[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 477-480]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33329]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1307; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-049-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-
601) and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A, CL-601-3R, and CL-604 Variants)
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from 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

    :During flight-testing of a wing anti-ice piccolo tube
containing a deliberate small breach, it was determined that the
wing leading edge thermal switches were not detecting the consequent
bleed leak at the design threshold. As a result, new Airworthiness
Limitation tasks, consisting of a functional test of the wing
leading edge thermal switches and an inspection of the wing anti-ice
duct piccolo tubes, have been introduced in order to limit exposure
to dormant failure of the switches in the event of piccolo tube
failure, which could potentially compromise the structural integrity
of the wing leading edge and the effectiveness of the wing anti-ice
system.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 22,
2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Bombardier,

Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9,
Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New
York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-1307;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-049-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation, which is the aviation authority
for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2009-49R1,
dated January 21, 2010 (referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI
states:

    During flight-testing of a wing anti-ice piccolo tube containing
a deliberate small breach, it was determined that the wing leading
edge thermal switches were not detecting the consequent bleed leak
at the design threshold. As a result, new Airworthiness Limitation
tasks, consisting of a functional test of the wing leading edge
thermal switches and an inspection of the wing anti-ice duct piccolo
tubes, have been introduced in order to limit exposure to dormant
failure of the switches in the event of piccolo tube failure, which
could potentially compromise the structural integrity of the wing
leading edge and the effectiveness of the wing anti-ice system. This
directive mandates the revision of the approved maintenance schedule
to include these new tasks, including phase-in schedules.
    This revision clarifies the applicability of the directive for
CL-600-2A12 aircraft, serial numbers 3001 through 3066, and for CL-
600-2B16 aircraft, serial numbers 5001 through 5194. The directive
is only applicable to these aircraft if Bombardier Service Bulletin
(SB) 601-0590 [Scheduled Maintenance Instructions (MSG-3) Derived--
Qualification] has been incorporated. There is no change required to
the approved maintenance schedule if SB 601-0590 has not been
incorporated.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Bombardier has issued the following service information:
     Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, PSP 601-5,
Revision 38, dated June 19, 2009.
     Challenger 601 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, PSP 601A-5,
Revision 34, dated June 19, 2009.
     Challenger 604 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, CH 604
TLMC, Revision 13, dated August 12, 2009.
     Challenger 605 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks, CH 605
TLMC, Revision 1, dated August 12, 2009.

The actions described in this service information are intended to
correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a Note within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 103 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 proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per
work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed
AD on U.S. operators to be $8,755, or $85 per product.

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 proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. 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.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

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

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2010-1307; Directorate Identifier
2010-NM-049-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by February 22, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to the airplanes identified in paragraphs
(c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this AD; certificated in any
category.
    (1) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes,
serial numbers 3001 through 3066 inclusive on which Bombardier
Service Bulletin 601-0590 has been accomplished.
    (2) Bombardier, Inc. CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-601-3R
Variants) airplanes, serial numbers 5001 through 5194 inclusive on
which Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-0590 has been accomplished.
    (3) Bombardier, Inc. CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variants) airplanes,
serial numbers 5301 through 5665 inclusive.
    (4) Bombardier, Inc. CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variants) airplanes,
serial numbers 5701 and subsequent.

    Note 1: This AD requires revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new inspections. Compliance with
these inspections is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For airplanes
that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in the
areas addressed by these inspections, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the inspections described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance according
to paragraph (j) of this AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure
the continued operational safety of the airplane.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Codes 30 and 36:
Ice and Rain Protection and Pneumatic, respectively.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    During flight-testing of a wing anti-ice piccolo tube containing
a deliberate small breach, it was determined that the wing leading
edge thermal switches were not detecting the consequent bleed leak
at the design threshold. As a result, new Airworthiness Limitation
tasks, consisting of a functional test of the wing leading edge
thermal switches and an inspection of the wing anti-ice duct piccolo
tubes, have been introduced in order to limit exposure to dormant
failure of the switches in the event of piccolo tube failure, which
could potentially compromise the structural integrity of the wing
leading edge and the effectiveness of the wing anti-ice system.

Compliance

    (f) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within the compliance times specified, unless the
actions have already been done.

Actions

    (g) Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise
the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for
Continued Airworthiness by incorporating the applicable tasks
identified in table 1 of this AD.

