[Federal Register: October 14, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 198)]
[Notices]
[Page 63173-63175]
[DOCID:fr14oc10-60]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9213-3]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request for Production Outlook Reports for Un-Registered
Renewable Fuel Producers; EPA ICR No. 2409.01

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to
submit a request to for a new Information Collection Request (ICR) to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR affects certain
unregistered renewable fuel producers, who are not required to register
or report under the renewable fuels program (RFS2), to voluntarily
submit the same or similar information contained in a production
outlook report. These producers are most likely in the planning stages,
but expect to begin producing renewable fuels in the next five (5)
calendar years. Participation by respondents is strictly voluntary. EPA
plans to use the existing production outlook report format for
submissions by these parties.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 13, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2005-0161 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Mail: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Fax or Hand Delivery: EPA's Public Reading Room is located
in Room 3334 of the EPA West Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. Docket hours are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. until
4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays. In order to ensure to arrange for
proper fax or hand delivery of materials, please call the Air Docket at
202-566-1742.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2005-0161. EPA's policy is that all comments received 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 information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
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 http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public 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. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne-Marie Pastorkovich, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Regional Programs
Division, Mail Code 6406J, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202)
343-9623; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How can I access the docket and/or submit comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0161. The docket is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, and for in-person viewing at EPA's Public
Reading Room. The Public Reading Room is located in the EPA West
Building, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room 3334, Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time (EST) in its new location, Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Air Docket is
202-566-1742.
    Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a copy of the draft
collection of information, submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once
in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified in this document.

What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c) (2) (A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act,
EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden
of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of
the methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
to be collected; and
    (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What should I consider when I prepare my comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What information collection activity or ICR does this apply to?

    Affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
un-registered renewable fuel producers.
    Title: Production Outlook Reports for Unregistered Renewable Fuel
Producers.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 2409.01.
    ICR status: This is a proposal for a new ICR. The OMB control
numbers for EPA's regulations in Title 40 of the CFR, after appearing
in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR Part 9, are
displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other
appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or
form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA
regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR Part 9.
    Abstract: With this information collection request (ICR) renewal,
we are seeking permission to accept production outlook reports from
domestic and foreign renewable fuel producers who are not currently
regulated parties under the RFS2 program. The respondents for this ICR
are not required to register or report under the RFS2 regulations.
Submission of production outlook information to EPA under this ICR will
be voluntary.
    We believe that many parties would wish to submit this information
in order to receive better assistance in understanding and preparing to
comply with the RFS2 regulations. A typical respondent would be a
renewable fuel producer who is in the process of developing plans for,
or constructing, a renewable fuel production facility or that is
currently opting out of the RFS2 program under 40 CFR 80.1426(c)(3).
Such a respondent would not be required to register or report under
RFS2 because it is not yet producing renewable fuel subject to the
regulation. However, the respondent would likely wish to provide the
information in order to receive feedback from EPA and to aid its
planning for future compliance with the RFS2 regulations and annual
compliance standards.
    Respondents that voluntarily provide the information requested
through this ICR will benefit from doing so. The information that
respondents provide will allow EPA to more accurately project
cellulosic biofuel volumes for the following calendar year, and these
volume projections will form the basis of the percentage standards EPA
sets under the RFS2 program. Without information from these
respondents, EPA's volume projections are more likely to fall below
actual projection volumes. Under such circumstances, supply for
cellulosic biofuel will exceed demand, and the value of cellulosic
biofuel Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) will fall. RINs are
marketable credits that correspond to a given volume of renewable fuel.
Since RIN market price directly affects the economic viability of
cellulosic biofuel production, low RIN prices could present economic
difficulties to producers. Thus, it is in the interests of

these respondents to provide this information to EPA, as doing so could
ensure that the market price of RINs appropriately reflects the value
of their cellulosic biofuel. This information also serves a more
general program purpose, because it will assist EPA in setting the
annual RFS2 standard more accurately.
    We estimate that approximately 35 parties would choose to
participate in this voluntary information collection. The format for
submitting the production outlook information to EPA would follow the
``RFS2 Production Outlook Form, Report Form ID: RFS0900.'' Collection
of reports from regulated parties is covered under the RFS2 ICR, OMB
Control No. 2060-0640 (Expiration Date July 31, 2013). A copy of the
RFS0900 form may be viewed at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/
rfs0900.pdf (instructions to form) and http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/
fuels/rfs0900.xls (form).
    We are requesting that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
approve this ICR and that it be effective three years after approval.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 4
hours per respondent and 4 hours per response. Burden means the total
time, effort, or financial resources expended by a person to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to (or for) a
Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;
to develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for
the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information; to
process and maintain information; to disclose and provide information;
to adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; to train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; to
search data sources; to complete and review the collection of
information; and to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. We
anticipate 35 respondents, submitting one response each.
    The draft supporting statement, which has been placed in the public
docket, contains detailed estimates for this proposed ICR.

Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    This is a proposed, new, voluntary information collection. All the
estimates provided above, and in the supporting statement (which has
been placed in the public docket) are for a new and voluntary
collection of information.

What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: October 6, 2010.
Margo Tsirigotis Oge,
Director, Office of Transportation and Air Quality.
[FR Doc. 2010-25894 Filed 10-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 233 (Tuesday, December 4, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 62658]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26292]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2018-0075]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this provides the public notice that on September 26, 2018, CSX
Transportation (CSX) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal
railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 232, Brake System
Safety Standards for Freight and Other Non-Passenger Trains and
Equipment; End of Train Devices. Specifically, CSX requests relief for
certain trains from the requirements of Sec.  232.205, Class I brake
test-initial terminal inspection, and Sec.  232.207, Class IA brake
tests--1,000-mile inspection. FRA assigned the request docket number
FRA-2018-0075.
    CSX requests an extension of the mileage limits for certain trains
listed in Attachment A of its petition from 1,000 miles, as specified
in Sec. Sec.  232.205 and 232.207, to (up to) 1,052 miles. CSX also
requests that qualified persons (instead of qualified mechanical
inspectors) be allowed to inspect these trains, and that these trains
be allowed to make multiple pick-ups and set-outs. CSX states that
allowing the identified trains to travel up to an additional 52 miles
before completing the Class 1A brake test will not compromise the
safety of CSX operations, does not increase the risk of an accident or
incident, nor jeopardize employees or the general public.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by January 3, 2019 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Robert C. Lauby,
Associate Administrator for Safety Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2018-26292 Filed 12-3-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68556-68557]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28102]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1030; Airspace Docket No. 10-AGL-18]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; La Porte, IN

