[Federal Register: March 3, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 40)]
[Notices]
[Page 9328-9329]
[DOCID:fr03mr09-137]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0204]

Notice of Delay in Processing the Applications by American
Trucking Associations, Inc. and the Massachusetts Department of
Highways for a Preemption Determination Concerning the City of Boston's
Hazardous Materials Routing Restrictions

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with statutory requirements, FMCSA is publishing
a notice of delay in processing the American Trucking Associations,
Inc.'s (ATA) and the Massachusetts Department of Highways' applications
for a preemption determination concerning the City of Boston's
restrictions regarding highway routing of certain hazardous materials.
FMCSA is conducting fact-finding and legal analysis in response to the
consolidated requests, and is delaying issuance of its determination in
order to allow time for appropriate consideration of the issues raised
by the applications.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Simmons, Chief, Hazardous
Materials Division (MC-ECH),<PHONE_NUMBER>; Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590, or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: ATA and the Massachusetts Department of
Highways applied for an administrative determination concerning whether
Federal hazardous material transportation law, 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.,
and FMCSA regulations, 49 CFR part 397, preempt certain hazardous
material routing requirements that have been established or modified by
the City of Boston. FMCSA published notice of ATA's application in the
Federal Register on August 8, 2008. 73 FR 46349. FMCSA published notice
of Massachusetts Department of Highways' application in the Federal
Register on September 2, 2008 (73 FR 51335), at which time both
applications were consolidated into one docket.
    Title 49 U.S.C. 5125(d) requires FMCSA to issue a decision on the
preemption applications ``within 180 days after the date of the
publication of the notice of having received such application, or the
Secretary shall publish a statement in the Federal

Register of the reason why the Secretary's decision on the application
is delayed, along with an estimate of the additional time necessary
before the decision is made.''
    The ATA and Massachusetts Department of Highways' applications for
a preemption determination are still under consideration by FMCSA. The
Agency currently is conducting fact-finding and legal analysis in
response to the applications. Because of this additional fact-finding
and legal analysis, it is impracticable to issue a decision within the
180-day timeframe. In order to allow time for full consideration of the
issues raised by the applications, FMCSA delays issuance of its
determination, and estimates a decision will be published in
approximately 120 days.

    Issued on: February 25, 2009.
Rose A. McMurray,
Acting Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9-4453 Filed 3-2-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: November 29, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 229)]
[Notices]
[Page 69112-69114]
[DOCID:fr29no06-44]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0661; FRL-8087-4]

Chloropicrin Risk Assessments (Phase 3 of 6-Phase Process);
Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's human health
and environmental fate and effects risk assessment(s) and related
documents for the fumigant chloropicrin, and opens a public comment
period on these documents. EPA is developing a Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED) for chloropicrin through the full, 6-Phase
public participation process that the Agency uses to involve the public
in developing pesticide reregistration and tolerance reassessment
decisions. EPA is also concurrently assessing the risks of five other
soil fumigant pesticides to ensure that its assessment approaches are
consistent and to ensure that risk trade offs and economic outcomes can
be adequately predicted in reaching risk management decisions. Through
these programs, EPA is ensuring that all pesticides meet current health
and safety standards.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 29, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0661, 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
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, 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 telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0661. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either 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
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation
of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (703)
305-5805.
    Additional support documents for the soil fumigants in general can
be viewed at EPA's electronic public docket http://www.regulations.gov under

Docket ID EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0168. The Agency has also established a soil
fumigant web page at http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/soil_fumigants/.
 The public may also want to view the individual chemical

specific dockets for other soil fumigant pesticides. These chemical
specific dockets include: Telone (1,3-dichloropropene) at EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0124, dazomet at EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0128, metam sodium at EPA-HQ-OPP-
2005-0125, metam potassium at EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0125, and methyl bromide
at EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0123. These sites are provided for reference and
review. However, the Agency is requesting that comments pertaining to
chloropicrin be submitted only to the chloropicrin docket at EPA-HQ-
OPP-2006-0061.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nathan Mottl, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail 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, 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 person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

