawns, or buildings
(residential and other indoor uses.)

A. Dietary Exposure

    The Agency has considered available information on the aggregate
exposure levels of consumers (and major identifiable subgroups of
consumers) to the pesticide chemical residue and to other related
substances. These considerations include dietary exposure under the
tolerance exemption and all other tolerances or exemptions in effect
for the plant-incorporated protectants chemical residue, and exposure
from non-occupational sources. Exposure via the skin or inhalation is
not likely since the plant- incorporated protectant is contained within
plant cells, which essentially eliminates these exposure routes or
reduces these exposure routes to negligible. In addition, even if
exposure can occur through inhalation, the potential for Cry1A.105 to
be an allergen is low, as discussed in unit III. Although the
allergenicity assessment focuses on potential to be a food allergen,
the data (comparing amino acid sequence similarity to allergens,
including aeroallergens) also indicate a low potential for Cry1A.105 to
be an inhalation allergen. Exposure via residential or lawn use to
infants and children is also not expected because the use sites for the
Cry1A.105 protein are agricultural. Oral exposure, at very low levels,
may occur from ingestion of processed corn products and, theoretically,
drinking water. However oral toxicity testing showed no adverse
effects.
    Food. The data submitted and cited regarding potential health
effects for the Cry1A.105 protein includes the characterization of the
expressed Cry1A.105 protein in corn, as well as the acute oral toxicity
study, amino acid sequence comparisons to known allergens and toxins,
and in vitro digestibility of the protein. The results of these studies
were used to evaluate human risk, and the validity, completeness, and
reliability of the available data from the studies were also
considered.
     Adequate information was submitted to show that the Cry1A.105 test
material derived from microbial culture was biochemically and
functionally equivalent to the protein produced by the plant-
incorporated protectant ingredient in the plant. Microbially produced
protein was used in the studies so that sufficient material for testing
was available.
     The acute oral toxicity data submitted support the prediction that
the Cry1A.105 protein would be non-toxic

to humans. As mentioned in this unit, when proteins are toxic, they are
known to act via acute mechanisms and at very low dose levels (Sjoblad,
Roy D., et al., ``Toxicological Considerations for Protein Components
of Biological Pesticide Products,'' Regulatory Toxicology and
Pharmacology 15, 3-9 (1992)). Since no treatment-related adverse
effects were shown to be caused by the Cry1A.105 protein, even at
relatively high dose levels (e.g., 2072 mg/kg body weight), the
Cry1A.105 protein is not considered toxic. Basing this conclusion on
acute oral toxicity data without requiring further toxicity testing or
residue data is similar to the Agency position regarding toxicity and
the requirement of residue data for the microbial Bacillus
thuringiensis products from which this plant-incorporated protectant
was derived (See 40 CFR 158.740(b)(2)(i)). For microbial products,
further toxicity testing and residue data are triggered when
significant adverse effects are seen in studies such as the acute oral
toxicity study. Further studies verify the observed adverse effects and
clarify the source of these effects (Tiers II and III).
    Residue chemistry data were not required for a human health effects
assessment of the subject plant-incorporated protectant because of the
lack of mammalian toxicity. Nonetheless, data submitted demonstrated
low levels of the Cry1A.105 protein in corn tissues (5-7 ppm in grain,
20-570 ppm in forage or leaf tissue), indicating a low potential for
dietary exposure.
    Since Cry1A.105 is a protein, potential allergenicity is also
considered as part of the toxicity assessment. Considering all of the
available information:
    1. Cry1A.105 originates from a non-allergenic source;
    2. Cry1A.105 has no sequence similarities with known allergens;
     3. Cry1A.105 is not glycosylated; and
    4. Cry1A.105 is rapidly digested in simulated gastric fluid; EPA
has concluded that the potential for Cry1A.105 to be a food allergen is
minimal.
    The genetic material necessary for the production of the plant-
incorporated protectant active ingredient include the nucleic acids
(DNA, RNA) that encode these proteins and regulatory regions. The
genetic material (DNA, RNA) necessary for the production of the
Cry1A.105 protein has been exempted from the requirement of a tolerance
under 40 CFR 174.507 (Nucleic acids that are part of a plant-
incorporated protectant; exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance).

B. Other Non-Occupational Exposure

    Dermal and Inhalation exposure. Exposure via the skin or inhalation
is not likely since the plant-incorporated protectant is contained
within plant cells, which essentially eliminates these exposure routes
or reduces these exposure routes to negligible. In addition, even if
exposure can occur through inhalation, the potential for Cry1A.105 to
be an allergen is minimal, as discussed in this unit. Although the
allergenicity assessment focuses on potential to be a food allergen,
the data also indicate a low potential for Cry1A.105 to be an
inhalation allergen.

V. Cumulative Effects

    Pursuant to FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D)(v), EPA has considered
available information on the cumulative effects of such residues and
other substances that have a common mechanism of toxicity. These
considerations included the cumulative effects on infants and children
of such residues and other substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Because there is no indication of mammalian toxicity from the
plant-incorporated protectant, we conclude that there are no cumulative
effects for the Cry1A.105 protein.