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at La Porte,
IN, to accommodate new Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP)
for the La Porte Hospital Heliport. The FAA is taking this action to
enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations at the heliport.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before December 23,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2010-1030/Airspace Docket No. 10-
AGL-18, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone: 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2010-1030/
Airspace Docket No. 10-AGL-18.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), part 71 by adding Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface for a new COPTER RNAV (POINT-IN-SPACE) SIAP for
the La Porte Hospital Heliport, La Porte, IN. Controlled airspace is
needed for the safety and management of IFR operations at the heliport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed 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, when promulgated, 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 U.S. 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 I, section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would add controlled airspace for the La Porte Hospital Heliport,
La Porte, IN.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

    1. The authority citation for 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]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9U, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 18,
2010, and effective September 15, 2010, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AGL IN E5 La Porte, IN [Amended]

La Porte Municipal Airport, IN
    (Lat. 41[deg]34[min]21[sec] N., long. 86[deg]44[min]04[sec] W.)
La Porte Hospital Heliport, IN
Point in Space
    (Lat. 41[deg]36[min]11[sec] N., long. 86[deg]44[min]10[sec] W.)
La Porte NDB
    (Lat. 41[deg]29[min]56[sec] N., long. 86[deg]46[min]17[sec] W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.3-mile radius of La Porte Municipal Airport, and within
2.5 miles each side of the 201[deg] bearing from the La Porte NDB
extending from the 7.3-mile radius to 11.4 miles south of the
airport, and within a 6-mile radius of the La Porte Hospital
Heliport Point in Space at lat. 41[deg]29[min]56[sec] N., long.
86[deg]46[min]17'' W.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on October 26, 2010.
Anthony D. Roetzel,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2010-28102 Filed 11-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 77374-77376]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29833]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0759; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-028-AD;
Amendment 39-18052; AD 2014-26-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Alpha Aviation Concept Limited
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for Alpha
Aviation Concept Limited Model R2160 airplanes. This AD results from
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an
aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as paint adherence defects inside the engine air intake box
and cohesion defects inside the laminated ducting from the filter to
the air intake box. We are issuing this AD to require actions to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective January 28, 2015.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in the AD as of January 28,
2015.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0759; or in person at
Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Alpha
Aviation, 59 Hautapu Road, RD 1, Cambridge 3493, New Zealand;
telephone: +64 7 827 0528; fax: +64 7 929 2878; Internet:
www.alphaaviation.co.nz. You may review this referenced service
information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer,
901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816)
329-4123; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to add an AD that would apply to Alpha Aviation Concept Limited
Model R2160 airplanes. The NPRM was published in the Federal Register
on October 2, 2014 (79 FR 59465). The NPRM proposed to correct an
unsafe condition for the specified products and was based on mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country. The MCAI states:

    To prevent loss of engine power due to a possible paint
adherence defect inside the engine air intake box, accomplish the
following:
    Inspect the engine air intake box (including the deflection
flap) and the engine air intake ducting (include the area downstream
of the filter) per Alpha Aviation Service Bulletin No. AA-SB-71-007
dated August 2014 or later approved revisions.
    If any defects are found, replace affected parts per SB No. AA-
SB-71-007 before further flight.

    The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0759-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 59465, October 2,
2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 59465, October 2, 2014) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 59465, October 2, 2014).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 10 products of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S.
operators to be $850, or $85 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take

about 6 work-hours and require parts costing $1,000, for a cost of
$1,510 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
0759; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received,
and other information. The street address for the Docket Office
(telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2014-26-01 Alpha Aviation Concept Limited: Amendment 39-18052;
Docket No. FAA-2014-0759; Directorate Identifier 2014-CE-028-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective January 28,
2015.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Alpha Aviation Concept Limited Model R2160
airplanes, serial numbers 001 to 378, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 73: Engine Fuel
& Control.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as paint adherence
defects inside the engine air intake box and cohesion defects inside
the laminated ducting from the filter to the air intake box. We are
issuing this AD to prevent paint defects from entering the engine
which could cause loss of power.

(f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the actions in paragraphs (f)(1) through
(f)(4) of this AD:
    (1) Within the next 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after
January 28, 2015 (the effective date of this AD) and repetitively
thereafter every 100 hours TIS, inspect any painted engine air
intake box (including the deflection flap) and the air intake
ducting (including the area downstream of the filter) for paint
adherence defects such as peeling, blistering, or bubbling following
Alpha Aviation Service Bulletin (SB) No. AA-SB-71-007, Revision 0,
dated August 2014.
    (2) If any defects are found during the inspection required in
paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further flight, replace the
affected parts with airworthy parts following Alpha Aviation Service
Bulletin No. AA-SB-71-007, Revision 0, dated August 2014.
    (3) As of January 28, 2015 (the effective date of this AD), do
not install a painted engine air intake box or a repaired engine air
duct on any affected airplane.
    (4) The replacement of defective parts is not a terminating
action to the repetitive inspection of painted engine intake
components required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) AD DCA/R2000/25A,
dated August 28, 2014, for related information. The MCAI can be
found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0759-0002.

(i) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Alpha Aviation Service Bulletin (SB) No. AA-SB-71-007,
Revision 0, dated August 2014.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Alpha Aviation Concept Limited service information
identified in this AD, contact Alpha Aviation, 59 Hautapu Road, RD
1, Cambridge 3493, New Zealand; telephone: +64 7 827 0528; fax: +64
7 929 2878; Internet: www.alphaaviation.co.nz.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For

information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 15, 2014.
Earl Lawrence,
Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-29833 Filed 12-23-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 199 (Monday, October 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51978-51979]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22298]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2018-0024; OMB No. 1660-0140]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Integrated Public Alert and Warning Systems (IPAWS)
Memorandum of Agreement Applications

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

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 November 14, 2018.

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 protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Information Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,
email address [email protected] or
Wade Witmer, Deputy for the Integrated Public Alert and Warning System
(IPAWS) Program, FEMA, Continuity Communications Division, (202) 646-
2523, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposed information collection
previously published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2018, at 83 FR
28857 with a 60-day public comment period. FEMA received four comments
that were unrelated to this collection. Public Law 114-143, The IPAWS
Modernization Act of 2015, and Presidential Executive Order 13407
established the policy for an effective, reliable, integrated,
flexible, and comprehensive system to alert and warn the American
people in situations of war, terrorist attack, natural disaster, or
other hazards to public safety and wellbeing. The Integrated Public
Alert and Warning System (IPAWS) is the Department of Homeland
Security's (DHS) response to the Executive Order. The Stafford Act
(U.S.C. Title 42, Chapter 68, Subchapter II) requires that FEMA make
IPAWS available to Federal, State, and local agencies for the purpose
of providing warning to governmental authorities and the civilian
population in areas endangered by disasters. The information collected
is used by FEMA to create a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that
regulates the management, operations, and security of the information
technology system connection between a Federal, State, territorial,
tribal or local alerting authority and IPAWS-OPEN (Open Platform for
Emergency Notifications).