     1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is making available the human health and environmental fate and
effects risk assessments for chloropicrin. Chloropicrin is a non-
selective pre-plant soil fumigant with fungicidal, herbicidal,
insecticidal, and nematicidal properties. Chloropicrin is also used in
combination with other soil fumigants and as a warning agent for other
soil fumigants such as methyl bromide and telone (1,3-dichloropropene)
and structural fumigations using sulfuryl flouride. Chloropicrin is
primarily used for pre-plant soil uses for agricultural crops and
greenhouses. However, chloropicrin is also used for fumigations of
empty grain and storage bins, tree replant sites, and wood telephone
poles and timber. The Agency developed these risk assessments as part
of its public process for making pesticide reregistration eligibility
and tolerance reassessment decisions. Through these programs, EPA is
ensuring that pesticides meet current standards under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality
Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).
    An estimated 5-9 million pounds of chloropicrin is applied
annually. Crops on which over a million pounds are used annually
include tobacco (3.6 million pounds), tomatoes (1.7 million pounds),
and strawberries (1.4 million pounds). Strawberries (20 percent),
tobacco (15 percent), and tomatoes (10 percent) are also the crops with
the highest percentage of their overall acreage treated. Almost all of
the pre-plant soil fumigation uses of chloropicrin occur in combination
with either methyl bromide or telone.
    Plant metabolism and environmental fate studies demonstrate that
chloropicrin is degraded in both anaerobic and aerobic soil to carbon
dioxide which is subsequently taken up by the plant. Therefore, the use
of chloropicrin as a pre-plant soil fumigant is considered to be a non-
food use and food tolerances are not required.
    EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice, for
interested parties to provide comments and input on the Agency's risk
assessments for chloropicrin. Such comments and input could address,
for example, the availability of additional data to further refine the
risk assessments, or information about specific use practices for crops
that are produced using chloropicrin. For example, the following
information would be helpful to EPA in characterizing regional and crop
differences in use practices and possible effects on potential risk.
When providing this information to the Agency, consider providing
pictures or video footage to help clarify your comments.
    1. Crop.
    2. Fumigant use.
    3. Average acres grown per enterprise.
    4. Maximum acres fumigated per day.
    5. Percent of the acres grown that are fumigated.
    6. Typical application rate (lb a.i./acre).
    7. Minimum application rate used (lb a.i./acre)(for high pest
pressure situations).
    8. Time of year that soil is fumigated.
    9. Fumigation cycle (every crop cycle, 1 time/year, 1 time/2
years).
    10. Target pests (by category or specific pests).
    11. Method of application (e.g., chemigation, soil injection,
specific equipment used, etc.).
    12. Methods or actions taken to reduce emissions (polyethylene
tarps or soil cap).
    13. Could high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or high barrier tarps be
used on this crop?
    14. Time between treatment and next production activity (e.g., time
until planting).
    15. Typical crops following the fumigated crop (only if they
benefit from the fumigation).
    16. Regulatory restrictions in your area on this fumigant or an
alternative fumigant (such as weather restrictions).
    17. Soil restrictions on this fumigant or an alternative fumigant.
    18. Any restrictions or concerns about minimum soil temperature,
hilly terrain, etc.
    19. Best available alternative (another fumigant or strategy such
as leaving land fallow, etc.).
    20. Could the use of different soil fumigants be alternated (e.g.,
metam sodium followed by (1,3-D)? Specify how.
    21. Yield or quality impacts that are likely to result from moving
to the best available alternative (i.e., change in commodity price or
grade).
    22. Would moving to the next best alternative impact key market
windows? How?
    23. Cost per acre of active ingredient.
    24. Cost per acre of other fumigation inputs (e.g., tarps and
equipment).
    25. Is there a crop budget available for your area and crop?
    26. Do you know of any other contacts or other sources of
information for this crop who could provide information on acreage,
prices, pests, etc.?
    27. Are there non-chemical alternatives that can be used in place
of fumigants? Describe use.
    EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income, in the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help
address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks
information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a
result of their location, cultural

practices, or other factors, may have atypical, unusually high exposure
to chloropicrin, compared to the general population.
    EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all
pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The
Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public
Participation Process, published in the Federal Register on May 14,
2004, (69 FR 26819)(FRL-7357-9) explains that in conducting these
programs, EPA is tailoring its public participation process to be
commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of
issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide.
EPA plans to review chloropicrin through the full, 6-Phase public
participation process.
    Comments should be limited to issues raised within the risk
assessment(s) and associated documents. Failure to comment on any such
issues as part of this opportunity will not limit a commenter's
opportunity to participate in any later notice and comment processes on
this matter. All comments should be submitted using the methods in
ADDRESSES, and must be received by EPA on or before the closing date.
Comments will become part of the Agency Docket for chloropicrin.
Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked
``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA as amended directs that, after submission
of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, ``the
Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active
ingredient are eligible for reregistration,'' before calling in product
specific data on individual end-use products and either reregistering
products or taking other ``appropriate regulatory action.''

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: October 20, 2006.
Debra Edwards,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E6-20145 Filed 11-28-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 29, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15521-15522]
[FR Doc No: 2017-06160]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP17-74-000]

National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Application

    Take notice that on March 10, 2017, National Fuel Gas Supply
Corporation (National Fuel), having its principal place of business at
6363 Main Street, Williamsville, New York 14221 filed in the above
referenced docket an application pursuant to section 7(b) and 7(c) of
the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Part 157 of the Commission's regulations
requesting authorization to construct, replace, idle, and abandon four
separate pipeline sections and appurtenant facilities located in
Cameron, Elk and McKean Counties, Pennsylvania, referred to as the Line
YM28 and Line FM120 Modernization Project (Project), all as more fully
set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission and
open to public inspection. The filing is available for review at the
Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the
Commission's Web site web at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary''
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact
FERC at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Randy
C. Rucinski, Assistant General Counsel for National Fuel, 6363 Main
Street, Williamsville, New York 14221, by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by
fax<PHONE_NUMBER> or by emailing<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Specifically, the National Fuel proposes the following
modifications: (i) Construct approximately 14.4 miles of new 12-inch
diameter pipeline (new Line KL), (ii) replace via insertion
approximately 5.8 miles of Line FM120, (iii) idle approximately 12.5
miles of Line FM120, and (iv) abandon in place approximately 7.7 miles
of the existing Line YM28. The Project is designed to enhance service
to National Fuel's existing customers and improve the reliability and
flexibility of National Fuel's system for existing shippers. The total
cost of the Project is approximately $39,500,000.
    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules (18 CFR 157.9),
within 90 days of this Notice, the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit seven copies of filings made in the proceeding with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and

to every other party. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court
review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 13, 2017.

    Dated: March 23, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-06160 Filed 3-28-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 58549]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23156]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0025; OMB No. 1660-NW78]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before October 24, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
20598-3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER)
Grants.
    Type of information collection: New Collection.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 080-4, Staffing for Adequate
Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER) (General Questions All Applicants);
FEMA Form 080-4a, Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response
Hiring of Firefighters Application (Questions and Narrative); FEMA Form
080-4b, Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Recruitment
and Retention of Volunteer Firefighters Application (Questions and
Narrative).
    Abstract: FEMA uses this information to ensure that FEMA's
responsibilities under the legislation can be fulfilled accurately and
efficiently. The information will be used to objectively evaluate each
of the anticipated applicants to determine which of the applicant's
proposalsin each of the activities are the closest to the established
program priorities.
    Affected Public: State, Local or Tribal Government, and Not-for-
Profit Institutions.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,200
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 26,190.
    Estimated Cost: There are no record keeping, capital, start-up, or
maintenance costs associated with this information collection.