VI. Determination of Safety for U.S. Population, Infants and Children

    FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) provides that EPA shall assess the
available information about consumption patterns among infants and
children, special susceptibility of infants and children to pesticide
chemical residues and the cumulative effects on infants and children of
the residues and other substances with a common mechanism of toxicity.
In addition, FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(C) also provides that EPA shall
apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children
in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal
toxicity and the completeness of the database unless EPA determines
that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and
children. In this instance, based on all the available information, the
Agency concludes that there is a finding of no toxicity for the
Cry1A.105 protein. Thus, there are no threshold effects of concern and,
as a result, the provision requiring an additional tenfold margin of
safety does not apply. Further, the considerations of consumption
patterns, special susceptibility, and cumulative effects do not apply.
    Neither available information concerning the dietary consumption
patterns of consumers (and major identifiable subgroups of consumers
including infants and children) nor safety factors that are generally
recognized as appropriate for the use of animal experimentation data
were evaluated. The lack of mammalian toxicity at high levels of
exposure to the Cry1A.105 protein, as well as the minimal potential to
be a food allergen, demonstrate the safety of the product at levels
well above possible maximum exposure levels anticipated.

VII. Other Considerations

A. Endocrine Disruptors

    The pesticidal active ingredient is a protein, derived from a
source that is not known to exert an influence on the endocrine system.
Therefore, the Agency is not requiring information on the endocrine
effects of the plant-incorporated protectant at this time.

B. Analytical Method

    A standard operating procedure for an enzyme-linked immunosorbent
assay for the detection and quantification of Cry1A.105 in corn tissue
has been submitted.

C. Codex Maximum Residue Level

    No Codex maximum residue level exists for the plant-incorporated
protectant Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1A.105 protein.

VIII. Conclusions

    There is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the U.S. population, including infants and
children, to residues of the Cry1A.105 protein in or on all food and
feed commodities of corn; corn, field; corn, sweet; and corn, pop. This
includes all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information. The Agency has arrived at this
conclusion because, as discussed in this unit, no toxicity to mammals
has been observed, nor is there any indication of allergenicity
potential for the plant-incorporated protectant.

 IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes a tolerance exemption under section
408(d) of FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of
actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory
Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final
rule has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this
final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,

Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order
13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does
not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it
require any special considerations under Executive Order 12898,
entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

X. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to
the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 174

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 10, 2008.
Janet L. Andersen,
Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.

0
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 174--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 174 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 174.502 to subpart D is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  174.502  Bacillus thuringiensis Cry 1A.105 protein in corn;
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance.

    Residues of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry 1A.105 protein in or on the
food and feed commodities of corn; corn, field; corn, sweet; and corn,
pop, are exempt from the requirement of a tolerance when the Bacillus
thuringiensis Cry 1A.105 protein is used as a plant-incorporated
protectant in those food and feed corn commodities.
[FR Doc. E8-15836 Filed 7-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 145 (Thursday, July 28, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 45212-45215]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18991]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0571; FRL-9444-6]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this action, we are proposing to approve San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) Rule 3170,
``Federally Mandated Ozone Nonattainment Fee,'' as a revision to
SJVUAPCD's portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP).
Rule 3170 is a local fee rule submitted to address section 185 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). EPA is also proposing to approve SJVUAPCD's
fee-equivalent program, which includes Rule 3170 and state law
authorities that authorize SJVUAPCD to impose supplemental fees on
motor vehicles, as an alternative to the program required by section
185 of the Act. We are proposing that SJVUAPCD's alternative fee-
equivalent program is not less stringent than the program required by
section 185, and, therefore, is approvable, consistent with the
principles of section 172(e) of the Act. As part of this action, we are
inviting public comment on whether it is appropriate for EPA to
consider alternative programs and, if so, what would constitute an
approvable alternative program. We are taking comments on these
proposals and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by August 29, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0571, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lily Wong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4114<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What did the State submit?
II. What action is EPA taking?
III. Background
IV. What is the legal rationale for this action?
V. What is EPA's analysis of SJVUAPCD's alternative program?
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What did the State submit?

    On May 19, 2011, SJVUAPCD adopted Rule 3170 as part of SJVUAPCD's
alternative fee-equivalent program. On June 14, 2011, the California
Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted SJVUAPCD's alternative fee-
equivalent program, including Rule 3170 and various state law
authorities, to EPA. On June 23, 2011, EPA determined that the
submittal met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V,
which must be met before formal EPA review.

II. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 as a revision to
SJVUAPCD's portion of the California SIP. Rule 3170 is a local rule
that applies to all major stationary sources emitting VOCs and/or
NOX. Rule 3170 requires certain major stationary sources to
pay a fee for each ton of VOCs or NOX emitted in excess of
80% of baseline emissions. Rule 3170 includes an exemption for ``clean
units'' and a different calculation of baseline emissions than
specified by CAA section 185. Therefore, Rule 3170 also requires
SJVUAPCD to track actual NOX and VOC emissions from all
major stationary sources of NOX and VOCs and demonstrate
that it received revenues, pursuant to an alternative mechanism
described below, equivalent

to those that would be imposed through section 185 of the Act without
the ``clean unit'' exemption, and with a baseline calculated in a
manner consistent with CAA 185. Rule 3170 also requires SJVUAPCD to
impose additional fees on major stationary sources to remedy any
shortfall in revenue. In this action, EPA is also proposing to approve
SJVUAPCD's fee-equivalent program as an alternative to the program
required by section 185 of the Act. SJVUAPCD's alternative fee-
equivalent program includes Rule 3170 and state law authorities that
authorize the District to impose a $12 supplemental fee on motor
vehicle registrations. We are proposing that SJVUAPCD's alternative
fee-equivalent program is not less stringent than the program required
by section 185, and, therefore, is approvable, consistent with the
principles of section 172(e) of the Act as explained more fully below.
We are taking comments on these proposals and plan to follow with a
final action.
    In a separate interim final action, published in the Rules section
in today's Federal Register, we are deferring sanctions that would
otherwise apply to the SJVUAPCD.

III. Background

Section 185 Fees

    Under Sections 182(d)(3), (e), (f) and 185 of the Act, States with
ozone nonattainment areas classified as severe or extreme are required
to submit a revision to the SIP which requires major stationary sources
of VOC or NOX to pay a fee for each ton of VOC or
NOX emitted in excess of 80% of baseline emissions.\1\ Under
section 185(a) of the Act, the SIP revision must provide that the fees
be paid, if the area to which the SIP revision applies has failed to
attain the 1-hour ozone standard by the applicable attainment date. A
source's baseline emissions are its actual emissions during the
required attainment year. The fee rate is $5,000 per ton in 1990
dollars, which must be adjusted for inflation based on the Consumer
Price Index (CPI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm
human health and the environment. NOX helps produce
ground-level ozone, smog and particulate matter, which harm human
health and the environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

    SJVUAPCD is an extreme nonattainment area for the 1-hour ozone
standard, and therefore, California was required under sections
182(d)(3), (e) and (f) to develop and submit a SIP revision meeting the
requirements of section 185, which are discussed above. In San Joaquin
Valley, under California law, the SJVUAPCD is responsible for
developing rules, such as Rule 3170, that are intended to meet CAA SIP
requirements. Such rules are then submitted to EPA after adoption by
CARB, which is the State agency responsible for SIP matters on behalf
of the State of California.
    CARB previously submitted an earlier version of SJVUAPCD Rule 3170
to EPA. EPA took final action on this earlier version of Rule 3170 on
January 13, 2010. (75 FR 1716). This final action was a limited
approval/limited disapproval because, while EPA found that the rule
strengthened the SIP, EPA also found that it did not fully comply with
the requirements of section 185. EPA identified the following
deficiencies as preventing full approval: (i) An exemption for units
that began operation after the attainment year; (ii) an exemption for
``clean units;'' (iii) the definition of the baseline period as two
consecutive years; (iv) a provision to allow averaging of baseline
emissions over 2-5 years); and (v) a definition of ``major source''
inconsistent with the CAA. Because our action was a limited approval
and a limited disapproval, our action started sanctions clocks under
section 179 of the Act and 40 CFR 52.31.
    On June 14, 2011, CARB submitted SJVUAPCD's alternative fee-
equivalent program, including amended Rule 3170 as adopted on May 19,
2011 and other state law authorities, to address deficiencies
identified in EPA's limited disapproval, to stop the sanctions clocks,
and to satisfy SJVUAPCD's obligations under section 185 of the Act.