Collection of Information

    Title: Integrated Public Alert and Warning Systems (IPAWS)
Memorandum of Agreement Applications.
    Type of Information Collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0140.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 007-0-25, IPAWS Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
Application; FEMA Form 007-0-26, Memorandum of Agreement Application
for Tribal Governments.
    Abstract: A Federal, State, territorial, tribal, or local alerting
authority that applies for authorization to use IPAWS is designated as
a Collaborative Operating Group or ``COG'' by the IPAWS Program
Management Office (PMO). Access to IPAWS is free; however, to send a
message using IPAWS, an organization must procure its own IPAWS-
compatible software. To become a COG, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
governing system security must be executed between the sponsoring
organization and FEMA.
    Affected Public: State, local, or Tribal governments.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 160.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 160.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 160 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $8,150.40.
    Estimated Respondents' Operation and Maintenance Costs: $0.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $115,890.42.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Maile Arthur,
Acting Records Management Branch Chief, Office of the Chief
Administrative Officer, Mission Support, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2018-22298 Filed 10-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-AB-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 16, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 14851]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05509]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OA-2015-0553; FRL-9663-01-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; CEQ-EPA Presidential Innovation Award for
Environmental Educators and the President's Environmental Youth Awards
Application

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), CEQ-EPA Presidential Innovation
Award for Environmental Educators and the President's Environmental
Youth Awards Application (EPA ICR Number 2524.03, OMB Control Number
2090-0031) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and
approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a
proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through
April 30, 2022. Public comments were previously requested via the
Federal Register on October 18, 2021 during a 60-day comment period.
This notice allows for an additional 30 days for public comments. A
fuller description of the ICR is given below, including its estimated
burden and cost to the public. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and
a person is not required to respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before April 15,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OA-2015-0553, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method)
or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail
Code 2821T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. EPA's
policy is that all comments received will be included in the public
docket without change including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to
be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Javier Araujo, Office of the
Administrator, Office of Environmental Education, MC-1704A,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The purpose of this information collection request is to
collect information from applicants to select recipients for the
Presidential Innovation Award for Environmental Educators (PIAEE)
program and the President's Environmental Youth Awards (PEYA) program.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency), in
conjunction with the White House Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ), established the PIAEE program to meet the requirements of
Section 8(e) of the National Environmental Education Act (20 U.S.C.
5507(e)). The Agency established the PEYA program to meet the
requirements of Section 8(d) of the National Environmental Education
Act (20 U.S.C. 5507(d)).
    Form Numbers: 5900-578, 6500-04.
    Respondents/affected entities: K-12 teachers who teach on a full-
time basis in a public school that is operated by a local education
agency, including schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. For
this program, a local education agency is one as defined by section 198
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (now codified at
20 U.S.C. 7801(26)).
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required to obtain information
from the applicants for PIAEE and PEYA program and assess certain
aspects of programs as established under Section 8(e) of the National
Environmental Education Act (20 U.S.C. 5507(e)) and Section 8(d) of the
National Environmental Education Act (20 U.S.C. 5507(d)) respectively.
    Estimated number of respondents: 75 (total per year) for the PIAEE
program and 250 (total per year) for the PEYA program.
    Frequency of response: Annually.
    Total estimated burden: 3,225 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $116,888 per year, includes $0 capital or
operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 2,475 hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase is due to the addition of the PEYA
application. The individual cost per respondent for internal processing
has also risen, due to increases in labor rate estimates.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-05509 Filed 3-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Products Animal Health and Production, 2001).
CWD is characterized by a progressive loss of body condition and by neurologic changes.
It is believed that the infection is passed between animals via horizontal transmission.  Most of
the animals dying naturally from the disease are between the ages two and seven years.

Section 2
-
25 -
Polymorphism in the PrP gene in elk has been associated with changes in the susceptibility to
infection (O'Rourke et al., 1999).  Extensive nationwide surveillance started in 1997 in an effort
to better understand the geographic location and magnitude of the problem (USDA-APHIS,
2000a).
A small number of deer are commercially slaughtered for human consumption every year
(USDA-FSIS, 1998).  These animals are usually younger than 1.6 years and are not likely to be
recycled into ruminant feed (L Floyd, personal communication).  Hunters often process the
cervids they kill themselves or use local butchers. In these cases, high-risk materials may be
further processed at a prohibited rendering facility.  Game deer are fed with protein supplements
that contain small amounts of vegetable supplemental protein (L Floyd, personal
communication).
Although CWD has been transmitted to cattle via i.c. inoculation, transmission by natural
routes to cattle is very unlikely to occur (Hamir et al., 2001).  For example, cattle orally
inoculated with CWD infected brains have not shown any evidence of infection (Beth Williams,
personal communication).  In vitro experiments investing the conversion of bovine PrP by
c
PrP
CWD
suggest evidence of a molecular barrier limiting the susceptibility of cattle (Raymond et
al., 2000).  Moreover, even if CWD could be transmitted to cattle, it is not clear it could cause
BSE. For example, preliminary analysis of intracerebral inoculation of cattle with CWD revealed
no typical TSE lesions in brain but did reveal the presence of PrP
sc
by immunuhistochemistry,
Western Blot, and electron microscopy in three animals 22-27 months post-inoculation (Hamir et
al., 2001).
Even if CWD exposure can cause BSE, it is likely that the species barrier is substantial.
In vitro assays have suggested that homology between an infectious and endogenous PrP
molecule influences the rate and likelihood of conversion from PrP to PrP , allowing the TSE
c
sc
disease to develop in the host (Priola et al., 1994).  In vitro studies have also shown differences
between bovine PrP and PrP
CWD
and these differences may represent a substantial species barrier.
For example, Raymond et al. (Raymond et al., 2000) reported that the cell-free conversion
efficiency between bovine PrP and PrP
c
CWD
is between five and twelve orders of magnitude
weaker than inter-cervid transmission.  This finding suggests that the species barrier may be
between 10 and 10
5
12
(Raymond et al., 2000).