    Dated: September 18, 2013.
Charlene D. Myrthil,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, >Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2013-23156 Filed 9-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-78-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 148 (Thursday, August 1, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46514-46516]
[FR Doc No: 2013-18314]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0884, FRL-9841-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oregon:
Infrastructure Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate
Matter and 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submittals from the State of Oregon to demonstrate that the SIP meets
the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) promulgated for fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) on July 18, 1997, and October 17,
2006, and for ozone on March 12, 2008. The EPA is finding that the
Federally-approved provisions currently in the Oregon SIP meet the CAA
infrastructure requirements for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006
PM2.5, and the 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA is also finding
that the Federally-approved provisions currently in the Oregon SIP meet
the interstate transport requirements of the CAA related to prevention
of significant deterioration for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and related to
visibility for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. This
action does not approve any additional provisions into the Oregon SIP
but is a finding that the current provisions of the Oregon SIP are
adequate to satisfy the above-mentioned infrastructure elements
required by the CAA.

DATES: This action is effective on September 3, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2011-0884. All documents in the docket are
listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information the disclosure
of which 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 either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at EPA Region 10, Office of Air,
Waste and Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA
98101. The EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kristin Hall at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'',
``us'' or ``our'' are used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Information is organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Response to Comment
III. Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On March 21, 2013, the EPA proposed to approve the September 25,
2008, December 23, 2010, August 17, 2011, and December 19, 2011 SIP
submittals from the State of Oregon to demonstrate that the SIP meets
the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) for the NAAQS
promulgated for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) on July 18,
1997, and October 17, 2006, and for ozone on March 12, 2008 (78 FR
17304). In our March 21, 2013, notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR), we
proposed to approve the SIP submittals and to find that the Federally-
approved provisions currently in the Oregon SIP meet the following CAA
section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 1997
PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and 2008 ozone NAAQS: (A),
(B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We also
proposed to find that the Federally-approved provisions currently in
the Oregon SIP meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
as it applies to prevention of significant deterioration for the 2008
ozone NAAQS, and CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to
visibility for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. An
explanation of the CAA requirements and implementing regulations that
are met by these SIP submittals, a detailed explanation of the
submittals, and the EPA's reasons for approving the submittals and
making the above-described findings were provided in the NPR, and will
not be restated here. The public comment period for this proposed rule
ended on April 22, 2013. The EPA received one comment on the NPR.

II. Response to Comment

    Comment: The commenter stated that ``the Oregon SIP does not
currently contain emission limits and other provisions which ensure
that Oregon will attain and maintain the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,''
and should be disapproved. In support of this conclusion, the commenter
described the potential impact of future PM2.5 emissions
from Coyote Island Terminal, LLC's proposed Morrow Pacific Project in
Oregon. The commenter included an air quality modeling analysis of the
Morrow Pacific Project's potential future ambient PM2.5
impacts, commissioned by the commenter's client. The analysis predicted
that the Morrow Pacific Project will emit PM2.5 in
quantities that will cause violations of the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS. The commenter concluded that ``if the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality issues an air pollution permit to the Coyote
Island terminal, it will demonstrate that the Oregon SIP currently
lacks emission limits and other measures to ensure attainment and
maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.'' The commenter further
stated that ``[s]hould the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
deny the air pollution permit for the Coyote Island coal terminal, then
these comments would no longer be applicable.'' The commenter did not
identify any particular regulatory deficiencies in the Oregon SIP. The
commenter's conclusion that the Oregon SIP should be disapproved is
contingent upon the outcome of a future permitting decision.
    Response: CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that a SIP ``include
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or
techniques . . . as well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as
may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of
this chapter.'' The EPA notes that the commenter did not identify a
specific absence of ``enforceable emission limitations or other control
measures'' necessary to ensure attainment of the PM2.5
NAAQS. Rather, the commenter's conclusion that the Oregon
infrastructure SIP for PM2.5 is deficient is contingent upon
a particular decision being made under the existing SIP-approved
regulations that the commenter anticipates will be applied in the case
of the proposed Morrow Pacific Project, if that project is issued an
air quality permit in the future.
    The EPA disagrees with the commenter's conclusion that the Oregon
SIP must, or can be disapproved contingent upon a particular,
potential, future permitting decision. Rather, our analysis of the
Oregon SIP as discussed in the NPR, set forth the EPA's basis for
concluding that the current Federally-approved Oregon SIP meets the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for purposes of the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. In our analysis we stated that the State of
Oregon generally regulates emissions of PM2.5 and
PM2.5 precursors through its SIP-approved New Source Review
(NSR) permitting programs, in addition to other rules and control
programs. The EPA most recently approved revisions to the State's major
and minor NSR permitting programs on December 27, 2011 (76 FR 80747),
to regulate direct PM2.5 emissions, in addition to nitrogen
oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) as
precursors to PM2.5. In addition to the State's NSR
permitting regulations, the State's approved SIP contains rules that
establish various controls on emissions of particulate matter,
NOX, and SO2. These regulations address
operational and work practice standards, fuel burning equipment and
fuel sulfur content, grain loading, specific industry sectors, motor
vehicle pollution, industrial emission management, residential wood
heating, field burning, and banking of emission reduction credits.
    As described above, the comment focused on the Coyote Island
Terminal, LLC's proposed Morrow Pacific Project, asserting that if
permitted, the source would, in the future, emit PM2.5 in
quantities that would violate the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Because
the source in question is a new source which has not yet been permitted
and is not currently operating, the comment does not provide a basis
for finding that the SIP lacks emission limitations and other control
measures necessary to support a disapproval of the State's
infrastructure SIP submission.
    The EPA finds that Oregon's SIP contains ``emission limits and
other control measures'' that are appropriate to ensure attainment of
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Under the provisions of Oregon's
Federally-approved SIP, owners and operators of new and modified major
sources must satisfy the requirements of Oregon's Federally-approved
major NSR program set forth at Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 340-
224 ``Major New Source Review.'' Oregon's major NSR program includes
requirements for new and modified major sources located in attainment
and unclassifiable areas (OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>) and nonattainment areas
(OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>). Oregon's minor NSR program set forth at OAR 340-216
``Air Contaminant Discharge Permits'' includes requirements for minor
sources located in attainment, unclassifiable, and nonattainment areas
and requires that increases in emissions from any new or modified
source not cause or contribute to violations of ambient standards or
applicable PSD increments. Oregon's Federally-approved major and minor
NSR permitting programs regulate and control emissions from new and
modified sources of regulated pollutants, including PM2.5
and NOX and SO2 as precursors.
    The commenter's conclusion that ``if the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality issues an air pollution permit to the Coyote
Island terminal, it will demonstrate that the Oregon SIP currently
lacks emission limits and other measures to ensure attainment and
maintenance of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS'' fails to account for
the State's Federally-approved NSR permitting programs and the
requirements that owners and operators must satisfy prior to obtaining
a permit. A finding related to the legal adequacy of this SIP cannot be
based solely on the outcome of this particular potential permitting
action, as the commenter proffers.
    The EPA believes the current, Federally-approved Oregon SIP
includes enforceable emission limitations and other control measures,
means, or techniques to attain and maintain the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, and therefore, is taking final action to find that the Oregon
SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.

