[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21663-21666]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08360]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0101; Notice 2]

Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Denial of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited (Morgan) has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2012 and 2013 Morgan model M3W three-wheeled
motorcycles do not comply with all of the requirements of Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps, reflective devices, and
associated equipment. Specifically, the vehicles' headlamps are spaced
further apart than permitted, and do not have the required ``DOT''
marking. Morgan has petitioned for an exemption from the recall
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301--``Motor
Vehicle Safety'' (Vehicle Safety Act) on the grounds that the
noncompliances are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. This notice
announces and explains NHTSA's denial of Morgan's petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on this
decision contact Mike Cole, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202)
366-2334, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and the
rule implementing those provisions at 49 CFR part 556, Morgan has
petitioned for an exemption from the notification and remedy
requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that the
noncompliances are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on December 9, 2013 in the Federal Register (78
FR 73920). One comment was received from Peter C. Larsen of Liberty
Motors, LLC. To view the petition and all supporting documents log onto
the Federal Docket Management System Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online search instructions to locate
docket number ``NHTSA-2013-0101.''
    II. Vehicles involved: Approximately 150 MY 2012 and 2013 Morgan
model M3W three-wheeled motorcycles manufactured from August 1, 2012 to
August 14, 2013 (subject vehicles) are affected.
    III. Noncompliances: Morgan's petition concerns two requirements in
FMVSS No. 108.\1\ Both noncompliances involve the vehicles' headlights.
Morgan states that the noncompliances are a result of a configuration
error in its production line. The first noncompliance involves the
spacing between the headlights. Paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.2 of FMVSS No. 108
specifies that if motorcycle headlamps are horizontally disposed about
the vertical centerline, the distance between the closest edges of
their effective projected luminous lens areas must not be greater than
200 mm.\2\ Morgan states in its petition that the subject motorcycles
do not comply with this requirement because they are equipped with dual
horizontally-mounted headlamps mounted 29 inches (737 mm) apart (lens
edge to lens edge).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 49 CFR 571.108.
    \2\ In a December 2007 final rule, NHTSA rewrote and reorganized
FMVSS No. 108 to provide a more straightforward and logical
presentation of the regulatory requirements. 72 FR 68234, Dec. 4,
2007. Those amendments became effective on December 1, 2012. 74 FR
58214, Nov. 12, 2009. The rewrite was not intended to make any
substantive changes to the standard. The subject vehicle population
includes vehicles manufactured both before and after this effective
date. Prior to the effective date of the reorganized standard, the
headlight spacing requirement was contained in S<IP_ADDRESS>(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second noncompliance concerns the lack of a required marking on
the headlamps. Paragraph S6.5.1 of FMVSS No. 108 requires that the lens
of each original equipment and replacement headlamp be marked with the
symbol ``DOT,'' either horizontally or vertically, to indicate
certification under 49 U.S.C. 30115.\3\ Morgan states in its petition
that the subject vehicles do not include this marking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This provision was located at S7.2(a) in the pre-rewrite
version of FMVSS No. 108.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IV. Rule Text: Paragraphs S<IP_ADDRESS>(b) and S<IP_ADDRESS>.2 of FMVSS No.
108 require in pertinent part:

    Paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>(b) (applies only to the subject vehicles
manufactured before December 1, 2012).
    If the system consists of two headlamps, each of which provides
both an upper and lower beam, the headlamps shall be mounted either
at the same height and symmetrically disposed about the vertical
centerline or mounted on the vertical centerline. If the headlamps
are horizontally disposed about the vertical centerline, the
distance between the closest edges of their effective projected
luminous lens areas shall not be greater than 200 mm (8 in.).
    Paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>.2 (applies only to the subject vehicles
manufactured after December 1, 2012).
    If the headlamps are horizontally disposed about the vertical
centerline, the distance between the closest edges of their
effective projected luminous lens areas must not be greater than 200
mm.

    V. Summary of Morgan's Petition and Comments: Morgan petitions for
relief from the recall provisions of the Vehicle Safety Act with
respect to both of these noncompliances. Morgan makes several arguments
to support its assertion that these noncompliances are inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety.
    With respect to the headlamp spacing noncompliance, Morgan contends
that