Section 2
-
26 -
Ascertaining the potential risk posed by oral exposure to CWD is further complicated by
the following sources of uncertainty.  First, there are no accurate statistics documenting the
number or type of deer and elk killed by hunters.  Second, the type of deer and elk that can be
hunted in different geographic areas varies.  Third, the disposition of deer and elk remains after
slaughter is uncertain.  Finally, the prevalence of the disease in all but the highest risk areas is
unknown.
2.3.5
Chronic Wasting Disease:  Lateral Transmission
Direct contact between cattle and cervids in regions where CWD is prevalent may
provide another pathway by which cattle may become infected.  Epidemiologic modeling
suggests that among cervids, environmental contact provides a pathway for the spread of CWD
(Miller et al., 2000).  Moreover, the prevalence of the disease under experimental conditions
appears to be extraordinarily high.  For instance, when deer within the endemic research facilities
have been introduced into CWD negative deer herds, the disease quickly reaches a prevalence of
50% and 60% (Food and Drug Administration, 2001a).
Nonetheless, there is no evidence that CWD can cause TSEs in cattle.  As noted in
Section 2.3.4, any such transmission would be limited by what appears to be a substantial species
barrier.  Moreover, cattle cohabiting with CWD infected deer and elk in a research facility in the
endemic area have shown no evidence of infection (Beth Williams personal communication).
Finally, targeted surveillance of cattle brains (by immunohistochemistry and histopathology)
from endemic areas have failed to reveal the presence of CWD or any other TSEs (Daniel Gould,
personal communication; James Voss, personal communication, (Gould, 2000)).
2.3.6 Mink
Transmissible Mink Encephalopathy (TME) is a rare disease known to occur only in
farm-raised mink.  Epidemiological studies have suggested that TME is a foodborne disease with
an incubation period of between seven months and a year (Hartsough and Burger, 1965).  The
disease is characterized by a long incubation period, a clinical course of several weeks, and
neurological changes.  Mink experience increased aggressiveness, hyperexitability, ataxia, and
hyperaesthesia.  Cases in Wisconsin and Minnesota were recognized on mink ranches as early as
1947.  Outbreaks have been reported in Ohio, Canada, Finland, Germany, and Russia.  Five
outbreaks have been recorded in the U.S., affecting a total of 23 mink ranches (Hartsough and

Section 2
-
27 -
Burger, 1965, Hadlow et al., 1987, Marsh et al., 1991).  Three of the outbreaks in Wisconsin were
associated with the use of fallen or sick cattle in mink feed (Hartsough and Burger, 1965, Marsh
et al., 1991).  However, there is no consensus over the source of disease initiating these
outbreaks.  The rancher involved in the Stetsonville, Wisconsin outbreak claimed that his mink
were fed only dead stock and that they were never fed sheep.
In theory, transmission of TME to a bovine could cause BSE. Inoculation of cattle with
TME via i.c. administration resulted in spongiform encephalopathy a short time later (Marsh et
al., 1991, Robinson et al., 1995).  In addition, cattle passage of TME remains pathogenic to mink
when administered either orally or via i.c. (Marsh et al., 1991).  According to Marsh, these results
suggest that the species barrier between mink and cattle may not be substantial.  To protect
against the possibility that TME might be transmitted to cattle, the FDA prohibits use of mink
protein in ruminant feed.  Mink are considered prohibited materials.  The relatively small number
of farmed mink, their small size, and recycling prohibitions make transmission of a prion disease
from mink to cattle extremely unlikely.
2.3.7 Pigs
There is a theoretical risk that cattle could be exposed to a TSE as the result of
consuming feed supplemented with porcine-derived protein.  Moreover, the fact that federal
regulations classify protein from pigs as non-prohibited increases the potential for cattle to be
exposed to any infectivity they may harbor.
There are two potential sources of this exposure: a natural TSE that infects pigs (Section
<IP_ADDRESS>), and BSE-contaminated feed in the gut at the time the pig is slaughtered (Section <IP_ADDRESS>).
In practice, neither infectivity source will make a substantial contribution to cattle exposure
because only a small portion of porcine-derived MBM is used as cattle feed.  One reason for the
limited use of porcine-derived protein in cattle feed derives in part from its price.  For example, in
May, 2001, the price of porcine-derived protein was $238/ton, compared to $177/ton for soy
protein (Southern States Cooperative, 2001).  In addition, much rendered porcine protein is used
in feed for pigs

Section 2
-
28 -
The remainder of this section outlines additional factors that influence the importance of
this potential source of TSE exposure among cattle.  Because these sources are unlikely to be
significant, we do not address it quantitatively in our risk assessment (Section 3).
<IP_ADDRESS>  Potential Infectivity in Pigs due to TSE Infection
Pigs might become infected with a TSE as the result of any of the following possibilities:
•
The existence of a porcine-specific TSE agent;
•
A nonspecific TSE agent not yet adapted to pigs that has an incubation period
that is longer than the life of the pig; or
•
The spontaneous misfolding of the prion protein leading to a spontaneous TSE
case in porcine.
Consumer groups in the U.S. have expressed concern that it may be possible for a pig to
become infected with a TSE.  This concern stems from a 1979 incident in which one of 60 pigs
presented with clinical neurologic signs, neurological degeneration, and gliosis on
histopatological examination (Hansen, 1999).  However, further testing showed that the lesions
were not patognomonic of spongiform encephalopathy (Linda Detwiler, personal
communication).  Moreover, the animal in question was young, a factor that is inconsistent with
the TSE diagnosis.  SSC (SSC, 1999b) concluded that these factors argue against the presence of
an unrecognized spongiform encephalopathy in pigs in the U.S.
Other evidence also suggests that the existence of a porcine-specific TSE agent is
unlikely. No naturally occurring TSE has ever been reported in pigs (MAFF, 2000b).  Moreover,
pigs inoculated orally with BSE have not developed disease (MAFF, 2000b).  Experimental
inoculation of pigs with different strains of Kuru via parenteral administration did not lead to
spongiform encephalopathy 52 to 76 months post inoculation (Gibbs et al., 1979).  A similar
result was reported for pigs challenged with scrapie (SSC, 1999b) up to 63 months after
inoculation.  Pigs have also been challenged with brain material from cattle naturally infected
with BSE by combined i.c., i.p., and i.v. routes (Dawson et al., 1990).  This experiment is still
ongoing but preliminary results show that seven of ten pigs developed spongiform
encephalopathy (Ryder et al., 2000).