                Table 1--Airworthiness Limitations Tasks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Incorporate
 For Bombardier, Inc. model--       task(s)--         Identified in--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CL-600-2A12 (CL-601)            30-11-00-101 and   Bombardier Challenger
 airplanes, serial numbers       30-11-00-102.      601 Time Limits/
 3001 through 3066 inclusive                        Maintenance Checks,
 on which Bombardier Service                        PSP 601-5, Revision
 Bulletin 601-0590 has been                         38, dated June 19,
 accomplished.                                      2009.
CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-3A and CL-  30-11-00-101 and   Bombardier Challenger
 601-3R Variants) airplanes,     30-11-00-102.      601 Time Limits/
 serial numbers 5001 through                        Maintenance Checks,
 5194 inclusive on which                            PSP 601A-5, Revision
 Bombardier Service Bulletin                        34, dated June 19,
 601-0590 has been                                  2009.
 accomplished.
CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variants)   30-11-00-101 and   Bombardier Challenger
 airplanes, serial numbers       36-21-00-101.      604 Time Limits/
 5301 through 5665 inclusive.                       Maintenance Checks,
                                                    CH 604 TLMC,
                                                    Revision 13, dated
                                                    August 12, 2009.
CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variants)   30-11-00-101 and   Bombardier Challenger
 airplanes, serial numbers       36-21-00-101.      605 Time Limits/
 5701 and subsequent.                               Maintenance Checks,
                                                    CH 605 TLMC,
                                                    Revision 1, dated
                                                    August 12, 2009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (h) For all tasks identified in paragraph (g) of this AD, the
initial compliance times for those tasks are within the applicable
times specified in table 2 of this AD.

                      Table 2--Initial Compliance Times for Airworthiness Limitations Tasks
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bombardier, Inc. model--             Task(s)--                Initial compliance time (whichever occurs later)--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes,      30-11-00-101..........  Prior to the accumulation    Within 240 flight
 serial numbers 3001 through 3066                             of 4,800 total flight        hours after the
 inclusive; and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-                          hours; or within 4,800       effective date of
 3A and CL-601-3R Variants)                                   flight hours after           this AD.
 airplanes, serial numbers 5001                               accomplishing Task 30-11-
 through 5194 inclusive; on which                             06-204 in Section 5-20-15
 Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-                             of the applicable Time
 0590 has been accomplished.                                  Limits/Maintenance Checks
                                                              manual; whichever occurs
                                                              later.
CL-600-2A12 (CL-601) airplanes,      30-11-00-102..........  Prior to the accumulation    Within 240 flight
 serial numbers 3001 through 3066                             of 4,800 total flight        hours after the
 inclusive; and CL-600-2B16 (CL-601-                          hours; or within 4,800       effective date of
 3A and CL-601-3R Variants)                                   flight hours after           this AD.
 airplanes, serial numbers 5001                               accomplishing Task 30-13-
 through 5194 inclusive; on which                             00-205 in Section 5-20-15
 Bombardier Service Bulletin 601-                             of the applicable Time
 0590 has been accomplished.                                  Limits/Maintenance Checks
                                                              manual; whichever occurs
                                                              later.
CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variants)        30-11-00-101 and 36-21- Prior to the accumulation    Within 320 flight
 airplanes, serial numbers 5301       00-101.                 of 6,400 total flight        hours after the
 through 5665 inclusive.                                      hours; except for            effective date of
                                                              airplanes having 6,400       this AD.
                                                              total flight hours or more
                                                              as of the effective date
                                                              of this AD on which the
                                                              task has not been
                                                              accomplished: Prior to the
                                                              next scheduled 6,400
                                                              flight hour task
                                                              inspection or prior to the
                                                              next scheduled
                                                              accomplishment of Task 57-
                                                              10-00-208 in the
                                                              applicable Time Limits/
                                                              Maintenance Checks manual,
                                                              whichever occurs first.
CL-600-2B16 (CL-604 Variants)        30-11-00-101 and 36-21- Prior to the accumulation    Within 320 flight
 airplanes, serial numbers 5701 and   00-101.                 of 6,400 total flight        hours after the
 subsequent.                                                  hours.                       effective date of
                                                                                this AD.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) After accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of
this AD, no alternative tasks or task intervals may be used unless
the tasks or intervals are approved as an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (j) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office, ANE-170, 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: Program Manager,
Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart
Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to
which the AMOC applies, notify your principal maintenance inspector
(PMI) or principal avionics inspector (PAI), as appropriate, or
lacking a principal inspector, your local Flight Standards District
Office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (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.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: A Federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.,
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

Related Information

    (k) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2009-49R1,
dated January 21, 2010, and the service information specified in
Table 1 of this AD for related information.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on December 27, 2010.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-33329 Filed 1-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 16, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38844-38846]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17336]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0286; FRL-9964-40]