III. Action

    The EPA has determined that the September 25, 2008, December 23,
2010, August 17, 2011, and December 19, 2011, SIP submittals from the
State of Oregon are consistent with the requirements of section 110 of
the CAA. Therefore, the EPA is approving the SIP submittals from the
State of Oregon to demonstrate that the SIP meets the infrastructure
requirements of the CAA for the NAAQS promulgated for PM2.5
on July 18, 1997, and October 17, 2006, and for ozone on March 12,
2008. The EPA is finding that the Federally-approved provisions
currently in the Oregon SIP meet the following CAA section 110(a)(2)
infrastructure elements for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006
PM2.5, and the 2008 ozone NAAQS: (A), (B), (C), (D)(ii),
(E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). The EPA is also finding
that the Federally-approved provisions currently in the Oregon SIP meet
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to
prevention of significant deterioration for the 2008 ozone

NAAQS, and CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to visibility
for the 2006 PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS. This action is
being taken under section 110 of the CAA.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, 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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves the state's law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by the state's 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 CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule 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
Oregon, and the EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 30, 2013. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, and
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: July 19, 2013.
Michelle Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart MM--Oregon

0
2. Section 52.1991 is amended by redesignating the undesignated text as
paragraph (a), and by adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1991  Section 110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) On September 25, 2008, December 23, 2010, August 17, 2011, and
December 19, 2011, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
submitted SIP revisions to address the requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5,
and 2008 ozone NAAQS. The EPA approves the submittals as meeting the
following CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 1997
PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, and the 2008 ozone NAAQS: (A),
(B), (C), (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). The EPA
also approves the submittals as meeting the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to prevention of significant
deterioration for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) as it applies to visibility for the 2006
PM2.5 and 2008 ozone NAAQS.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-18314 Filed 7-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 177)]
[Notices]
[Page 47248-47249]
[DOCID:fr15se09-78]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 4542-013]

Boston Felt Company, Inc.; Notice of Revocation of Exemption by
Implied Surrender and Soliciting Comments, Protests, and Motions To
Intervene

September 8, 2009.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric proceeding has been
initiated by the Commission:
    a. Type of Proceeding: Revocation of exemption by implied
surrender.
    b. Project No.: 4542-013.
    c. Date Initiated: September 4, 2009.
    d. Exemptee: The exemptee is Bacon Felt Company, Inc.
    e. Name and Location of Project: The constructed 150-kilowatt
Boston Felt Project is located on the Salmon Falls River in Strafford
County, New Hampshire.
    f. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 4.106.
    g. Exemptee Contact Information: Mr. Howard A. Greenlaw, Bacon Felt
Company, Inc., P.O. Box 6258, 31 Front Street, East Rochester, NH
03868-6258.
    h. FERC Contact: Tom Papsidero,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: October 8, 2009.
    Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov)
under the ``e-filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    All documents (original and eight copies) filed by paper should be
sent to: Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number
(P-4542-013) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
interveners filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervener files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy
of any motion to intervene must also be served upon each representative
of the Applicant specified in the particular application.
    j. Description of Existing Facilities: The inoperative project
consists of the following existing facilities: (1) A 150-foot-long and
10-foot-high wooden frame dam, which was breached by high flows which
carried away a 30-foot-wide by 6-foot-deep section of the dam; (2) a
forebay and trashracks; (3) a 56-inch-diameter and 7-foot-long
penstock; (4) a concrete powerhouse with an installed capacity of 150
kW; (5) a 150-foot-long transmission line; and (6) other appurtenances.
    k. Description of Proceeding: The exemptee is currently in
violation of Standard Article 2 of its exemption granted on August 29,
1983 (24 FERC ] 62,240). 18 CFR 4.106 of the Commission's regulations
provides, among other things, that the Commission reserves the right to
revoke an exemption if any term or condition of the exemption is
violated.
    Standard Article 2 of the project exemption requires the exemptee
to comply with any terms and conditions that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service, and any state
fish and wildlife agencies have determined are appropriate to prevent
loss of, or damage to, fish or wildlife resources or otherwise to carry
out the purposes of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. To date,
the exemptee has neither restored the project to operability nor
complied with the directive of FWS to implement fish passage measures
at the project.