Section 2
-
29 -
In an ongoing experiment in which ten pigs were subject to oral challenge with large
amounts of brain from cattle naturally infected with BSE, none of the animals have developed
clinical disease or neuropathologic changes.  The oral challenge consisted of homogenized brain
from confirmed cases of BSE.  Each pig received a dose of 1.2kg of brain divided into three doses
at intervals of one week.  Mouse bioassays of neural and non-neural tissues from pigs killed at 84
months post inoculation were initiated in October and November, 1997 and were completed in
May, 2000.  As of the drafting of this report, there is no evidence of residual infectivity in any of
the tissues.  These findings may indicate that the species barrier between pigs and cattle is higher
than the species barrier between cattle and humans or between cattle and other animals that have
developed spongiform encephalopathy after exposure to BSE-contaminated MBM.
The fact that a naturally occurring spongiform encephalopathy has never been reported in
pigs may indicate that pigs are particularly resistant to this type of disease.  That is, the species
barrier between pigs and other species may have prevented the transmission of natural disease to
pigs.  For example, it is very likely that pigs in the UK were exposed to substantial doses of
contaminated MBM before the implementation of the feed ban.  Although most pigs are
slaughtered at a very young age, there are a significant number of sows and boars that usually live
until age four.  The fact that parenterally challenged animals developed disease 17 months post
inoculation suggests that these four year old animals were sufficiently old to develop disease.
Other species serve as examples.  Marsh et al. (Marsh et al., 1969) noted the recovery of TME
from the spleen of one chicken, and from spleen, caecom, tonsils, and bursa of Fabricius after i.v.
inoculation.  Race and Chesebro (Race and Chesebro, 1998), have shown that after inoculation of
mice that either did or did not express the prion protein (PrP) gene with the hamster scrapie strain
263K, no clinical disease was produced in mice.  However, infectivity found in the brain and
spleen of mice expressing the prion protein was capable of causing disease in hamsters but not in
mice.  Hill et al. (Hill et al., 2000), have shown the possible presence of subclinical TSE in
certain animals by demonstrating that a strain of hamster prions thought to be nonpathogenic for
conventional mice leads to high levels of prion replication in such mice without causing clinical
disease.  Alternatively, it is possible that cases in pigs in the UK have gone unnoticed.
Finally, even if pigs could become infected with a TSE, most are slaughtered at a young
age, making it unlikely that the disease would have time to generate more than a small amount of
infectivity.  For example, in 1998, more than 95% of the pigs slaughtered in the U.S. were no
older than six months (USDA-FSIS, 1998).

Section 2
-
30 -
<IP_ADDRESS>  Potential Infectivity in Materials Consumed by Pigs
Even if pigs do not become infected with a TSE, contaminated material may be present in
their digestive tract when they die.  In particular, if feed administered to pigs contains cattle-
derived MBM that is contaminated with BSE, pigs could harbor BSE in their alimentary tract.
The following discussion outlines several factors suggesting that the potential is limited for BSE
to be recycled through the guts of pigs.
First, most pigs are not exposed to cattle-derived MBM because there are many other
economical sources of protein.  For example, in the U.S., soybean meal is usually the most
economical source of high quality protein available for porcine diets.  It is comparable to animal
proteins in terms of the quality of its amino acid components and can be used as the only protein
source in most swine diets.  Other sources of proteins fed to pigs include porcine MBM, peanut
meal, fish meal, cottonseed meal, canola meal, sunflower meal, and raw soy beans.  The amount
of protein added to feed varies based on the specific needs of the animal as it grows.  MBM,
blood meal, and plasma can comprise between 2.5 and 5 percent of feed for pigs between
weaning and 60 days of age and during the animal’s growing and finishing stages.  Because it is
not uniformly used, it is likely that approximately 80% of the pigs grown in the United States
never receive MBM.
Second, even among pigs that do receive cattle-derived MBM, it is likely that little if any
feed would remain in the GI system at the time of processing because pigs are usually sent to
slaughter after restricting feed intake for 14 to 16 hours.
Third, due to the high water content of the GI tract, contents are unlikely to be rendered.
Finally, if the gut contents are rendered, any BSE-contaminated material that does make
its way back to cattle will have gone through rendering twice, thus providing an additional
opportunity for infectivity to be destroyed by this treatment.

Section 2
-
31 -
2.3.8 Poultry
Many of the same factors that make pigs an unlikely source of infectivity for cattle also
make chickens an unlikely source.  As a result, we do not quantitatively address this source in our
risk assessment (Section 3).
As is the case with pigs, experimental data do not support the existence of a poultry-
specific TSE.  Experiments have subjected chickens to TSE challenge via both the parenteral and
oral administration routes.  The chickens challenged orally received five grams of brain from
cattle confirmed to have BSE on three occasions at four, five, and six weeks of age.  The chickens
challenged i.c. received 50l of a 10% saline suspension of brainstem material from these cattle
at 1 day after birth and one ml at two weeks after birth.  No evidence of transmissible
encephalopathy was found (MAFF, 2000b). In addition, there is no evidence to date of residual
infectivity in any tissue (Linda Detwiler, personal communication).  Even if there were a poultry-
specific TSE, the fact that chickens are typically slaughtered at an early age makes it unlikely that
a prion disease would have time to develop.
Although chickens themselves appear to pose no substantial risk to cattle of exposure to a
TSE, the use of chicken litter as a feed supplement could pose a risk (Public Citizen, 2001) that
should be investigated further.  It is possible that cattle-derived protein feed supplements
administered to chicken could contain BSE infectivity, and that BSE infectivity could pass
through chicken and become available in cattle feed supplemented with chicken litter.
2.3.9 Recycled Products
Several products that can be used in ruminant rations have the potential of harboring
infectivity.  The FDA does not exclude from ruminant feed the following products derived from
mammals:
•
Plate waste:  Inspected and processed meat products that have been cooked and
offered for human consumption and further heat processed for feed (such as plate
waste and used cellulosic food casings);
•
Gelatin,
•
Milk products (milk and milk proteins),
•
Blood and blood products,

Section 2
-
32 -
•
Tallow, grease, fat, oil
•
Aminoacids, dicalcium phospahate, and
•
Mammalian protein, which consists entirely of porcine or equine protein.
<IP_ADDRESS> Plate Waste
Plate waste is defined to be food products that have been inspected by the FSIS or an
equivalent state agency, cooked, and presented for human consumption.  Plate waste often comes
from large institutions, such as amusement parks or hotels.  It consists of food items that have
been cooked and presented for human consumption.  Plate waste can undergo any of the
following heat treatments:  conventional rendering, extrusion and cooking at 212  F for 30
o
minutes (Swine Health Protection Act), pelleting at either 190  F (internal temperature), or
o
pelleting at temperatures similar to those of conventional rendering.  This additional treatment
using high temperature and pressure may further reduce the amount of infectivity that might be in
this material.
There are approximately half a dozen processors of plate waste in the United States.  The
final product competes with grains in the formulation of feed, although at this time, it is not a
cost-effective option because of the high processing costs.
Bakery products comprise approximately 90% of all plate waste going to animal feed.
The remainder consists of eggs, dairy products, fish and other products of animal origin.
Therefore, plate waste consists mostly of non-meat products (Food and Drug Administration,
1997).  Because plate waste is high in moisture content, vegetable proteins must be added (50%
to 60%), and it must undergo further processing to aid the dehydration and extrusion process.
The best estimate is that plate waste consists of between two and four percent bovine tissue.
APHIS has expressed concern that plate waste could contain infective tissue, such as brain and
spinal cord (Food and Drug Administration, 1997), but such tissues are unlikely to be present in
any substantial quantity in plate waste.
We assume that high risk tissues (i.e., brain) are extremely unlikely to be included in
plate waste. Plate waste might contain on occasion spinal cord contamination or spinal cord in a
T-bone steak.  Because T-bone steaks originate from younger cattle, the likelihood of carrying
infectivity at the time of slaughter is extremely low. In addition, spinal cord is unlikely to be