IV. What is the legal rationale for equivalent alternative programs?

    EPA is proposing that states can meet the 1-hour ozone section 185
obligation through a SIP revision containing either the fee program
prescribed in section 185 of the Act, or an equivalent alternative
program. As further explained below, EPA is proposing that an
alternative program may be acceptable if EPA determines, through
notice-and-comment rulemaking, that it is consistent with the
principles of section 172(e) of the CAA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA has previously set forth this reasoning in a memorandum
from Stephen D. Page, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, to Air Division Directors, ``Guidance on Developing Fee
Programs Required by Clean Air Act Section 185 for the 1-hour Ozone
NAAQS,'' January 5, 2010. On July 1, 2011, the DC Circuit Court of
Appeals vacated this guidance, on the ground that it was final
agency action for which notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures
were required. NRDC v. EPA, No. 10-1056, 2011 WL 2601560, C.A.D.C.
2011. In today's notice, we are applying the court's directive to
follow the rulemaking requirements set forth in the Administrative
Procedures Act to inform our consideration of section 185 and
alternative fee programs. We are therefore inviting the public to
comment on whether it is appropriate for EPA to consider an
alternative program and, if so, whether SJVUAPCD's program would
constitute an approvable alternative program under the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 172(e) is an anti-backsliding provision of the CAA that
requires EPA to develop regulations to ensure that controls in a
nonattainment area are ``not less stringent'' than those that applied
to the area before EPA revised a national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) to make it less stringent. In the Phase 1 ozone implementation
rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS published on April 30, 2004 (69 FR
23951), EPA determined that although section 172(e) does not directly
apply where EPA has strengthened the NAAQS, as it did in 1997, it was
reasonable to apply the same anti-backsliding principle that would
apply to the relaxation of a standard for the transition from the 1-
hour NAAQS to the more stringent 1997 8-hour NAAQS. As part of applying
the principles in section 172(e) for purposes of the transition from
the 1-hour standard to the 1997 8-hour standard, EPA can either require
states to retain programs that applied for purposes of the 1-hour
standard, or alternatively can allow states to adopt alternative
programs, but only if such alternatives are determined through notice-
and-comment rulemaking to be ``not less stringent'' than the mandated
program.
    EPA has identified three possible types of alternative programs
that could satisfy the section 185 requirement: (i) Those that achieve
the same emissions reductions; (ii) those that raise the same amount of
revenue and establish a process where the revenues would be used to pay
for emission reductions that will further improve ozone air quality;
and (iii) those that would be equivalent through a combination of both
emission reductions and revenues. Accordingly, we are proposing to
determine through notice-and-comment rulemaking, that States can
demonstrate an alternative program's equivalency by comparing expected
fees and/or emissions reductions directly attributable to application
of section 185 to the expected fees and/or emissions reductions from
the proposed alternative program. Under an alternative program, states
might opt to shift the fee burden from a specific set of major
stationary sources to non-major sources, such as owners of mobile
sources that also contribute to ozone formation. EPA also believes that
alternative programs, if approved as ``not less stringent'' than the
section 185

fee program, would encourage 1-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas to
reach attainment as effectively and expeditiously as a section 185 fee
program, if not more so, and therefore satisfy the CAA's goal of
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.
    In sum, in order for EPA to approve an alternative program as
satisfying the 1-hour ozone section 185 fee program SIP revision
requirement, the state must demonstrate that the alternative program is
not less stringent than the otherwise applicable section 185 fee
program by collecting fees equal to or exceeding the fees that would
have been collected under 185.

V. What is EPA's analysis of SJVUAPCD's alternative program?

Summary of SJVUAPCD's Alternative Program

    SJVUAPCD's alternative fee-equivalent program consists of Rule 3170
and additional state law materials, including California Assembly Bill
2522 (``AB2522''), now codified at California Health and Safety Code
40610-40613. Rule 3170 applies to major stationary sources of VOCs and
NOX, which in the SJVUAPCD are sources that emit 10 tons per
year or more of either pollutant. Rule 3170 differs from CAA section
185 because it exempts ``clean units'' from the assessment of fees and
because it allows baseline emissions to be calculated over a multi-year
period, rather than a single year as provided in CAA section 185.\3\
Because these differences will likely affect the amount of fees
collected from major stationary sources, SJVUAPCD's alternative fee-
equivalent program provides for the collection of additional fees from
motor vehicle registrations, specifically, $12 per year per motor
vehicle, as authorized by California AB2522. (Cal. Health and Safety
Code Sec. Sec.  40610-40613).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The CAA and EPA's Section 185 baseline guidance (referenced
below in this section) allow for alternative baseline periods only
if a source's emissions are irregular, cyclical, or otherwise vary
significantly from year to year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 3170 requires the Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) to
prepare and submit to EPA an ``Annual Fee Equivalency Demonstration
Report'' to show that the total annual fees collected from stationary
sources and motor vehicle registrations are at least equal to the
amount of annual fees that would have been collected from stationary
sources under a fee program as prescribed in section 185 of the Act. If
the report shows that the actual collected funds are insufficient to
demonstrate equivalency, Rule 3170 requires the collection of
additional fees from stationary sources to make up the shortfall. EPA's
technical support document (TSD) has more information about SJVUAPCD's
alternative fee-equivalent program.