Background

    The Boston Felt Project was granted an exemption from licensing on
August 29, 1983 (24 FERC ] 62,240). The project stopped operations in
May 2006, due to a breach of the project dam by high river flows.
    By letter of October 12, 2007, the Commission issued a letter to
the exemptee directing it to file either a detailed plan and schedule
to resume generation at the project, or a request to surrender the
exemption. In response, the exemptee filed a plan and schedule on April
28, 2008.
    By letter of July 3, 2008, the Commission directed the exemptee to
provide quarterly progress reports of the status of project repairs to
include documentation of contracts issued, permits obtained, agreements
made, etc., which were to be filed October 1, 2008, January 1, 2009,
April 1, 2009, July 1, 2009, and October 1, 2009, or until the project
had resumed generation. In that letter, the exemptee was reminded that
failure to provide progress reports showing adequate progress may
subject it to further compliance action.
    By letter dated January 21, 2009, the FWS stated that, as a result
of the Boston Felt Project being in a state of disrepair, the project
was adversely impacting fish and wildlife resources of the Salmon Falls
River and cited the need to implement fish passage measures, pursuant
to the mandatory terms and conditions of the exemption. In its letter,
the FWS further stated that it is in the public interest to revoke the
project exemption and require removal of the remaining portion of the
dam spillway.
    By letter of March 5, 2009, the Commission issued a letter to the
exemptee requiring it to show cause why the Commission should not
initiate proceedings to revoke its exemption for lack of adequate
progress toward the resumption of generation at the project. In that
letter, the Commission directed the exemptee to include documentation
of contracts issued, permits obtained, agreements made, etc., to
demonstrate adequate progress. In its response filed March 31, 2009,
the exemptee stated that resumption of generation at the project may be
beyond their available resources and further stated that, by August 1,
2009, it would provide the detailed information requested in the
Commission's March 5, 2009.
    To date, the information requested in the Commission's March 5,
2009 letter, has not been filed and the project remains inoperative.
    l. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date.
    m. Any filings must bear in all capital letters the title
``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable,
and the Project Number to which the filing refers.
    n. Agency Comments: Federal, State, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described proceeding. If an agency does not
file comments within the time specified for filing comments, it will be
presumed to have no comments.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22101 Filed 9-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 3545]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1206]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Receipt of Noise Compatibility Program and Request for Review for
Philadelphia International Airport, Philadelphia, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces that it is
reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program that was submitted for
Philadelphia International Airport under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.
47504 (the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act, hereinafter
referred to as ``the Act'') and 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Part 150 (hereinafter referred to as ``Part 150'') by the City of
Philadelphia. This program was submitted subsequent to a determination
by FAA that associated noise exposure maps submitted under Part 150 for
Philadelphia International Airport were in compliance with applicable
requirements, effective June 1, 2010, and published in the Federal
Register at 75 FR 44046 (July 27, 2010). The proposed noise
compatibility program will be approved or disapproved on or before July
17, 2012.

DATES: Effective Date: The effective date of the start of FAA's review
of this noise compatibility program is January 20, 2012. The public
comment period ends March 19, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan L. McDonald, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Harrisburg
Airports District Office, 3905 Hartzdale Drive, Suite 508, Camp Hill,
PA 17011, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Comments on the proposed noise compatibility program should also be
submitted to the above office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice announces that the FAA is
reviewing the proposed noise compatibility program for the Philadelphia
International Airport, Philadelphia, PA, which will be approved or
disapproved on or before July 17, 2012. This notice also announces the
availability of the program for public review and comment directly to
the FAA.
    An airport operator who has submitted noise exposure maps that are
found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Part 150,
promulgated pursuant to the Act, may submit a noise compatibility
program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures the operator has
taken or proposes to reduce existing non-compatible uses and prevent
the introduction of additional non-compatible uses.
    The FAA has formally received the proposed noise compatibility
program for the Philadelphia International Airport, effective on
January 20, 2012. The airport operator has requested that the FAA
review this material and that the noise mitigation measure, to be
implemented jointly by the airport, be approved as a noise
compatibility program under Section 47504 of the Act.
    Preliminary review of the submitted material indicates that it
conforms to Part 150 requirements for the submittal of noise
compatibility programs, but that further review will be necessary prior
to approval or disapproval of the program. The formal review period,
limited by law to a maximum of 180 days, will be completed on or before
July 17, 2012. The FAA's detailed evaluation will be conducted under
the provisions of Section 150.33 of Part 150. The primary
considerations in the evaluation process are whether the proposed
measure may reduce the level of aviation safety or create an undue
burden on interstate or foreign commerce, and whether it is reasonably
consistent with obtaining the goal of reducing existing non-compatible
land uses and preventing the introduction of additional non-compatible
land uses.
    Interested persons are invited to comment on the proposed noise
compatibility program, with specific reference to these factors. All
comments relating to these factors, other than those properly addressed
to local land use authorities, will be considered by the FAA to the
extent practicable. Copies of the noise exposure maps and the proposed
noise compatibility program are available for examination by
appointment at the following locations:
    Philadelphia International Airport, Office of the Noise Abatement
Program Manager, located at 2801 Island Avenue, Suite 13, Philadelphia,
PA 19153, Monday-Friday 8 a.m.-4 p.m., and Federal Aviation
Administration, Harrisburg Airports District Office, 3905 Hartzdale
Drive, Suite 508, Camp Hill, PA 17011, Monday 8 a.m.-4:30 p.m.
    Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the
heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, January 13, 2012.
Lori K. Pagnanelli,
Manager, Harrisburg Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2012-1206 Filed 1-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 70 (Thursday, April 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21661-21663]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08487]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69320; File No. SR-MIAX-2013-13]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Establish an Administrative Information
Subscriber (AIS) and AIS Port Fees

April 5, 2013.
    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice
is hereby given that on March 25, 2013, Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a proposed rule change as
described in Items I, II, and III 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