Prothioconazole; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of
prothioconazole in or on Sunflower subgroup 20B at 0.2 parts per
million (ppm). Bayer CropScience requested this tolerance under the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective August 16, 2017. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before October 16, 2017,
and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40
CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0286, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Goodis, P.E., Director,
Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0286 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
October 16, 2017. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections
and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0286, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of July 20, 2016 (81 FR 47150) (FRL-9948-
45), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announced the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
6E8469) by Bayer CropScience, P.O. Box 12014, 2 T.W. Alexander Drive,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. This petition requested that 40 CFR
180.626 be amended by establishing tolerances for residues of
prothioconazole in or on imported commodities in the sunflower subgroup
20B at 0.2 ppm. This document referenced a summary of a petition
prepared by Bayer CropScience, the registrant, which are available in
the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. No comments were received in
response to the notice of filing.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary
exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable
information.'' This includes exposure through drinking water and in
residential settings, but does not include occupational exposure.
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special
consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide
chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . .
.''
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(b)(2)(D), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data

and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has
sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on
aggregate exposure for prothiconazole including exposure resulting from
the tolerance established by this action.

A. Risk Assessment

    In the Federal Register of November 10, 2016 (81 FR 78917) (FRL-
9953-71), EPA established tolerances for residues of prothioconazole in
or on cotton, gin byproducts at 4.0 ppm and the cottonseed subgroup 20C
at 0.4 ppm. Because much of the safety assessment of prothioconazole
for the current action remains the same, EPA is relying in part upon
the findings made in the November 10, 2016 final rule in support of
this action.
    A summary of the toxicological profile and endpoints used for human
risk assessment is discussed in Units III.A. and III.B of the November
10, 2016 final rule.
    In evaluating dietary exposure for this action, EPA considered
exposure under the petitioned-for tolerances as well as all existing
prothioconazole tolerances in 40 CFR 180.626. The residue data used for
the acute and chronic dietary exposure assessments have not changed
since the assessment supporting the November 10, 2016 final rule,
except to incorporate the recommended tolerance on commodities
associated with Sunflower subgroup 20B, for which the Agency assumed
tolerance-level residues and 100 percent crop treated. For a summary of
how EPA assessed these dietary exposures, see Unit III.C.1 of the
November 10, 2016 final rule.
    In addition, because the requested sunflower subgroup tolerance is
not accompanied by a corresponding request for a U.S. registration for
use of prothioconazole on the commodities in the sunflower subgroup,
the drinking water and residential exposure assessments remain the
same. A summary of EPA's assessment of drinking water exposure and
residential exposure is discussed in Units III.C.2. and III.C.3.
    A summary of EPA's conclusions about the cumulative effects of
prothioconazole can be found in Unit III.C.4. of the November 10, 2016
final rule; however, since the November 10, 2016 final rule was
published, the Agency has updated its dietary exposure and risk
analysis for the common triazole metabolites 1,2,4-triazole (T),
triazolylalanine (TA), triazolylacetic acid (TAA), and triazolylpyruvic
acid (TP). The update was completed in association with registration
requests for several triazole fungicides and includes, inter alia, the
potential exposure to the common triazole metabolites resulting from
the use of prothioconazole on commodities in the sunflower subgroup
20B. That analysis concluded that risk estimates were below the
Agency's level of concern for all population groups. This assessment
may be found on http://www.regulations.gov by searching for the
following title and docket number: ``Common Triazole Metabolites:
Updated Dietary (Food + Water) Exposure and Risk Assessment to Address
the New Section 3 Registrations For Use of Difenoconazole on Rice and
Cotton.'' (located in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0254).
    Because there have been no changes to the potential for prenatal
and postnatal toxicity or in the completeness of data with respect to
toxicity and exposure, EPA has determined that reliable data show the
safety of infants and children would be adequately protected if the
additional tenfold (10x) margin of safety required under section
408(b)(2)(C) (``FQPA safety factor'') were reduced to 1x. A summary of
EPA's rationale for this determination is discussed in Unit III.D. of
the November 10, 2016 final rule.

B. Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute population-adjusted dose (aPAD) and chronic population-adjusted
dose (cPAD). Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term risks are
evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water, and
residential exposure to the appropriate points of departure to ensure
that an adequate margin of exposure exists.
    Using the exposure assumptions discussed above and in the November
10, 2016 final rule, EPA assessed acute and chronic dietary exposure
from food and drinking water and concluded that the new tolerances on
sunflower subgroup 20B do not change the risk estimates from the
November 10, 2016 final rule. The acute dietary exposure utilized 40%
of the aPAD for females 13-49 years old at the 95th percentile. The
chronic dietary exposure utilized 32% of the cPAD for the U.S.
population, and 77% for all infants (<1 year), the most highly exposed
population subgroup.
    Because there are no existing or proposed residential uses for
prothioconazole, there are no exposures expected via the residential
exposure pathway. Therefore, all aggregate risk estimates are expected
to be equivalent to dietary (food and drinking water) risk estimates
mentioned above.
    Therefore, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and
children from aggregate exposure to prothioconazole residues.
    For a detailed discussion of the aggregate risk assessments and
determination of safety for these tolerances, please refer both to the
November 10, 2016 final rule and its supporting documents, available at
http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0722,
and to the risk assessment for this current action ``Prothioconazole:
Human Health Risk Assessment for the Petition for a Tolerance Without
U.S. Registration for Residues in/on sunflower subgroup 20B.'' in
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0286.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC/
MS/MS) methods are available for enforcing prothioconazole tolerances
in crop and livestock commodities. The method may be requested from:
Chief, Analytical Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701
Mapes Rd., Ft. Meade, MD 20755-350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits (MRLs) established
by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as required by FFDCA
section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    There is currently a Codex MRL for sunflower/safflower established
at 0.05 ppm. The U.S. EPA is establishing a tolerance on sunflower at
0.2 ppm to harmonize with a major trading partner, Canada, in order to
have a harmonized North America MRL for the Sunflower subgroup 20B. A
tolerance cannot be established at the lower Codex MRL

because it would present a trade irritant for sunflower commodities
coming into the United States.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, a tolerance is established for residues of
prothioconazole, in or on sunflower subgroup 20B at 0.2 parts ppm.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes tolerances under FFDCA section 408(d) in
response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not
subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

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

    Dated: July 26, 2017.
Michael Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  180.626, add alphabetically the entry ``Sunflower subgroup
20B'' to the table in paragraph (a)(1), and add footnote 1 to the table
to read as follows:

Sec.  180.626  Prothioconazole; tolerances for residues.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Parts per
                          Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
Sunflower subgroup 20B \1\..................................         0.2

                                * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no U.S. registrations allowing use of prothioconazole on
  the commodities in the Sunflower subgroup 20B as of August 16, 2017.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-17336 Filed 8-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER

EPA Registration Division contact: Janet Whitehurst<PHONE_NUMBER>

Nutri AG Inc. 4740 N. Interstate 35 E  Waxahachie, Texas  75165       IN 11059

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (IN 11059) from Nutri AG Inc., 4740 N. Interstate 35 E, Waxahachie, Texas 75165   requesting, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180

       	1.  to amend establish an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for

	Amend the zinc oxide exemption from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR §180.910 when used as an inert ingredient used pre- and post-harvest.  EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA; however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition. Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

The present exemption for zinc oxide use as an inert ingredient under 40 CFR §180.910 is for its use as "coating agent." Nutri AG Inc. proposes to add a new use of zinc oxide as a "stabilizer."

A. Residue Chemistry Zinc oxide is exempted from the requirement of a tolerance in 40 CFR §180.910 when used as an inert ingredient used pre- and post-harvest. Thus, residue data are not required.

	1. Plant metabolism. Not Applicable - Remove

	2. Analytical method. Not Applicable - Remove

	3. Magnitude of residues. Not Applicable - Remove

B. Toxicological Profile

	1. Acute toxicity.  Data indicates that zinc oxide has an acute toxicity category IV for acute oral (rat). It is a not a skin irritant (acute toxicity category IV) and only a mild eye irritant (acute toxicity category III).

The FDA considers zinc oxide and zinc sulfate GRAS for use in foods under 21 CFR 182.8991 and 182.8997, respectively. The FDA also considers zinc oxide and zinc sulfate GRAS for use in nutrients under 21 CFR 182.5985 and 182.5997, respectively.

Zinc is ubiquitous in the environment and occurs in the earth's crust at an average concentration of approximately 70 mg/kg. This ion exists in the form of zinc salts such as zinc sulfide, zinc carbonate, and zinc oxide. Zinc is also an essential nutrient in the body. For toxicological concerns, there are adequate toxicology studies in the zinc database to evaluate incidental oral exposures. At high levels, oral exposure to zinc in animal studies may result in toxic effects such as pancreatic and renal lesions as well as histological alterations in the pituitary and adrenal glands. However, based on the on the use of zinc oxide as an inert, exposure to zinc is not anticipated to be high. Zinc is widely distributed in plants and animals, and is normally present in food. Zinc is also a normal part of metabolism in all living organisms. Based on this information, no toxicological endpoints were selected.

	2. Genotoxicty. [Insert text.]

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity. [Insert text.]

	4. Subchronic toxicity. [Insert text.]

	5. Chronic toxicity. [Insert text.]

	6. Animal metabolism. Regarding effects on metabolism, zinc is an essential element in human nutrition and is part of the nutrition of all plants and animals. It is an essential component of several enzymes involved in human metabolism, and is present in every cell. In laboratory feeding studies, most of the zinc eaten by test animals was excreted. Ingesting large amounts of zinc salts does cause changes in metabolism; however, people usually are not exposed to such large amounts of zinc through the diet.