How is EPA evaluating SJVUAPCD's alternative program?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act). Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability requirements consistently include the following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    3. ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the
General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of
Title I; Proposed Rule,'' (the NOX Supplement), 57 FR 55620,
November 25, 1992.
    Also, SIP revisions must not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP)
or any other applicable requirement of the Act (CAA 110(l))).
    SJVUAPCD's alternative fee-equivalent program must also be
evaluated against section 185 of the Act, as described above under
section III of this document. EPA also developed the following guidance
on establishing baselines under section 185:
    4. Memorandum from William Harnett, Director of the Air Quality
Policy Division to the Regional Air Division Directors, entitled,
``Guidance on Establishing Emissions Baselines under Section 185 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) for Severe and Extreme Ozone Nonattainment Areas
that Fail to Attain the 1-hour Ozone NAAQS by their Attainment Date,''
March 21, 2008.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This guidance can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/20080321_harnett_emissions_basline.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does SJVUAPCD's alternative program meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe SJVUAPCD's alternative fee-equivalent program is
consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding
enforceability, SIP relaxations, and sections 172(e) and 185 of the
Act.
    First, we propose to determine that our approval of Rule 3170 as
revised would comply with CAA sections 110(l) because the proposed SIP
revision would not interfere with the on-going process for ensuring
that requirements for RFP and attainment of the NAAQS are met, and is
more stringent than the version previously approved into the SIP
because it corrects the previously-identified deficiencies.
    Second, EPA is proposing to find that SJVUAPCD has met its 1-hour
ozone NAAQS section 185 obligation through its alternative fee-
equivalent program, which includes Rule 3170 and additional state law
authorities. Specifically, EPA is proposing to find that SJVUAPCD's
alternative fee-equivalent program is acceptable because, consistent
with the principles of section 172(e), it is not less stringent than
the requirements of section 185.
    The version of Rule 3170 we are proposing to approve today contains
two provisions that are not directly consistent with section 185: (1)
An exemption for ``clean units;'' and (2) an allowance for an alternate
baseline period of two consecutive years (2006-2010) if the APCO
determines it would be more representative of normal operations. As
described below, EPA has determined that SJVUAPCD's alternative fee-
equivalent program will make up for any shortfall in collected funds
that might result from these two provisions and provides adequate
enforcement and oversight mechanisms, as well as a remedy to address
any shortfalls, to assure equivalency.
    SJVUAPCD's alternative fee-equivalent program provides for the
collection of additional fees from motor vehicle registrations,
specifically, $12 per year per motor vehicle. This collection of motor
vehicle registration fees is authorized by California AB2522 (now
codified at Health and Safety Code 40610-40613). AB2522 also requires
SJVUAPCD to use these revenues to fund incentive-based programs
resulting in NOX and VOC emissions reductions in the San
Joaquin Valley. Rule 3170 requires the APCO to implement a system to
track all information with respect to emissions data, the calculation,
assessment, and collection of fees from stationary sources, as well as
tracking of the amount of collected motor vehicle registration fees.
The APCO is required to prepare and submit to EPA an ``Annual Fee
Equivalency Demonstration Report'' that shows that the sum of the total
fees collected from stationary sources and motor vehicle registrations
are equal to or greater than the fees that would have been collected
under a direct implementation of section 185. In the event that the
annual equivalency report shows insufficient funds collected (i.e., a
shortfall), Rule 3170 requires the collection of

additional funds from stationary sources.
    SJVUAPCD has demonstrated that its alternative fee-equivalent
program will be at least as stringent as a CAA section 185 fee program.
Rule 3170 provides SJVUAPCD the authority to collect fees from certain
major sources. To the extent that Rule 3170 differs from CAA section
185 by exempting certain major stationary sources and allowing a
different baseline calculation, AB2522 allows SJVUACPD to assess
supplemental motor vehicle registration fees equivalent to those that
would be collected through a straight section 185 fee program, and
requires SJVUAPCD to use those revenues to fund incentive-based
programs resulting in NOX and VOC emissions reductions in
the San Joaquin Valley. Although we are not approving AB2522 into the
SIP, Rule 3170 provides adequate oversight and enforcement mechanisms
through the Annual Fee Equivalency Demonstration Report and the
shortfall remedy to assure that SJVUAPCD's fee-equivalent alternative
program will be at least as stringent as a section 185 fee program. We
therefore conclude that SJVUAPCD's alternative fee-equivalent program
is consistent with the principles of CAA section 172(e) and not less
stringent than the requirements of CAA section 185 because it will
result in collection of fees equal to the fees that would be collected
under section 185. Based upon SJVUAPCD's demonstration that its
alternative fee-equivalent program is not less stringent than a section
185 program, EPA proposes to approve Rule 3170 into the California SIP
on the basis that SJVUAPCD's alternative fee-equivalent program meets
the requirements of sections 172(e) and 185 of the Act.
    The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

VI. Proposed Action

    Because EPA believes SJVUAPCD Rule 3170 fulfills all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to approve Rule 3170 as a SIP revision
under section 110(k)(3) of the Act. EPA believes that SJVUAPCD's
alternative fee-equivalent program is not less stringent than the
requirements set forth in section 185 of the Act, therefore we are
proposing to approve SJVUAPCD's alternative fee-equivalent program
consisting of Rule 3170 and state law authorities as fulfilling the
requirements of sections 185 and 172(e) of the Act.
    We will accept comments from the public on these proposals for the
next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new information during the
comment period, we intend to publish a final approval action that will
incorporate Rule 3170 into the federally enforceable SIP. Our final
action would address the CAA section 185 requirements for the 1-hour
ozone standard and therefore would permanently terminate the sanctions
clocks associated with our January 13, 2010 action on the effective
date of the final approval.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve State law
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed action does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: July 19, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011-18991 Filed 7-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8079-8080]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02198]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2021-2048]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

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

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before February 23, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2018-0283
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Privacy: 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 http://

www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this proposal.
     Confidential Business Information: 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 Notice 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 Notice, 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 the indicated comments
will not be placed in the public docket of this Notice. Submissions
containing CBI should be sent to Alan Sinclair, AIR-626, Human-Machine
Interface Section, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and
Innovation Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th
Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments the FAA receives, which are not
specifically designated as CBI, will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.
     Docket: Background documents or comments received may be
read at http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online
instructions for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in
Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Forseth, AIR-612, Technical
Writing Section, Strategic Policy Management Branch, Policy and
Innovation Division, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 S 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA 98198-6547, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>phone (206) 231-
3179.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Daniel Commins,
Acting Manager, AIR-612, Technical Writing Section, Strategic Policy
Management Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Federal Aviation
Administration.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2020-1185.
    Petitioner: Dassault Aviation.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: Part 25, SFAR 109.2(d) and (g).
    Description of Relief Sought: Permit doors between the galley and
the passenger cabin, in part 135 operations, on Model Falcon 6X
airplanes.