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to add a new category of MIAX
participant, an Administrative Information Subscriber, as defined
below, and to establish testing and AIS Port Fees for such new
participants who wish to receive administrative information (described
more fully below) via connectivity with the MIAX System. The Exchange
also proposes technical amendments to the Fee Schedule as described
below.
    While changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal are
effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated these changes to be
operative on April 1, 2013.
    The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5. The
text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.miaxoptions.com/filter/wotitle/rule_filing, at
MIAX's principal office, 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, the Exchange 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 Change

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the MIAX
Options Fee Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to add a new category of
MIAX participant, an Administrative Information Subscriber (``AIS''),
as defined below, and to establish testing and AIS Port Fees for such
new participants who wish to receive administrative information
(described more fully below) via connectivity with the MIAX System.
    Concurrently with the instant proposal, the Exchange filed a
proposed rule change to establish fees for distributors of the MIAX Top
of Market data product (``ToM'').\3\ ToM provides distributors with a
direct data feed that includes the Exchange's best bid and offer, with
aggregate size, and last sale information, based on displayable order
and quoting interest on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See SR-MIAX-2013-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to MIAX's best bid and offer, with aggregate size and
last sale information, distributors that subscribe to ToM also receive:
opening imbalance condition information; opening routing information;
Expanded Quote Range \4\ information, as provided in MIAX Rule
503(f)(5); Post-Halt Notification,\5\ as provided in MIAX Rule 504(d);
and Liquidity Refresh \6\ condition

information, as provided in MIAX Rule 515(c)(1)(iii)(A). This
additional information (the ``administrative information'') is included
in the ToM feed and is not top of market information. The
administrative information is also currently available to MIAX Market
Makers via connectivity with the MIAX Express Interface (``MEI''),\7\
for which they are assessed connectivity fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Where there is an imbalance at the price at which the
maximum number of contracts can trade that is also at or within the
highest valid width quote bid and lowest valid width quote offer,
the System will calculate an Expanded Quote Range (``EQR''). The EQR
will be recalculated any time a Route Timer or Imbalance Timer
expires if material conditions of the market (imbalance size, ABBO
price or size, liquidity price or size, etc.) have changed during
the timer. Once calculated, the EQR will represent the limits of the
range in which transactions may occur during the opening process.
See Exchange Rule 503(f)(5).
    \5\ After the Exchange has determined to end a trading system
halt, the System will broadcast to subscribers of the Exchange's
data feeds, a Post-Halt Notification. See Exchange Rule 504(d).
    \6\ If a Market Maker quote was all or part of the MIAX Best Bid
or Offer (``MBBO'') and the Market Maker's quote was exhausted by
the partial execution of the initiating order, the System will pause
the market for a time period not to exceed one second to allow
additional orders or quotes refreshing the liquidity at the MBBO to
be received (``liquidity refresh pause''). See Exchange Rule
515(c)(1)(iii)(A).
    \7\ An MEI Port provides a Market Maker with the connectivity
necessary to submit electronic quotes to the MIAX System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to accommodate those who wish to receive the
administrative information but who do not wish to subscribe to the ToM
product or register as a MIAX Market Maker, the Exchange will make the
administrative information available to any participant via
connectivity with an AIS Port, as described below.
AIS
    An AIS is a market participant that connects with the MIAX System
for purposes of receiving the administrative information described
above. Thus, an AIS that elects not to receive the top of market data
through a subscription to ToM or act as a MIAX Market Maker will be
able receive [sic] the administrative information via connectivity to
the MIAX System through an AIS Port.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ An AIS Port provides an AIS with the connectivity necessary
to receive the administrative information from the MIAX System.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