      7. Metabolite toxicology. Not Applicable  -  Remove        	8. Endocrine disruption. [Insert text.]

C. Aggregate Exposure

	1. Dietary exposure. The primary source of information for this assessment is the 1992 Zinc Salts RED. Toxicity endpoints for zinc and zinc salts were not originally selected in the RED because zinc is ubiquitous in the environment and occurs in the earth's crust at an average concentration of approximately 70 mg/kg. Zinc is also an essential nutrient in the body and is GRAS in food as dietary supplements. When used as an inert, exposure to zinc oxide is not likely to be higher than that which is found in ambient levels and at levels of zinc nutrient which are required by the human body.

	i. Food. The FDA considers zinc oxide and zinc sulfate GRAS for use in foods under 21 CFR 182.8991 and 182.8997, respectively. The FDA also considers zinc oxide and zinc sulfate GRAS for use in nutrients under 21 CFR 182.5985 and 182.5997, respectively.

	ii. Drinking water. The FDA considers zinc and zinc chloride generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for use in foods and nutrients under 21 CFR 182.8985 and 21 CFR 182.5991. The FDA also considers zinc oxide and zinc sulfate as GRAS for use in foods under 21 CFR 182.8991 and 182.8997, respectively. The FDA also considers zinc oxide and zinc sulfate as GRAS for use in nutrients under 21 CFR 182.5985 and 182.5997, respectively. Therefore, no dietary or drinking water assessment is needed for zinc and zinc salts.

	2. Non-dietary exposure. An occupational and/or residential exposure assessment is needed for an active ingredient if (1) certain toxicological criteria are triggered and (2) there is potential exposure to handlers (mixers, loaders, applicators, etc.) during use or to persons entering treated sites after application is complete. For zinc and zinc salts, the toxicological criteria are not triggered. Given the lack of concern for toxicity, and low potential for occupational and residential exposure, mixer/loader/applicator and post application occupational and residential risks from the existing uses of zinc salts are considered inconsequential and are not of concern. Additional occupational and residential risk assessments are not needed.

D. Cumulative Effects

	[Insert text.]

E. Safety Determination

	1. U.S. population. As mentioned in the toxicology section, zinc is ubiquitous in the environment and occurs in the earth's crust at an average concentration of approximately 70 mg/kg. Zinc is also an essential nutrient in the body and is GRAS in food as dietary supplements. At registered application rates, exposure to zinc oxide when sued as an inert is not likely to be higher than that which is found in ambient levels and at levels of zinc nutrient which are required by the human body.

	2. Infants and children. [Insert text.]

F. International Tolerances


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 88320-88322]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29320]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0121]

Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatements of previously approved collections.
    This document describes one collection of information for which
NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 6, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number
NHTSA-2016-0121 using any of the following methods:
    Electronic submissions: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
    Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
Docket number for this Notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov including any
personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Chodrow, Office of Safety
Programs (NPD-210), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W44-230, Washington, DC 20590. Mr.
Chodrow's phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER> and his email address is
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulations (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) 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) 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) how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (iv) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including 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 compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks public comment on
the following proposed collection of information:
    Title: Education on Proper Use of Safety Belts on School Buses.
    Type of Request: New information collection requirement.
    OMB Clearance Number: None.
    Form Number: None.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: 3 years from date of
approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposes to conduct discussions
and informal interviews to identify school districts who have
implemented seat belts on school buses, and to gather information to
understand the states' and local agencies' decisions to implement seat
belts on school buses and the funding mechanisms that are used to pay
for seat belt installation. These discussions will be held via
telephone, email, and/or in-person throughout the course of the
project. The findings will be used to develop a model policy and a best
practices guide to assist jurisdictions that are considering the use of
seat belts on school buses.
    NHTSA also proposes to conduct a web-based survey to gather
information about bus driver distraction as related to student behavior
and seat belt use to see if the use of seat belts has influenced
disruptive behavior. NHTSA expects to distribute the survey to at least
one bus driver in each of the school districts that participate in the
aforementioned interviews, but hopes to collect surveys from more than
one driver in each of those school districts. The survey will not take
more than 10-15 minutes to complete. Follow-up telephone discussions
may also be conducted depending on the interest of respondents in
providing additional information.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information--On average, from 2004-2013, each year eight (8) school-age
pedestrians killed were struck by school transportation vehicles
(school buses and non-school-bus vehicles used as school buses), and 4
by other vehicles involved in school-bus-related crashes. During this
same time period, on average each year six school age children are
killed in collisions while riding in a school bus. By focusing on
safety both in and around the school bus, we could envision a future
where there are zero school transportation fatalities.
    There has generally been resistance against installing seat belts
on school buses based on a variety of reasons including the existing
safety features of school buses compared to other vehicles (i.e. taller
and heavier vehicles, padded and high seat backs, etc.), need for
drivers or aides to enforce wearing seat belts, cost, and other
factors. However, it is commonly known that the use of seat belts has
improved safety for other types of vehicles. Thus, on November 8, 2015,
NHTSA Administrator Dr. Mark Rosekind stated, ``NHTSA has not always
spoken with a clear voice on the issue of seat belts on school buses.
So let me clear up any ambiguity now: The position of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration is that seat belts save lives.
That is true whether in a passenger car or in a big yellow bus. And
saving lives is what we are about. So NHTSA's policy is that every
child on every school bus should have a three-point seat belt. NHTSA
will seek to use all the tools at our disposal to help achieve that
goal, and today I want