Section 2
-
33 -
included in the product (Food and Drug Administration, 1997) because T-Bone steaks are
unlikely to be included in plate waste.
In conclusion, current practices make the amount of infectivity in plate waste to which
cattle could be exposed very small.  Plate waste consists of little mammalian protein, and the
tissues that are included in this waste are unlikely to contain BSE infectivity.  Moreover, plate
waste undergoes a substantial amount of heat treatment, which would further reduce the level of
infectivity in this material.
<IP_ADDRESS> Gelatin
FDA regulations allow the feeding of gelatin to ruminants because it has not been shown
to harbor infectivity.  SSC considers gelatine, amino-acids and dicalcium phosphate to be safe if
processing ensures that all material is subjected to degreasing, followed by acid and/or alkaline
treatment, heating to 120°C, and then heating to 138-140°C for four seconds. (SSC, 1998b).  We
assume that recycling this material poses little risk of exposing cattle to BSE.
<IP_ADDRESS> Milk
FDA regulations do not prohibit the use of milk in cattle feed.  No infectivity has been
detected in milk or in the udder (mammary gland) of cows (as measured by the mouse bioassay)
(Wells et al., 1998).  At this time, there is no evidence that any of the TSEs can be transmitted
through milk.
SEAC considers milk to be safe and has concluded that there was no reason, following
the interim results of a cohort study, to change this position (SEAC, 1999).  The World Health
Organization has also issued a statement that concludes that milk is safe, most recently in June
2001 (WHO, 2001).  SEAC reviewed the processing and use of milk in the light of research
implicating lymphocytes in the pathogenesis of TSEs (SEAC, 1999).  The Committee noted that
there was no evidence of infectivity in the spleen or lymph nodes of cattle infected with BSE.  In
an opinion on the vertical transmission of BSE, the SSC also concluded there to be no reason to
restrict the use of milk.  However, SSC does recommend that as a precautionary measure, milk
from BSE-affected cows be kept out of the human food supply (European Commission, 1999b).
We assume that recycling this material poses little risk of exposing cattle to BSE.

Section 2
-
34 -
<IP_ADDRESS>  Blood and blood products
No detectable infectivity has been found in blood or blood components of cattle infected
with BSE (Wells et al., 1998, Wells et al., 1999, MAFF, 2000b, Bradley, 1999).  Unlike TSEs
affecting other animals, infectivity has not been detected in spleen or lymph nodes of cattle
experimentally infected with BSE during either the incubation period or after manifestation of
clinical signs.  Infectivity in blood has been found in sheep experimentally infected with BSE
(Foster et al., 1996).  It is possible that in the cases of Scrapie, CWD, vCJD, and perhaps BSE in
sheep, the lymphoid tissue plays an important role in the pathogenesis of the disease (Andreoletti
et al., 2000, Ironside et al., 2000, Sigurdson et al., 1999).  Some have speculated that
neuroinvasion can occur directly via peripheral nerves or the lymphoreticular system and then via
peripheral nerves (Glatzel and Aguzzi, 2001).  Even if infectivity does exist in the blood of BSE-
infected cattle, the total amount of infectivity is below the level of detection of the mouse
bioassay. We assume that recycling this material poses little risk of exposing cattle to BSE.  We
do evaluate the potential for BSE infectivity to be present in blood as CNS micro-emboli (Section
<IP_ADDRESS>).  In our sensitivity analysis, we characterize the effect of assuming inherent infectivity in
blood at the level of detection.
<IP_ADDRESS> Tallow
The World Health Organization has concluded that because of the proteinaceous nature
of TSE agents, they will tend to remain with the cellular residues of MBM during the extraction
process, rather than being extracted with the lipids of tallow (WHO, 2001).  In addition, a
rendering study funded jointly by the EU and MAFF in 1997 showed that tallow can be
considered to be safe even if its treatment does not achieve the 133 C/20 minutes/3 bars of
o
pressure minimum treatment standard (Taylor et al., 1997, MAFF, 2001).  We assume that
recycling this material poses little risk of exposing cattle to BSE.
2.4
Measures Taken to Protect Against BSE
Protecting against the introduction of BSE into a country requires policies that are based
on prohibitions and restrictions.  Regulations mainly prohibit the importation of feed, feeding
materials or animals from countries with BSE, and ban recycling of ruminant materials into
ruminant feed.  In countries with BSE, infected tissues are not allowed into the human food
supply or animal feed.  Minimizing the spread of disease is complicated by the fact that BSE

Section 2
-
35 -
animals may not show clinical signs of disease for an extended period after becoming infected
and the agent cannot be readily deactivated once it contaminates feed.  After describing these
problems (Section 2.4.1), this section discusses actions taken in the UK to address its epidemic
(Section 2.4.2), actions taken in Europe to prevent the spread of BSE beyond the UK (Section
2.4.3), measures taken in the United States to prevent the introduction of BSE (Section 2.4.4), and
surveillance measures in the United States (Section 2.4.5).
2.4.1
General Issues Related to the Surveillance of BSE and the Deactivation of the BSE
Agent
There is no pre-clinical or clinical test available to identify BSE in the field except when
the disease is very near the end of its incubation period.  Diagnosis in a live animal is based on
clinical signs.  Most commonly, the animal presents with changes in temperament, such as
nervousness or aggression, abnormal posture, lack of coordination, difficulty in rising, or loss of
body condition despite continued appetite.  Specific clinical signs include abnormal head and ear
position, apprehension and nervousness, apparent blindness, and exaggerated responses.
Microscopic examination is performed post-mortem and requires brain material
preserved in formalin.  This tissue is then stained and examined for the characteristic appearance
of BSE specific changes.  Microscopic examination is required by the EU Diagnostic Manual
(European Commission, 1999a, European Commission, 2000) and by the OIE (OIE, 2000).  The
brain neuropathology of BSE resembles that of natural scrapie in sheep: astrogliosis, intracellular
vacuolation affecting the gray matter neutropil and perikarya giving the distinctive appearance of
spongiform changes, neuronal loss, and cerebral amyloidosis generally represent the most
prominent changes (Wells et al., 1991).
Other validated tests for postmortem diagnosis include:
•
The detection of disease-specific brain changes by electron microscopy (scrapie
associated fibrils, SAF);
•
The detection of the abnormal form (PrP
BSE
) of the host protein (PrP ) by
c
immunological means such as immunoblotting, immunohistochemistry (used as a
confirmatory diagnoses by the EU); and
•
Detection of infectivity in tissues by bioassay (usually i.c. injection into mice).