the headlamps meet the ``technical requirements'' of FMVSS No. 108.
Morgan also states that it does not believe that this noncompliance
will increase the safety risk to vehicle occupants or approaching
drivers. Morgan argues that the current horizontal spacing of 29 inches
(737 mm) is in the best interests of road safety, because if the M3W
complied with the existing motorcycle head lamp spacing requirement,
other road users would not have an accurate indication of the width of
an oncoming M3W. Morgan also argues that NHTSA has previously found a
lighting separation noncompliance to be inconsequential.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 64 FR 28864, May 27, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Morgan contends that the lens marking noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety because the lamps meet the
substantive requirements of FMVSS No. 108. Morgan also states that
owners of Morgan vehicles almost exclusively go to Morgan dealers for
replacement parts; the agency assumes that Morgan is implying that
because the vehicle owner is likely to obtain a replacement part
directly from a dealer, the owner can be confident that the headlamp
complies with all applicable requirements, even though it lacks the
proper ``DOT'' marking.
    With respect to both noncompliances, Morgan asserts, based on its
reading of previous inconsequentiality petition grants by NHTSA, that
its noncompliances should be found to be inconsequential because the
M3W is an exotic vehicle with no roof or doors, produced in very low
numbers, driven a low number of miles, and likely to be operated on a
limited basis, as opposed to an ordinary passenger automobile designed
to be used as a family's primary passenger vehicle. Morgan also states
that there have been no reports of any safety issues or injuries
related to the subject noncompliances. NHTSA received one comment on
Morgan's petition from Peter Larsen. Mr. Larsen makes several arguments
in support of Morgan's petition. First, Mr. Larsen asserts that a
NHTSA-published guidebook on motorcycle requirements does not contain
the 200 mm spacing requirement. Second, Mr. Larsen argues that when
NHTSA promulgated this requirement it did not contemplate three-wheeled
vehicles with the frontal aspect of a small automobile, for which
headlights spaced more than 200 mm apart help to indicate the size and
shape of the vehicle. Accordingly, Mr. Larsen contends that the 200 mm
requirement, as applied to the subject vehicles, is not in the interest
of safety. Third, Mr. Larsen suggests that if the subject vehicles are
remedied so that the dual headlights are replaced with a compliant
center headlight, owners and dealers of the subject vehicles would
likely remove the single center light and replace it with the dual,
widely-spaced lights; and that a recall or design revision, Mr. Larsen
asserts, would ``criminalize'' these actions. Finally, Mr. Larsen
argues that many existing three-wheeled vehicles have similarly-spaced
dual headlights, and it would be unjust to penalize Morgan's similar
design. Mr. Larsen requests that NHTSA ``properly amend'' FMVSS No.
108.

NHTSA's Decision

    General Principles: Federal motor vehicle safety standards are
adopted only after the agency has determined, following notice and
comment, that the performance requirements are objective, practicable,
and meet the need for motor vehicle safety.\5\ There is a general
presumption that the failure of a motor vehicle or item of motor
vehicle equipment to comply with an FMVSS increases the risk to motor
vehicle safety beyond the level determined appropriate by NHTSA through
the rulemaking process. To protect the public from such risks,
manufacturers whose products fail to comply with an FMVSS are normally
required to conduct a safety recall under which they must notify
owners, purchasers, and dealers of the noncompliance and provide a
remedy without charge.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 49 U.S.C. 30111(a).
    \6\ 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress has, however, recognized that under some limited
circumstances a noncompliance may be ``inconsequential'' to motor
vehicle safety. Neither NHTSA's statute nor its regulations define
``inconsequential.'' NHTSA determines whether a particular
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety based on the
specific facts before the agency. The key issue in evaluating an
inconsequentiality petition is whether the noncompliance is likely to
increase the safety risk to individuals who experience the type of
injurious event against which the standard was designed to protect.\7\
The agency is not aware of any prior inconsequentiality petitions
concerning either of the two requirements that are the subject of
Morgan's petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ General Motors Corp., Ruling on Petition for Determination
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, Apr. 14, 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA's analysis: The agency has determined that Morgan has not met
its burden of persuasion that the noncompliances are inconsequential to
safety. The agency is therefore denying Morgan's petition with respect
to both noncompliances. The agency's reasons for the denial are
discussed below.
    NHTSA is not persuaded by the arguments of Morgan or Mr. Larsen
regarding the noncompliance with the headlamp spacing requirement in
S<IP_ADDRESS>.2. Morgan's assertion that the subject vehicles meet the
``technical requirements'' of FMVSS No. 108 is inaccurate because the
distance requirement for headlamp configuration is clearly stated in
the regulation as one of the requirements for compliance.\8\ Morgan
acknowledges in its Part 573 defect notification report that the
headlamps on the subject vehicles do not comply with this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ S<IP_ADDRESS>.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency is also not persuaded by Morgan and Mr. Larsen's
arguments that the noncompliance not only does not increase the safety
risk, but is, in fact, safety-enhancing, because the wider-spaced
headlamps convey a more accurate impression of the vehicle's width to
other motorists. An inconsequentiality petition is not the appropriate
means to challenge the basis or appropriateness of a requirement
specified in an FMVSS. The appropriate venue for such an argument is a
petition for rulemaking to amend the current safety standard.
Nevertheless, neither Morgan nor Mr. Larsen have offered persuasive
evidence that either the standard or market conditions have changed to
undermine the basis for the spacing limitation. The 200 mm maximum
spacing requirement was added to the standard in 1998 in response to a
petition for rulemaking. In the preamble to the final rule, NHTSA
explained the rationale for the motorcycle headlight requirements:
``[A]t the time that the motorcycle headlight requirements in Standard
No. 108 were originally issued, the predominant concern was that the
headlighting system clearly identify a motorcycle as such when the
vehicle was being operated at night.'' \9\ The wider space between the
headlamps on the subject vehicles could impair the ability of other
motorists to identify the subject vehicle as a motorcycle. Such
identification is important because motorists may be more alert or
alter their driving in response to the presence of a motorcycle, since
motorcycles are smaller, less enclosed, and less stable than passenger
cars and other motor vehicles.\10\ Even if the Morgan vehicle's