to launch a nationwide effort to get us there.''
    The current project seeks to understand the decisions that states
and local agencies use when deciding to implement seat belts on school
buses and the funding mechanisms that are used to pay for seat belt
installation. From there, model policy and a best practices guide will
be developed to assist jurisdictions that are considering the use of
seat belts on school buses. Finally, the project will also obtain data
related to the role of distraction and whether seat belts aid in
managing behavior on school buses. The project will culminate with a
final report to explain the results and outcomes from the project's
activities.
    Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number,
and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information)--
The first step of this process is to identify school districts who have
implemented, or are planning to implement, seat belts on their school
buses. NHTSA will reach out to current partners and connections
including contacts in the National Association of State Directors of
Pupil Transportation Services (NASDPTS), the National Association of
Pupil Transportation (NAPT), the National School Transportation
Association (NSTA), American School Bus Council (ASBC), school bus
manufacturers and dealers, as well as any existing contacts in
transportation departments, in order to help identify school districts.
NHTSA anticipates contacting approximately 100 individuals across the
country to ask general questions related to seat belt use in their
jurisdictions. NHTSA will hold general discussions with these partners
and contacts via telephone, email, and/or in person. As the goal of
these conversations is to identify school districts that have
implemented, or are considering implementing, seat belts on school
buses, it is expected that these conversations will take no longer than
5 minutes. To the extent possible, NHTSA will also identify, in
coordination with their partners, an appropriate contact(s) in each
school district.
    The next step, after school districts have been identified, is to
reach out to these school districts who have agreed to provide NHTSA
with more information and to gather information to understand the
states' and local agencies' decisions to implement seat belts on school
buses and the funding mechanisms that are used to pay for seat belt
installation. Informational interviews will be conducted with State
directors of pupil transportation and local school district
professionals to identify policy components that influence seat belt
acquisition and use. Prior to reaching out to any of the school
districts, NHTSA will contact the NHTSA Regional Administrators to
inform them of the school districts that NHTSA (through their
contractor) intends to contact within their region. The process will
then commence with introduction emails that NHTSA will send to the
identified contact in each school district. The email will provide a
brief overview of the project and discussion/interview goals, and will
contain two attachments: (1) An introduction letter from NHTSA
describing the goals of the project and interview process, and
explaining how the information that they provide will be incorporated
into the project and report, and (2) a list of discussion topics and
questions. Although specific interview questions will be developed to
keep the discussion on track as needed, it is expected that the actual
interviews will occur as more of a fluid, conversational dialogue
rather than a structured interview. NHTSA will follow up with each
contact via telephone within 1-2 weeks of sending the email. During
this call, NHTSA (through their contractor) will either work with the
contact to schedule a time to conduct the interview, or will conduct
the interview on the spot if preferred by the contact. In some cases,
the necessary information may be retrieved through a one-time telephone
or in-person discussion, while in other cases discussions may continue
via telephone and email as an on-going discussion throughout the course
of the project as school districts think of more information to provide
or if they provide additional contacts to follow up with in their
district. NHTSA is seeking to gather as much information as the school
districts are willing to provide, and frequency of response and
discussion will be driven by how involved the school district would
like to be in the conversation. It is anticipated that the more
detailed discussions will be held with approximately 25 individuals for
a collective total of 100 hours, or an average of 4 hours per
individual over an extended period.
    Finally, NHTSA will conduct a survey to gather information about
bus driver distraction as related to student behavior and seat belt use
to see if the use of seat belts has influenced disruptive behavior. The
potential respondents would include bus drivers from school districts
who have implemented seat belts. The survey will be web-based and
should take no longer than 10-15 minutes to complete. NHTSA expects to
distribute the survey to at least one bus driver in each of the school
districts that participate in the aforementioned interviews, but hopes
to collect surveys from more than one driver in each of those school
districts. NHTSA will share the link to the survey with their existing
contact(s) within that school district, and will request that they
distribute the survey to the appropriate bus drivers within their
school district. Follow-up discussions may also be conducted via
telephone or email depending on the interest of respondents in
providing additional information that may not have been captured by the
survey.
    Throughout the project, the privacy of all participants will be
protected. The Model Policy and Best Practices Guide, or any other
reports developed as a result of this data collection effort, will not
identify any individuals by name. School districts may be identified,
but only if permission is given to NHTSA by the school district.
Additionally, any school district identified in the Model Policy and
Best Practices will be given the opportunity to review and edit any
text referring directly to their school district.
    The online bus driver survey results will be password protected and
access will only be given to team members who have been authorized by
the Project Manager (principal investigators and research assistants).
The survey data will be exported to an Excel[supreg] file and stored in
a SharePoint site folder that is also only visible to those who have
been authorized by the Project Manager. The research team will check
the data file as soon as it is exported to the secure SharePoint folder
to ensure that no personally identifiable information (e.g. bus driver
name or email address) is included. Though survey respondents will be
asked to indicate their school district, they will not be required to
provide their name or contact information unless they wish to provide
additional information to the project team. Any personally identifiable
information that is provided will be kept separate from the data
collected.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Record Keeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of Information--NHTSA estimates that the
total respondent burden for this data collection would be 133.3 hours.
    The initial discussions would take approximately 5 minutes with 100
people for a total of 8.3 hours. The detailed discussions with school
districts who have agreed to participate with the project will take
place with a commitment of an average of 4 hours with 25 people for a
total of 100 hours.