[FR Doc. 2021-02198 Filed 2-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 192 (Monday, October 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60243-60245]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25202]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Petition for Exemption From the Federal Motor Vehicle Theft
Prevention Standard; Ford Motor Company

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

ACTION: Grant of petition for exemption.

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

SUMMARY: This document grants in full the Ford Motor Company's (Ford)
petition for an exemption of the MKC vehicle line in accordance with 49
CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard. This
petition is granted because the agency has determined that the
antitheft device to be placed on the line as standard equipment is
likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft
as compliance with the parts-marking requirements of the 49 CFR part
541, Federal Motor Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard (Theft Prevention
Standard). Ford also requested confidential treatment for specific
information in its petition that the agency will address by separate
letter.

DATES: The exemption granted by this notice is effective beginning with
the 2017 model year (MY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Deborah Mazyck, Office of
International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, W43-
443, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Mazyck's
phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Her fax number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a petition dated June 25, 2015, Ford
requested an exemption from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard for the Lincoln MKC vehicle line beginning with MY
2017. The petition requested exemption from parts-marking pursuant to
49 CFR part 543, Exemption from Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard,
based on the installation of an antitheft device as standard equipment
for the entire vehicle line.
    Under 49 CFR part 543.5(a), a manufacturer may petition NHTSA to
grant an exemption for one vehicle line per model year. In its
petition, Ford provided a detailed description and diagram of the
identity, design, and location of the components of the antitheft
device for its Lincoln MKC vehicle line. Ford stated that the Lincoln
MKC will be installed with its Intelligent Access with Push Button
Start (IAwPB) system as standard equipment on the entire vehicle line.
The IAwPB system is a passive, electronic engine immobilizer device
that uses encrypted transponder technology. Key components of the IAwPB
device will include an Intelligent Access electronic Push-Button Start
key fob, keyless ignition system, body control module (BCM), powertrain
control module (PCM) and a passive immobilizer. Ford further stated
that its Lincoln MKC vehicle line will be offered with a perimeter
alarm system as standard equipment. The perimeter alarm system will
activate a visible and audible alarm whenever unauthorized access is
attempted.
    Ford stated that the device's integration of the transponder into
the normal operation of the ignition key assures activation of the
system. Ford also stated that the MKC vehicle line's electronic key
will be programmed into the vehicle during system initialization at the
manufacturing plant. Ford further stated that the vehicle engine can
only be started when the key is present in the vehicle and the
``StartStop'' button inside the vehicle is pressed. Ford stated that
when the ``StartStop'' button is pressed, the transceiver module will
read a key code and transmit an encrypted message to the control module
to determine key validity and engine start by sending a separate
encrypted message to the BCM and the PCM. The powertrain will function
only if the key code matches the unique identification key code
previously programmed into the BCM. If the codes do not match, the
powertrain engine will be inoperable. Ford also expressed that any
attempt to short the ``StartStop'' button will have no effect on a
thief's ability to start the vehicle without the correct code being
transmitted to the electronic control modules. Ford stated