front end is wider than that of a typical two-wheeled motorcycle, the
vehicle is still smaller, less enclosed, and less stable than passenger
cars and other motor vehicles with which it shares the road. In
addition, to further distinguish motorcycles from larger vehicles,
NHTSA's regulations also allow modulation of motorcycle headlamp
intensity to provide increased conspicuity.\11\ If the subject Morgan
motorcycles were equipped with modulators on its headlamps, the wide
spacing of the headlamps could be perceived by other drivers as an
emergency or police vehicle. If Morgan believed that lighting
indicating the width of the vehicle would enhance the safety of the
vehicle, Morgan could have accomplished this by adding supplemental
lighting to the vehicle (e.g., parking lamps), keeping in mind that
supplemental lighting may not impair the effectiveness of required
lighting equipment.\12\ We also note that the space between the
headlamps is less than the wheel-to-wheel width of the vehicle, so the
existing headlights do not accurately indicate the actual width of the
vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 63 FR 42582, 42582, Aug. 10, 1998.
    \10\ The noncompliance is also not de minimis. The headlamps on
the subject vehicles are 29 inches apart, while the maximum spacing
permitted by the standard is 200 mm (7.9 in).
    \11\ S10.17.5.
    \12\ S6.2.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, Mr. Larsen asserts that when NHTSA promulgated this
headlamp spacing regulation it did not contemplate three-wheeled
vehicles such as the subject vehicles, which, he states, display the
frontal aspect of a small automobile. The initial Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards, published in 1967, defined a ``motorcycle'' as ``a
motor vehicle with motive power having a seat or saddle for the use of
the rider and designed to travel on not more than three wheels in
contact with the ground.'' \13\ This definition, which is in effect
today,\14\ clearly includes the subject vehicles. While the M3W may be
an unusual design, the vehicle configuration is unequivocally a
motorcycle; as Mr. Larsen notes in his comment, ``the Morgan 3 Wheeler
follows the classic lighting scheme.'' Again, as we noted above, a
petition for rulemaking, not an inconsequentiality petition, is the
proper mechanism if Morgan or Mr. Larsen believes that the existing
requirement is not appropriate for the subject vehicles.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 32 FR 2408, 2409, Feb. 3, 1967.
    \14\ 49 CFR 571.3.
    \15\ We note that subsequent to filing the present
inconsequentiality petition, Morgan did file a petition for
rulemaking on this issue. The agency is currently evaluating this
petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Morgan also cites, in support of its petition, a prior agency
decision granting a General Motors inconsequentiality petition.\16\
That inconsequentiality petition concerned a noncompliance with a
minimum required separation distance between a daytime running lamp
(DRL) and a front turn signal. The purpose of that spacing requirement
is to prevent masking of the turn signal lamp by the DRLs. The agency
found that masking would not be an issue in that case because those
vehicles incorporated front turn signals that were five times the
required minimum area and four times brighter than the minimum required
photometry. NHTSA went on to state that its research showed that high
turn signal intensity was very important to prevent masking. Because
the requirements at issue in the General Motors petition are intended
to address a fundamentally different safety issue than the requirement
from which Morgan is seeking a grant of inconsequential noncompliance,
we do not find the General Motors petition to be relevant for our
consideration of Morgan's petition; as discussed above, we believe that
the greater than allowed distance between the headlamps might hinder