The bus driver survey would take 15 minutes with approximately 100
people for a total of 25 hours.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A).

    Dated: December 2, 2016.
Jeff Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2016-29320 Filed 12-6-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 23, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8099-8101]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3473]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2009-1085]

Public Workshop on Marine Technology and Standards

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), in
coordination with the United States Coast Guard (USCG), is sponsoring a
two-day public workshop in Washington DC on marine technology and
standards. This public workshop will provide a unique opportunity for
classification societies, industry groups, standards development
organizations, government organizations, and other interested members
of the public to

come together for a professional exchange of information on topics
ranging from the technological impact on the marine industry,
corresponding coverage in related codes and standards, and government
regulations. A related workshop was held in Arlington, VA, on June 3-4,
2008 (73 FR 25756, May 7, 2008), and this workshop will build upon many
of the topics discussed there.

DATES: The two-day workshop will be held on Thursday, July 29, 2010,
and Friday, July 30, 2010. The deadline for advance registration is
Friday, July 16, 2010. If you are interested in presenting a paper at
the workshop, you must submit a 100 word abstract to Mr. Joseph S.
Brzuszkiewicz, Project Engineering Manager, ASME, by e-mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Abstracts are due on or before March 1, 2010.
    See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below for other dates related to
submission of abstracts, draft papers, and presentations, as well as
more information on how to register for the workshop.

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at The Liaison Capitol Hill, An
Affinia Hotel, located at 415 New Jersey Avenue, NW., in Washington,
DC, approximately 3 blocks from Union Station. The hotel phone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the hotel Web site is: http://www.affinia.com/Washington-DC-Hotel.aspx?name=Liaison-Capitol-Hill. For registration
for this workshop or to obtain further information, visit the USCG
Website at http://www.uscg.mil/marine_event. The docket for this
notice is available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management
Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC
20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. You may also find this docket on the Internet by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-1085 in the ``Keyword''
box, and then clicking ``Search.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
contact Lieutenant Commander Rob Griffiths, Office of Design and
Engineering Standards, USCG, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or contact Mr. Joseph S. Brzuszkiewicz,
Project Engineering Manager, ASME, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    The ASME/USCG Workshop on Marine Technology and Standards provides
a unique opportunity for classification societies, industry groups,
standards development organizations, government agencies, and
interested members of the public to come together for a professional
exchange of information on topics ranging from the technological impact
on the marine industry, corresponding coverage in related codes and
standards, and government regulations.
    The public workshop is sponsored by the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME), in coordination with the USCG Office of
Design and Engineering Standards. ASME is a standards setting
organization with wide-ranging volunteer committee membership, which
includes USCG supported personnel who serve as members of various ASME
committees in support of USCG missions in maritime safety and
environmental protection. The USCG Office of Design and Engineering
Standards is responsible for developing and promulgating national
regulations and standards that govern the safe design and construction
of ships and shipboard equipment, including hull structure, stability,
electrical & mechanical systems, lifesaving and fire safety equipment,
and related equipment approval and laboratory acceptance.
    Topics for the 2010 workshop are listed below and include
application of various marine technologies to promote green ships, such
as safe and economical use of hydrogen (H2) fuel cells to
power ships with zero carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and
compressed natural gas (CNG) powered ships with reduced CO2
emissions. This workshop will provide an opportunity for the public to
provide expertise on technical matters affecting the marine industry
and to improve future policymaking, standards development, and
rulemaking, including discussion of possible regulatory changes to
facilitate green ship technology. Public engagement on regulations and
standards is important to enhance the overall effectiveness and improve
the quality of our decisions. It also promotes greater transparency.