Section 2
-
36 -
Newer tests have been developed and are capable of detecting pre-clinical cases and of
screening animals before slaughter.  These tests have high sensitivity and specificity for detecting
and confirming BSE for diagnostic purposes and can detect disease in animals not showing
typical signs at slaughter (European Commission, 1999a).  So far, the sensitivity and specificity
of the newer tests have not been shown to be better than that of immunohistochemistry at similar
preclinical stages of the disease (Linda Detwiler, personal communication).  The tests include:
•
An immunobloting test based on the Western Blotting procedure for the
detection of Pr
Pres
using monoclonal antibody (Prionics);
•
A chemiluminescent ELISA using polyclonal anti PRP antibody for detection
(Enfer); and
•
A sandwich immunoassay for PRP
res
(CEA).
All of these tests are very rapid, with results obtained within 24 hours.  Results from the
Swiss surveillance system show that the Prionics test could be used to target populations other
than those with clinical signs of the disease (European Commission, 1999a, Schaller et al., 1999,
Doherr et al., 1999).  Although these tests can detect PrP
res
before the animal shows clinical signs
of the disease, it is not clear at what point during the incubation period the test would reliably
yield positive results.  It appears that their utility is primarily near the end of the disease
progression.
There are no commercially available methods for the detection of the BSE agent in food.
On the other hand, food and food products can be screened to detect high risk tissues, such as
brain in sausages (SSC, 1999a, Lucker et al., 2000), spinal cord in ground beef (Schmidt et al.,
1999); (Schmidt et al., 2001) or Advanced Meat Recovery (AMR) product (Kelley et al., 2000);
(Schmidt et al., 2001), and central nervous system tissue in the blood of animals stunned with
pneumatic stunners (Garland et al., 1996, Schmidt et al., 1999, Anil et al., 1999).
TSE agents are known for their capacity to survive severe environmental conditions such
as desiccation, thermal extremes and UV exposure.  Autoclaving, sodium hydroxide and sodium


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 31, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4704-4705]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2077]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-1400; Airspace Docket No. 11-ASW-15]

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Monahans, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Monahans,
TX. Additional controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) at Roy Hurd Memorial
Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety and
management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations for SIAPs at the
airport. The airport's geographic coordinates also would be adjusted.

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before March 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You
must identify the docket number FAA-2011-1400/Airspace Docket No. 11-
ASW-15, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the
public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any
final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office
(telephone 1-(800) 647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at
the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort

Worth, TX 76137; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2011-1400/
Airspace Docket No. 11-ASW-15.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, TX 76137.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations
(14 CFR), part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface to accommodate new standard instrument
approach procedures at Roy Hurd Memorial Airport, Monahans, TX.
Geographic coordinates would also be adjusted to coincide with the
FAA's aeronautical database. Controlled airspace is needed for the
safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
    Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order
7400.9V, dated August 9, 2011 and effective September 15, 2011, which
is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in
the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed 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, when promulgated, 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 U.S. 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 I, section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it would amend controlled airspace at Roy Hurd Memorial Airport,
Monahans, TX.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

    1. The authority citation for 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]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9V, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 9,
2011, and effective September 15, 2011, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Monahans, TX [Amended]

Roy Hurd Memorial Airport, TX
    (Lat. 31[deg]34'57'' N., long. 102[deg]54'33'' W.)
Wink VORTAC
    (Lat. 31[deg]52'29'' N., long. 103[deg]14'38'' W.)
    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Roy Hurd Memorial Airport, and within
1.9 miles each side of the 127[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 9.8 miles southeast of the
airport, and within 2 miles each side of the 307[deg] bearing from
the airport extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 9.6 miles
northwest of the airport, and within 1.6 miles each side of the
136[deg] radial of the Wink VORTAC extending from the 6.4-mile
radius to 11 miles northwest of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on January 13, 2012.
Richard J. Kervin,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2012-2077 Filed 1-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4901-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 162 (Friday, August 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50912-50914]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20686]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0012]

Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; American
Trucking Associations, Inc.

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; grant of application for
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to grant motor carriers
transporting security-sensitive hazardous materials (HM) requiring a
security plan an exemption from the Federal hours-of-service (HOS)
regulations that prohibit commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers from
driving a CMV if more than 8 consecutive hours have passed since the
driver's last off-duty or sleeper-berth period of 30 minutes or more.
American Trucking Associations, Inc. (ATA) requested the exemption on
behalf of all motor carriers that transport certain HM shipments
requiring security plans under regulations of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). These plans normally
require a driver to attend such cargo while the CMV is stopped, which
is an on-duty activity under the HOS rules. Exempt drivers may now
count their on-duty attendance of HM cargo toward the required 30-
minute rest break requirement provided they perform no other on-duty
activity. This exemption parallels Sec.  395.1(q) of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that allows drivers who are
attending loads of certain explosives to count on-duty attendance time
toward their rest break so long as they engage in no other on-duty
activity.

DATES: The exemption is effective August 21, 2015 and expires on August
21, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas L. Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver
and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from the FMCSRs. FMCSA must publish a notice of each
exemption request in the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The
Agency must provide

the public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews the safety analyses and the public comments, and
determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reason for the grant or denial, and, if granted,
the specific person or class of persons receiving the exemption, and
the regulatory provision or provisions from which exemption is granted.
The notice must also specify the effective period of the exemption (up
to 2 years), and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

Driver Attendance and Rest Breaks

    Some shipments of property by CMV require that the vehicle be
attended at all times, such as shipments of explosives, weapons, or
radioactive materials. Constant attendance of the CMV may be explicitly
required by Federal or State law, or by the terms of the shipment
contract. For example, Section 397.5 of the FMCSRs requires drivers
transporting cargo classified as Division 1.1, 1.2, or 1.3 (explosive)
materials to attend the cargo at all times.
    On December 27, 2011, FMCSA published a final rule amending the HOS
rules (76 FR 81134). The Agency added a new requirement that drivers
obtain a rest break: ``After June 30, 2013, driving is not permitted if
more than 8 hours have passed since the end of the driver's last off-
duty or sleeper-berth period of at least 30 minutes.'' (Sec.
395.3(a)(3)(ii)). Thus, drivers must expand a fueling stop or other
break to ensure that they go off duty (or into the sleeper berth) for
at least 30 consecutive minutes to satisfy this requirement. The
drivers must make an entry on their record of duty status (RODS)
showing the off-duty time.
    By definition, on-duty time includes all time ``. . . [p]erforming
any other work in the capacity, employ, or service of, a motor
carrier'' (Sec.  395.2). A driver attending a CMV is on duty. During
the 2011 HOS rulemaking, motor carriers of hazardous materials
identified the conflict between HM attendance under Sec.  397.5 and the
rest-break requirement. As a result, FMCSA included Sec.  395.1(q) in
the 2011 HOS amendments. This section permits drivers who are attending
a motor vehicle transporting Division 1.1-1.3 explosives, but
performing no other work, to log a period of at least 30 consecutive
minutes of the time spent attending the CMV toward the break. The
driver annotates his log to indicate when the Sec.  395.1(q) break was
taken. The time is on-duty time, and counts against the driver's
maximum time on duty of 60 hours in 7 days (in some cases, 70 hours in
8 days).