other motorists from identifying the subject vehicles as motorcycles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 64 FR 28864, May 27, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Larsen also states that he developed a motorcycle on which the
subject vehicle is based, and states that the headlamp location was
configured as described in NHTSA's published guidebook entitled
``Requirements of Motorcycle Manufacturers.'' Mr. Larsen did not
further identify this guide, but he appears to refer to the NHTSA guide
entitled ``Requirements for Motorcycle Manufacturers,'' published in
February 2000.\17\ This guide states that it ``merely highlights the
major requirements for manufacturers; each manufacturer should consult
the specific statutes, regulations, and standards to determine its
responsibilities.'' \18\ The lighting standard (FMVSS No. 108) contains
many motorcycle lighting requirements in addition to the limited subset
of requirements that are summarized in Table IV of the NHTSA guide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Available at http://www.nhtsa.gov/Laws+&+Regulations/Manufacturer+Info/Requirements+for+Motorcycle+Manufacturers.
    \18\ Id. at pages 3 and 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mr. Larsen also suggests that if NHTSA were to deny Morgan's
petition, it would ``criminalize'' owners and dealers of the subject
vehicles (who, he asserts, will likely replace a single center light
and replace it with dual, widely-spaced lights). This is incorrect.
Today's denial requires Morgan to notify owners of the subject vehicles
of the noncompliance and to remedy the noncompliance if and when a
vehicle owner presents a vehicle for repair. Neither NHTSA's denial nor
the recall and remedy requirements impose any obligations on vehicle
owners. Today's denial simply ensures that vehicle owners will be
notified of the noncompliance and will have the opportunity to have
their vehicle remedied, if the vehicle owner so chooses.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ NHTSA encourages vehicle owners to have recalled vehicles
promptly remedied. We also note the statutory prohibition on making
required safety elements inoperative. 49 U.S.C. 30122. This
prohibition, however, applies only to manufacturers, distributors,
dealers, and motor vehicle repair businesses. Sec.  30122. It does
not apply to individual vehicle owners. See Letter from NHTSA Chief
Counsel Frank Seales, Jr. to Hamsar Diversco Inc., Jan. 22, 1999,
available at http://isearch.nhtsa.gov/search.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the agency is not persuaded by Mr. Larsen's argument that
it would be unjust to ``suddenly penalize'' and require Morgan to
recall the subject vehicles because, he asserts, there are many three-
wheeled vehicles with wide-spaced dual headlights similar to the
subject vehicles. The spacing regulation at issue has been in effect
since 1998. Moreover, it does not apply to all three-wheeled
motorcycles currently on the road. It applies to vehicles manufactured
or imported into the United States after the effective date of the 1998
final rule. Accordingly, it does not apply, for example, to vintage
vehicles that were manufactured before the effective date of the final
rule.
    Regarding the ``DOT'' marking requirement, the agency is also not
persuaded by Morgan's arguments. In the past, NHTSA has granted
inconsequentiality petitions for lighting components that did not have
certain required markings.\20\ As we noted earlier, however, we are not
aware of any prior inconsequentiality petitions concerning the ``DOT''
marking requirement at issue in Morgan's petition. We are not persuaded
that the absence of the ``DOT'' mark is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety in this case. The ``DOT'' mark on a headlamp indicates
that the lamp manufacturer has certified the lamp as conforming to all
applicable requirements. Morgan has provided no information or data to
demonstrate that the headlamps otherwise comply with the requirements
of FMVSS No. 108. Morgan asserts that the lamps meet the