that the two modules must be matched together in order for the vehicle
to start. According to Ford, deactivation of the device occurs
automatically each time the engine is started.
    Ford's submission is considered a complete petition as required by
49 CFR 543.7, in that it meets the general requirements contained in
Sec.  543.5 and the specific content requirements of Sec.  543.6.
    In addressing the specific content requirements of 543.6, Ford
provided information on the reliability and durability of its proposed
device. To ensure reliability and durability of the device, Ford
conducted tests based on its own specified standards. Ford provided a
detailed list of the tests conducted and believes that the device is
reliable and durable since the device complied with its own specified
requirements for each test.
    Ford stated that incorporation of several features in the device
further support the reliability and durability of the device.
Specifically, some of those features include: Encrypted communication
between the transponder, BCM control function and the PCM; virtually
impossible key duplication; and shared security data between the body
control module/remote function actuator and the powertrain control
module. Additionally, Ford stated that its antitheft device has no
moving parts (i.e., BCM, PCM, and electrical components) to perform
system functions which eliminate the possibility for physical damage or
deterioration from normal use; and mechanically overriding the device
to start the vehicle is also impossible.
    Ford stated that its MY 2017 Lincoln MKC vehicle line will also be
equipped with several other standard antitheft features common to Ford
vehicles, (i.e., hood release located inside the vehicle, counterfeit
resistant VIN labels, secondary VINs, and cabin accessibility only with
the use of a valid key fob).
    Ford compared the device proposed for its vehicle line with other
antitheft devices which NHTSA has determined to be as effective in
reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as would compliance with the
parts-marking requirements. Ford stated that it believes that the
standard installation of the IAwPB device would be an effective
deterrent against vehicle theft.
    Ford further stated that its antitheft device was installed on all
MY 1996 Ford Mustang GT and Cobra models as well as other selected
models. Ford stated that on its 1997 models, the installation of its
antitheft device was extended to the entire Ford Mustang vehicle line
as standard equipment. Ford also stated that according to the National
Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB) theft statistics, MY 1997 Mustangs
installed with the SecuriLock device showed a 70% reduction in theft
rate compared to its MY 1995 Mustangs without an antitheft device.
    Ford stated that the proposed antitheft device is very similar to
the system that was offered in its MY 2016 Lincoln MKX vehicle line.
The Lincoln MKX vehicle line was granted a parts-marking exemption on
November 25, 2014 by NHTSA (See 79 FR 70276) beginning with its MY 2016
vehicles. The agency notes that current theft rate data for MYs 2010
through 2012 Lincoln MKX vehicle line are 0.5670, 0.4056 and 0.5841
respectively.
    Ford also reported that beginning with MY 2010, its antitheft
device was installed as standard equipment on all of its North American
Ford, Lincoln and Mercury vehicles but was offered as optional
equipment on its 2010 F-series Super Duty pickups, Econoline and
Transit Connect vehicles. Ford further stated that beginning with MY
2010, the IAwPB was installed as standard equipment on its Lincoln MKT
vehicles and starting in MY 2011, offered as standard equipment on the
Lincoln MKX and optionally on the Lincoln MKS, Ford Taurus, Edge,
Explorer and the Focus vehicles. Beginning with MY 2013, the device was
offered as standard equipment on the Lincoln MKZ and optionally on the
Ford Fusion, C-Max and Escape vehicles.
    Ford referenced the agency's published theft rate data by calendar
year for all vehicles and the Ford Escape for comparison purposes
because it stated that the Lincoln MKC will use the IAwPB system that
will be similar to the Ford Escape in design and architecture. Ford
further stated that the Lincoln MKC is comparably similar to the Ford
Escape in vehicle segment, size and equipment. Ford reported that the
Escape's theft rate is lower than the vehicle theft rate for all
vehicles in each of the last five calendar years for which published
data is available. Specifically, the agency's data show that theft
rates for the Ford Escape for MYs 2010-2012 are 0.7265, 0.6409, and
0.8336 respectively. Using an average of the most current of three MYs
data (2010-2012), the theft rate for the Ford Escape vehicle line is
well below the median at 0.7336. Ford stated that with the installation
of its IAwPB device as standard equipment, the Lincoln MKC will have a
very low theft rate comparable to the theft rate of the Ford Escape
vehicle line.
    The agency agrees that the device is substantially similar to
devices installed on other vehicle lines for which the agency has
already granted exemptions.
    Based on the supporting evidence submitted by Ford on the device,
the agency believes that the antitheft device for the Lincoln MKC
vehicle line is likely to be as effective in reducing and deterring
motor vehicle theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements
of the Theft Prevention Standard (49 CFR part 541).
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 33106 and 49 CFR 543.7 (b), the agency grants
a petition for exemption from the parts-marking requirements of Part
541 either in whole or in part, if it determines that, based upon
substantial evidence, the standard equipment antitheft device is likely
to be as effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as
compliance with the parts-marking requirements of Part 541. The agency
finds that Ford has provided adequate reasons for its belief that the
antitheft device for the Lincoln MKC vehicle line is likely to be as
effective in reducing and deterring motor vehicle theft as compliance
with the parts-marking requirements of the Theft Prevention Standard
(49 CFR part 541). This conclusion is based on the information Ford
provided about its device.
    The agency concludes that the device will provide the five types of
performance listed in Sec.  543.6(a)(3): Promoting activation;
attracting attention to the efforts of unauthorized persons to enter or
operate a vehicle by means other than a key; preventing defeat or
circumvention of the device by unauthorized persons; preventing
operation of the vehicle by unauthorized entrants; and ensuring the
reliability and durability of the device.
    For the foregoing reasons, the agency hereby grants in full Ford's
petition for exemption for the Lincoln MKC vehicle line from the parts-
marking requirements of 49 CFR part 541. The agency notes that 49 CFR
part 541, Appendix A-1, identifies those lines that are exempted from
the Theft Prevention Standard for a given model year. 49 CFR part
543.7(f) contains publication requirements incident to the disposition
of all Part 543 petitions. Advanced listing, including the release of
future product nameplates, the beginning model year for which the
petition is granted and a general description of the antitheft device
is necessary in order to notify law enforcement agencies of new vehicle
lines exempted from the parts-marking requirements of the Theft
Prevention Standard.