Request for Exemption

    Another Federal agency, PHMSA, requires motor carriers transporting
materials requiring placarding under 49 CFR part 172, subpart F, or
certain agents and toxins identified in Sec.  172.800(b)(13) that do
not require placarding, to develop special plans that account for
personnel, cargo, and en route security (49 CFR 172.800-804). Most
carriers include constant attendance on cargo in these security plans.
Because attendance on a CMV is considered on-duty time under the HOS
rules, drivers who are required by their carrier's HM security plan to
attend the CMV at all times cannot go off duty to satisfy the HOS rest-
break requirement.
    ATA filed this exemption request on behalf of all motor carriers
whose drivers transport HM loads subject to the PHMSA security plan
requirement. ATA asserts that allowing these drivers to count up to 30
minutes of their attendance time as the required rest break if they
perform no other on-duty activities during the break would likely
achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level
that would be achieved by the current regulation. It asserts that
attendance is unlikely to contribute to driver fatigue and that
allowing these drivers to maintain their attendance of these loads
provides better security than if the driver has to leave the vehicle to
obtain 30 minutes off duty.

Public Comments

    The FMCSA published a notice announcing and requesting public
comment on ATA's exemption request on May 1, 2015 (80 FR 25004).
Thirteen comments were submitted. Three individuals expressed concern
that the exemption was only of value to large trucking firms and that
the Agency should deny all applications for exemption. Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety thought the exemption was overly broad,
permitting motor carriers engaged in qualifying HM shipments to use the
exemption for their shipments of non-HM cargo. Several trade groups and
two drivers favored the application as a necessary solution to a
regulatory dilemma.

FMCSA Response

    FMCSA has evaluated ATA's application for exemption and the public
comments submitted. Opponents of the exemption did not address the
regulatory dilemma described in the application for exemption and
echoed by the comments of drivers and trade organizations supporting
the exemption. The Agency finds the arguments in favor of the exemption
persuasive. FMCSA believes it has designed terms and conditions for
this exemption sufficient to relieve this dilemma while preventing its
abuse. Motor carriers may only use this exemption when their drivers
are actually transporting HM that requires placarding or includes a
select agent or toxin identified in Sec.  172.800(b)(13), and for which
a security plan has been filed under Sec. Sec.  172.800-804. If a
driver is not transporting qualifying HM materials, he or she is not
entitled to substitute attendance for the required off-duty break.
Drivers operating under this exemption may count up to 30 minutes of
their on-duty attendance time toward a required rest break, if they
perform no other on-duty activities during the rest-break period.
    It should be noted that there is no motive for a driver or carrier
to claim this exemption when not entitled to it. A driver who is not
required to constantly attend his or her vehicle must take the minimum
30-minute rest break as off-duty time, which does not count against the
7 or 8-day limit of 60 or 70 hours on-duty. A driver claiming this
exemption unnecessarily would be required to take the same rest breaks,
but would be on-duty and the time would count against the 60 or 70-hour
limit.

FMCSA Decision

    In consideration of the above, FMCSA has determined that it is
appropriate to provide a two-year exemption from the 30-minute break
requirement for carriers whose drivers transport HM loads requiring
placarding under 49 CFR part 172, subpart F, or select agents and
toxins identified in Sec.  172.800(b)(13) that do not require
placarding, and who have filed security plans requiring constant
attendance of HM in accordance with Sec. Sec.  172.800-804. Drivers
must annotate their RODS to show the on-duty time claimed as a rest
break to satisfy a security plan requiring attendance of HM loads.
    Under these terms and conditions described below, the application
for exemption is likely to achieve a level of

safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved absent such exemption. Motor carriers utilizing the exemption
will be required to report any accidents, as defined in 49 CFR 390.5,
to FMCSA. The exemption is eligible for renewal at the end of the two-
year period.

Terms and Conditions of the Exemption

Extent of the Exemption

    This exemption is limited to drivers transporting HM loads
requiring placarding under 49 CFR part 172, subpart F, or select agents
and toxins identified in Sec.  172.800(b)(13) that do not require
placarding, and who have filed security plans requiring constant
attendance of HM in accordance with Sec. Sec.  172.800-804. This
exemption is limited to motor carriers that have a ``satisfactory''
safety rating or are ``unrated''; motor carriers with ``conditional''
or ``unsatisfactory'' safety ratings are prohibited from utilizing this
exemption. Drivers must have a copy of the exemption document in their
possession while operating under the terms of the exemption and must
present it to law enforcement officials upon request.

Accident Reporting

    Motor carriers must notify FMCSA by email addressed to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with 5 business days of any accident (as defined in 49
CFR 390.5) that occurs while its driver is operating under the terms of
this exemption. The notification must include:
    a. Identifier of the Exemption: ``HM''
    b. Name of operating carrier and USDOT number,
    c. Date of the accident,
    d. City or town, and State, in which the accident occurred, or
closest to the accident scene,
    e. Driver's name and license number,
    f. Name of co-driver, if any, and license number
    g. Vehicle number and state license number,
    h. Number of individuals suffering physical injury,
    i. Number of fatalities,
    j. The police-reported cause of the accident,
    k. Whether the driver was cited for violation of any traffic laws,
motor carrier safety regulations, and
    l. The total driving time and total on-duty time prior to the
accident.

Safety Oversight of Carriers Operating Under the Exemption

    FMCSA expects each motor carrier operating under the terms and
conditions of this exemption to maintain its safety record. However,
should safety deteriorate, FMCSA will, consistent with the statutory
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 31315, take all steps necessary to protect
the public interest. Authorization of the exemption is discretionary,
and FMCSA will immediately revoke the exemption of any motor carrier or
driver for failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the
exemption.

Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State may enforce
any law or regulation that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this
exemption with respect to a person or entity operating under the
exemption [49 U.S.C. 31315(d)].

    Issued on: August 6, 2015.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2015-20686 Filed 8-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P