API Testing and Certification Fee
    An AIS, whether a MIAX Member or non-Member, will be assessed a
one-time Application Programming Interface (``API'') Testing and
Certification fee of $1,000.00. An API makes it possible for Member or
non-Member software to communicate with Exchange software applications,
and is subject to Member testing with, and certification by, the
Exchange. The fee represents costs incurred by the Exchange as it works
with each Member while testing and certifying that the Member's
software systems communicate properly with MIAX.
    The Exchange proposes a lower API Testing and Certification Fee for
an AIS than that which is already in place for other participants such
as Third Party Vendors and Market Makers who are subscribers of MIAX's
market and other data feeds. The higher fee charged to such
participants reflects the greater amount of time spent by MIAX
employees testing and certifying them due to the additional testing
complexity of those feeds or configurations. Also, because third party
vendors are redistributing data and reselling services to other market
participants, the number and types of scenarios that need to be tested
are more numerous and complex than those tested and certified for an
AIS. Therefore, the Exchange believes that the proposed $1,000 API
Testing and Certification Fee for an AIS is reasonable and not unfairly
discriminatory.
Monthly System Connectivity Fees
    MIAX will assess a monthly Network Connectivity Fee of $1,000.00
for a one Gigabit connection, and $5,000.00 for a ten Gigabit
connection to an AIS, whether such AIS is a MIAX Member or non-Member.
Respecting Members, the Exchange charges the same monthly Network
Connectivity Fee to all individual firms, which would include an AIS.
Respecting non-Members, the Exchange charges Service Bureaus \9\ and
Extranet Providers a higher fee of $2,000.00 for a one Gigabit
connection, and $10,000.00 for a ten Gigabit connection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A Service Bureau is a technology provider that offers and
supplies technology and technology services to a trading firm that
does not have its own proprietary system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    MIAX proposes to assess a lower fee to an AIS than to non-Member
Service Bureaus and Extranet Providers to reflect the fact that Service
Bureaus and Extranet Providers serve as conduits to MIAX Members that
do not have their own proprietary systems or do not directly connect to
MIAX. The Service Bureaus and Extranet Providers recover the cost of
the MIAX Network Connectivity fee from their customers, resulting in a
lower overall fee to an AIS.
    The Member Network Connectivity fee will be pro-rated for a new AIS
Member or non-Member connecting to the MIAX System based on the number
of trading days on which the AIS received administrative information by
way of connectivity with MIAX, divided by the total number of trading
days in such month, multiplied by the monthly rate.
Port Fees
    The Exchange will assess monthly AIS Port Fees for the use of AIS
Ports, which provide an AIS with the connectivity necessary to receive
the administrative information from the MIAX System.
    The Exchange will assess monthly AIS Port fees based upon the
number of Exchange matching engines \10\ to which an AIS connects. An
AIS will be allocated two AIS ports for each matching engine they use.
For example, an AIS that wishes to receive administrative information
in just one symbol would require the two AIS ports in a single matching
engine; an AIS wishing to receive the administrative information in all
symbols traded on the Exchange would require the two AIS Ports in each
of the Exchange's matching engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ A ``matching engine'' is a part of the MIAX electronic
system that processes options quotes and trades on a symbol-by-
symbol basis. Some matching engines process option classes with
multiple root symbols, and other matching engines are dedicated to
one single option root symbol (for example, options on SPY are
processed by one single matching engine that is dedicated only to
SPY options). A particular root symbol may only be assigned to a
single designated matching engine. A particular root symbol may not
be assigned to multiple matching engines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange will assess a monthly AIS Port fee of $1,000.00 to an
AIS for the first matching engine on which an AIS has the two ports,
$250.00 each for the second through fifth matching engines on which the
AIS has the two ports, and $125.00 each for the sixth matching engine
and any additional matching engines on which the AIS has the two ports.
    The Exchange proposes to assess lower AIS Port Fees than it
assesses for Market Maker MEI Port Fees because Market Makers will use
the MEI connectivity to submit quotes, whereas an AIS will not. The
higher charge for MEI Port Fees reflects the greater amount of Exchange
infrastructure that will be used by Market Makers in submitting quotes
as compared to the infrastructure needed by an AIS (who will not submit
quotes), and the greater amount of time spent by MIAX employees engaged
in support, maintenance, quality control and other services on behalf
of Market Makers.
Technical Amendments to the Fee Schedule
    The Exchange also proposes a technical amendment to the Fee
Schedule by deleting obsolete provisions stating that monthly FIX, MEI,
fees and MIAX Member Participant Identifier (``MPID'') fees will be in
effect beginning January 1, 2013, and stating that Clearing Trade Drop
Port Fees will be Effective February 1, 2013. The Exchange also
proposes to delete language from the Fee Schedule that states that MEI
Port fees will be capped at $1,000 per month per Market Maker until the
first full calendar month during which the Exchange lists and trades
options overlying at least 100

underlying securities. The January 1, 2013 and February 1, 2013
effective dates are no longer relevant, and the Exchange currently
lists and trades options overlying more than 100 underlying securities,
thus obviating the need for this provision.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \11\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act \12\
in particular, in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees
and other charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An AIS may access the same administrative information as any other
participant that connects with the MIAX System. Currently, MIAX
assesses monthly MEI Port Fees on Market Makers as set forth in the Fee
Schedule. An MEI Port provides a Marker Maker with necessary
connectivity to submit quotes. The Exchange believes that the proposed
testing, connectivity and AIS Port fees to AIS' is reasonable and not
unfairly discriminatory because an AIS will still require connectivity
in order to receive the administrative information, necessitating
Exchange expense for servers, configuration, testing, power,
maintenance, and quality control, among other things, that is incurred
for anyone connecting to the MIAX System.
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed lower monthly AIS
Port Fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because of the
reduced Exchange expense for servers, configuration, testing, power,
maintenance, and quality control that is required for an AIS connecting
to an AIS Port vis-[agrave]-vis Market Makers connecting with the MIAX
System through the MEI Port.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. On the contrary, because an AIS
will only receive administrative information via the AIS Port, and will
not submit competing quotes with MIAX Market Makers or other market
participants, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will
have no effect on competition in the markets.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.\13\ 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. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change 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 Number SR-MIAX-2013-13 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-MIAX-2013-13. 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 Room, 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 also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. 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-MIAX-2013-13 and should be
submitted on or before May 2, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-08487 Filed 4-10-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: December 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 238)]
[Notices]
[Page 75171-75172]
[DOCID:fr10de08-115]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0176; Notice 1]

Adrian Steel Company on Behalf of Commercial Truck and Van,
Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Adrian Steel Company (Adrian), on behalf of Commercial Truck and
Van Equipment, Inc. (CTV) has determined that certain model year 2006-
2008 incomplete vehicles that CTV completed as trucks did not fully
comply with paragraph S4.3 of 49 CFR 571.110, Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110 Tire Selection and Rims for Motor
Vehicles With a GVWR of 4,536 Kilograms (10,000 pounds) or Less. Adrian
has filed an appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), Adrian has petitioned for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    This notice of receipt of Adrian, petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    Affected are approximately 7,761 model years 2006-2008 General
Motors Chevrolet Cargo Uplander GMT201 platform incomplete vehicles
that CTV, acting as the final stage manufacturer, completed as trucks.
CTV completed these vehicles during the period September 1, 2005
through June 4, 2008.
    Paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 110 requires in pertinent part:

    S4.3 Placard. Each vehicle, except for a trailer or incomplete
vehicle, shall show the information specified in S4.3 (a) through
(g), and may show, at the manufacturer's option, the information
specified in S4.3 (h) and (i), on a placard permanently affixed to
the driver's side B-pillar. In each vehicle without a driver's side
B-pillar and with two doors on the driver's side of the vehicle
opening in opposite directions, the placard shall be affixed on the
forward edge of the rear side door. If the above locations do not
permit the affixing of a placard that is legible, visible and
prominent, the placard shall be permanently affixed to the rear edge
of the driver's side door. If this location does not permit the
affixing of a placard that is legible, visible and prominent, the
placard shall be affixed to the inward facing surface of the vehicle
next to the driver's seating position. This information shall be in
the English language and conform in color and format, not including
the border surrounding the entire placard, as shown in the example
set forth in Figure 1 in this standard. At the manufacturer's
option, the information specified in S4.3 (c), (d), and, as
appropriate, (h) and (i) may be shown, alternatively to being shown
on the placard, on a tire inflation pressure label which must
conform in color and format, not including the border surrounding
the entire label, as shown in the example set forth in Figure 2 in
this standard. The label shall be permanently affixed and proximate
to the placard required by this paragraph. The information specified
in S4.3 (e) shall be shown on both the vehicle placard and on the
tire inflation pressure label (if such a label is affixed to provide
the information specified in S4.3 (c), (d), and, as appropriate, (h)
and (i)) may be shown in the format and color scheme set forth in
Figures 1 and 2.
    (a) Vehicle capacity weight expressed as ``The combined weight
of occupants and cargo should never exceed XXX kilograms or XXX
pounds'';
    (b) Designated seated capacity (expressed in terms of total
number of occupants and number of occupants for each front and rear
seat location);
    (c) Vehicle manufacturer's recommended cold tire inflation
pressure for front, rear and spare tires, subject to the limitations
of S4.3.4. For full size spare tires, the statement ``see above''
may, at the Manufacturer's option replace manufacturer's recommended
cold tire inflation pressure. If no spare tire is provided, the word
``none'' must replace the manufacturer's recommended cold tire
inflation pressure.
    (d) Tire size designation, indicated by the headings ``size'' or
``original tire size'' or ``original size,'' and ``spare tire'' or
``spare,'' for the tires installed at the time of the first purchase
for purposes other than resale. For full size spare tires, the
statement ``see above'' may, at the manufacturer's option replace
the tire size designation. If no spare tire is provided, the word
``none'' must replace the tire size designation * * *

    In its petition, Adrian explained that several noncompliances with
FMVSS No. 110 exist due to errors and omissions on the tire and loading
information placard that it affixed to the vehicles. The noncompliances
were identified as:
    1. Paragraph S4.3(a) requires that the vehicle capacity weight be
stated on the vehicle tire and loading information placard in Metric
and English units. The Metric value (646 kg) appears correct but the
English conversion value (5797 lb) is not correct.
    2. Paragraph S4.3(c) requires that the recommended tire inflation
pressures be stated on the vehicle placard for the original tires
including the spare tire, and, by the example in FMVSS No. 110, be
stated in both Metric (KPA) and English (PSI) units. The inflation
pressures on the vehicle tire and loading information placard appear to
be the English value only with no units identified, and no inflation
pressure is provided for the spare tire.
    3. Paragraph S4.3(d) requires the original tire sizes, including
the spare, be stated on the vehicle tire and loading information
placard. It appears that the information in the tire size column is rim
size information. No tire size information is provided for the spare
tire.
    Furthermore, the vehicle certification label required by 49 CFR
Part 567, Certification, requires the vehicle type classification
(e.g., truck, multipurpose passenger vehicle, bus, trailer) to be
specified. The certification labels specify a vehicle type
classification of ``Van'' which is not a classification type recognized
by the agency.
    Summary of why Adrian Steel believes that the identified
noncompliances are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety:
    Adrian Steel believes that the tire and loading information placard
is duplicated by the vehicle certification label (required by 49 CFR
Part 567) because it also provides the appropriate information for an
owner to understand tire inflation pressures, tire size and load
ratings. Specifically:
    1. Paragraph S4.3(a) requires that the vehicle capacity weight be
stated on the vehicle placard in Metric and English units. Although the
English units had been converted incorrectly, the measure was correct
on the tire and loading information placard. Also, the vehicle
certification label identifies the GVWR so that the safe gross vehicle
weight rating is clearly identified.
    2. Paragraph S4.3(c) requires that the recommended tire inflation
pressures be stated on the vehicle placard for the original tires,
stated in both Metric and English units. The inflation pressure of 35
was identified on the tire and loading information placard but the unit
of measure was not included, however, it is included on the vehicle
certification label which is mounted on the vehicle's B pillar adjacent
to the tire and loading information placard. Since the tire inflation
pressure is clearly identified on the Vehicle Certification Label, the
information is available to the owner.

    3. Paragraph S4.3(d) requires that the original tire sizes, be
stated on the vehicle placard. Adrian placed the rim size on the tire
and loading information placard, rather than the tire size. However,
the tire size is clearly identified on the vehicle certification label
along with the rim size. Both tire size and rim size are available to
the owner for the associated vehicle and it would be impossible to
mount a tire on the vehicle using the rim numbers as a tire size.
    4. The vehicle certification label which is mounted on the vehicle
next to the tire and loading information placard contained the correct
English and Metric information for tire size, tire pressure, and GVWR
but had a vehicle type identified as ``van'' rather than ``truck''.
While this classification ``van'' is not recognized by the agency,
Adrian believes that this is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    Adrian stated that its Customer Care Center has never received a
call or communication of any type with regard to the tire and loading
information placard or the vehicle certification label.
    Adrian first became aware of the noncompliance when it was
contacted by NHTSA in response to a vehicle inspection conducted by
NHTSA.
    Adrian also stated that it has corrected the problem that caused
these errors so that they will not be repeated in future production.
    In summation, Adrian states that it believes that the
noncompliances are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety and that no
corrective action is warranted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and
notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted by
any of the following methods:
    a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    b. By hand delivery to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on
weekdays from 10 am to 5 pm except Federal holidays.
    c. Electronically: By logging onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed
to 1-202-493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477-78).
    You may view documents submitted to a docket at the address and
times given above. You may also view the documents on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets available at that Web site.
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Comment closing date: January 9, 2009.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8).

    Issued on: December 4, 2008.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. E8-29192 Filed 12-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P