    If Ford decides not to use the exemption for this line, it must
formally notify the agency. If such a decision is made, the line must
be fully marked according to the requirements under 49 CFR parts 541.5
and 541.6 (marking of major component parts and replacement parts).
    NHTSA notes that if Ford wishes in the future to modify the device
on which this exemption is based, the company may have to submit a
petition to modify the exemption. Part 543.7(d) states that a Part 543
exemption applies only to vehicles that belong to a line exempted under
this part and equipped with the antitheft device on which the line's
exemption is based. Further, Part 543.9(c)(2) provides for the
submission of petitions ``to modify an exemption to permit the use of
an antitheft device similar to but differing from the one specified in
that exemption.''
    The agency wishes to minimize the administrative burden that Part
543.9(c)(2) could place on exempted vehicle manufacturers and itself.
The agency did not intend in drafting Part 543 to require the
submission of a modification petition for every change to the
components or design of an antitheft device. The significance of many
such changes could be de minimis. Therefore, NHTSA suggests that if the
manufacturer contemplates making any changes, the effects of which
might be characterized as de minimis, it should consult the agency
before preparing and submitting a petition to modify.

Under authority delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95.

Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2015-25202 Filed 10-2-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 154 (Friday, August 9, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 39175]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17013]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 154 / Friday, August 9, 2019 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 21

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0280]

Primary Category Design Standards; Cub Crafters, Inc., Model
CC21-180 Airplane

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Issuance of final airworthiness design standards.

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

SUMMARY: These airworthiness design standards are issued to Cub
Crafters, Inc., for type certification of the Model CC21-180 airplane
under the regulations for primary category aircraft.

DATES: These airworthiness design standards are effective September 9,
2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Raymond N. Johnston, AIR-692,
Federal Aviation Administration, Policy & Innovation Division, Small
Airplane Standards Branch, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Any person may obtain a copy of this
information by contacting the person named above under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

Background

    The ``primary'' category for aircraft was created specifically for
the simple, low performance personal aircraft. Section 21.17,
Designation of applicable regulations, paragraph (f) provides a means
for the FAA to determine appropriate airworthiness standards for the
particular primary category aircraft. The FAA procedure establishing
appropriate airworthiness standards includes reviewing and possibly
revising an applicant's proposal, publication of the submittal in the
Federal Register for public review and comment, and addressing the
comments. After all necessary revisions, the standards are published as
approved FAA airworthiness standards. This document prescribes
airworthiness standards for the issuance of a type certificate for the
Cub Crafters, Inc., Model CC21-180, a primary category airplane. These
airworthiness standards have a long safe service history in similar
airplanes; therefore, they provide an appropriate level of safety.
These airworthiness standards are based on standards that were used to
certificate the same design as a normal and utility category airplane,
Cub Crafters Model CC19-180, in accordance with FAA Type Certiciate
A00053SE.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/CACFCFE4D1346CEB862582D300654D21?OpenDocument&Highlight=a00053se.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments

    Proposed Primary Category Design Standards; Cub Crafters, Inc.,
Model CC21-180 Airplane was published in the Federal Register on April
17, 2019 (84 FR 15992). No comments were received, and the
airworthiness design standards are adopted as proposed.

Applicability

    These airworthiness design standards under the primary category
rule are applicable to the Cub Crafters, Inc., Model CC21-180 airplane.
Should Cub Crafters, Inc. wish to apply these airworthiness design
standards to other airplane models, it must submit a new airworthiness
design standard application under the primary rule category.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain airworthiness design standards on
the Cub Crafters, Inc., Model CC21-180 airplane. It is not a standard
of general applicability and it affects only the applicant who applied
to the FAA for approval of these features on the rotorcraft.

Citation

    The authority citation for these airworthiness standards is as
follows:

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

Final Airworthiness Standards for Type Certification in the Primary
Category

    For the airplane:
    Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 23, effective
December 18, 1964, as amended by 23-1 through 23-62, all sections
except Sec.  23.562 Emergency Landing Dynamic Conditions, and as
modified by the following:
    Equivalent Level of Safety (ELOS) No. TC10279SE-A-C-1 for the
emergency exit requirements of Sec.  23.807 \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_ and_Guidance_Library/
rgELOS.nsf/0/
F3FC2C42E551237F86257FC60046467D?OpenDocument&Highlight=tc10279se-a-
c-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ELOS No. AT12936SE-A-S-1 for the electronic display instrument
system requirements of Sec.  23.1311 \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_ and _Guidance_Library/
rgELOS.nsf/0/E441A4F21736F7E98625814500674B2A?OpenDocument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ELOS No. TC10279SE-A-G-9 for corrections to technical errors in
amendment 23-62 \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgELOS.nsf/0/773696FE2DDEA61D86257FF50065B4B6?OpenDocument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ELOS No. AT12949SE-A-F-1 for the longitudinal trim requirements of
Sec.  23.161 \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgELOS.nsf/0/0D9E358153C4CF028625825D005E5D15?OpenDocument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For noise standards:
    14 CFR part 36 as amended by 36-1 through 36-30, appendix G.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on August 1, 2019.
Pat Mullen,
Manager, Small Airplane Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-17013 Filed 8-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P