Topics of Meeting

    This workshop comprises a series of panel sessions over a two-day
period covering a variety of topics, including:

Green Ship Technology

     Hydrogen Fuel Cell Propulsion
     Standards for H2 Storage and Delivery
     Emission Cleaning Technology
     CO2 Emission Reduction
     Gas Fueled Ships
     CNG/LNG Technologies
     Use of Biofuels

Offshore Marine Structures

     Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading (FPSO)
Units--Topside
     Floating Wind Turbines
     Deepwater Ports
     Diving Systems to Support Offshore Activities

Codes & Standards

     Updates to ASME Code Section VIII, Divisions 2 and 3
regarding Rules of Construction for Pressure Vessels
     Use of ASME Code Section XII--Transport Tanks
     Limit Design for Pressure Vessels
     ASME Code Section X on Fiber-Reinforced Plastic Pressure
Vessels for CNG Transport
     ASME Code for Pressure Vessels for Human Occupancy (PVHO)

Material Selection for the Marine Environment

     Nonmetallic Materials for Shipboard Equipment
     Composite Pressure Vessels
     Coating Selection

Risk/Hazard Mitigation

     Transporting CNG as Cargo
     Shipboard Fire Safety for Green Ship/Emerging Technology
     Maintenance and Inservice Inspection

Regulatory/Classification/Governmental Issues

     Rulemaking Process/Future Actions
     Regulatory Gaps Pertaining to Technological Advancements
     Adoption of Standards in Regulations
     Updates on Classification Issues
     OMB Circular A 119

Emerging Technologies

     Ballast Water Management Systems Standardization

Call for Papers

Abstracts

    If you are interested in presenting a paper on one or more topics
listed above, submit a 100 word abstract to Mr. Joseph S.
Brzuszkiewicz, Project Engineering Manager, ASME, by e-mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Abstracts are due on or before March 1, 2010,
and

should also contain the title of your paper, name of each author/co-
author, name of each presenter and affiliation to author/co-author, as
well as the title, address, phone number, facsimile number, and e-mail
address for each named individual.

Draft Papers and Presentations

    If you receive notification from us that your abstract is accepted,
you may then submit a draft paper and presentation to Lieutenant
Commander Rob Griffiths, Office of Design and Engineering Standards,
USCG, by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Draft papers are due on
or before April 9, 2010, with final papers, formatted and ready for
publication, due on or before June 7, 2010. Presentations are also due
on or before June 7, 2010.

Web Sites

    For additional information on this workshop, visit the USCG Web
site at http://www.uscg.mil/marine_event.

Registration

    To register for this workshop, visit the USCG Web Site listed above
in Web Sites. While the workshop is open to the public, meeting space
is limited by room capacity. Since seating is limited, we ask anyone
interested in attending the workshop to register in advance. The
deadline for advance registration is Friday, July 16, 2010.
Registration on the first day of the workshop will be permitted on a
space-available basis. The registration fee for this event is USD$300.
The registration fee includes admission for one person to each panel
session for the two day event, several coffee breaks, and a reception
on the first day of the event.

Proceedings

    Material presented at the workshop will be made available to the
public on the USCG Web Site listed above in Web Sites for 30 days after
the conclusion of this event. For additional information on material
presented at this event, you may contact one of the individuals listed
above in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Summaries of comments made
and materials presented will be available on the docket at the
conclusion of this event. To view the docket, see instructions above in
ADDRESSES.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act, system of
records notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008,
issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    Persons with disabilities who require special assistance should
advise us of their anticipated special needs as early as possible by
contacting Mr. Joseph S. Brzuszkiewicz, Project Engineering Manager,
ASME, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Adjournment

    Please note that the workshop may adjourn early if all business is
finished.

    Authority:  This notice is issued under authority of 5 U.S.C.
552(a) and 14 U.S.C. 93(a)(4).

    Dated: February 16, 2010.
J. G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2010-3473 Filed 2-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 24, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 64978]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26109]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER13-113-000]

Sunbury Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding,
of Sunbury Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate schedule, noting that such application
includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability is November 6, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 17, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-26109 Filed 10-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P