``substantive'' requirements of FMVSS No. 108, but has provided no
information as to which requirements it considers ``substantive'' and
which it does not. Morgan has submitted no compliance testing data or
information showing that the lamps comply with all relevant
requirements. Without such information and data, and without a ``DOT''
mark on the headlamp to imply that such information and data exist, the
agency is unable to conclude that the lack of the ``DOT'' mark is the
only noncompliant aspect of the headlamps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See, e.g., 78 FR 22943, Apr. 17, 2013 (grant of
inconsequentiality petition from Osram Sylvania Products, Inc. for
noncompliance with the light source marking requirements of FMVSS
No. 108 S7.7.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the arguments addressed above, the agency is also
not persuaded by two additional arguments Morgan makes for why it
believes NHTSA should grant the petition with respect to both
noncompliances. First, Morgan argues that its petition should be
granted because the subject vehicle is an exotic vehicle produced in
very low numbers and likely to be operated on a limited basis, as
opposed to a passenger automobile designed to be used as a family's
primary passenger vehicle. In support of this argument, Morgan cites
two previous agency decisions granting inconsequentiality
petitions.\21\ Both petitions concerned noncompliances with automatic
restraint requirements in FMVSS No. 208. The agency's decisions in
those situations were based on the fact that it had already granted
temporary exemption petitions from both manufacturers for the vehicle
models at issue in those inconsequentiality petitions. The agency has
not previously granted Morgan a temporary exemption for the
noncompliances at issue in the present petition. Moreover, the
``vehicle attributes'' that Morgan implies those grants were based on--
that the vehicles were exotic vehicles likely operated on a limited
basis--were simply arguments made by the petitioners in those cases,
and not, as Morgan's petition implies, the basis for the agency's
decision. NHTSA expects manufacturers to fulfill their duties and
responsibilities to provide vehicles that meet all safety standards
regardless of production volume or estimated consumer use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 60 FR 27593, May 24, 1995 (grant of inconsequentiality
petition from Excalibur Automobile Corp.); 61 FR 9517, Mar. 8, 1996
(grant of inconsequentiality petition from Cantab Motors, Ltd.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, Morgan states that there have been no reports of any safety
issues or injuries related to the subject noncompliances. NHTSA does
not consider the absence of complaints to show that the noncompliances
are inconsequential to safety. The subject vehicle population is small,
so the lack of reports or complaints may not be surprising. Further,
vehicle lighting functions as a signal to other motorists and
pedestrians; if other motorists found the noncompliant lighting
confusing, it is unlikely that those motorists would have been able to
identify the subject vehicle and make a complaint to either NHTSA or
Morgan. Most importantly, the absence of a complaint does not mean
there have not been any safety issues, nor does it mean that there will
not be safety issues in the future.
    Finally, the agency observes that although Morgan's Part 573 report
and inconsequentiality petition only concern the headlamp spacing and
headlamp marking noncompliances, the subject vehicles may also fail to
comply with other applicable FMVSSs. For example, a motorcycle headlamp
that incorporates a replaceable light source that does not comply with
FMVSS No. 108, paragraph S11 (e.g., an H4 light source which is only
permitted on motorcycle specific headlamps) is also required to have
the headlamp lens permanently marked ``motorcycle.'' This marking may
not have appeared on the headlamps of one of the subject vehicles the
agency observed.
    Morgan's proposed remedy: Morgan proposes to add a single FMVSS No.
108 compliant headlamp on the M3W's vertical centerline and have the
original, noncompliant headlamps remain as separately switched
auxiliary lamps. Paragraph S6.2.1 of FMVSS No. 108 requires that any
additional lighting elements (i.e., lighting elements that are not
required by the standard) installed on a vehicle must not impair the
effectiveness of lighting equipment required by the standard. A
motorcycle equipped with both a compliant single headlighting system
and an auxiliary (supplemental) dual-headlamp system might be
prohibited by the impairment provision. The proximity of the auxiliary
lamps to the required front turn signal lamps might also raise
impairment concerns. We strongly encourage Morgan to review the
standard to ensure that its remedy does indeed comply with all
applicable requirements.
    NHTSA's Decision: After carefully considering the arguments
presented on this matter, NHTSA finds that the petitioner has not met
its burden of persuasion in establishing that the described
noncompliances in the subject vehicles are inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety. Accordingly, Morgan's petition is hereby denied, and
Morgan must notify owners, purchasers and dealers pursuant to 49 U.S.C.
30118 and provide a free remedy in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30120.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Gregory K. Rea,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2016-08360 Filed 4-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 57450]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22599]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Notice Rescinding a Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement for the Altamont Corridor Rail Project From Stockton
to San Jose, California

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice rescinding intent to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS).

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is issuing this
notice to advise the public that FRA is rescinding the Notice of Intent
(NOI) to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement (EIS)
for the Altamont Corridor Rail Project from Stockton to San Jose,
California Project in cooperation with the project sponsor, the
California High Speed Rail Authority (Authority). FRA published the
original NOI in the Federal Register on October 29, 2009. This
rescission is due to the transfer of the project from the Authority to
the San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC) and a change in the
project definition and purpose and need. An NOI to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the revised Altamont Corridor
Express also known as the ACEforward project is being published
concurrently with this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Stephanie Perez-Arrieta,
Environmental Protection Specialist, Federal Railroad Administration,
1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, (Mail Stop 20), Washington, DC 20590,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Altamont Corridor was studied by the
Authority and identified as a candidate route to the Bay Area in the
Statewide High Speed Train (HST) System Program Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS). The Authority and FRA
further examined the corridor in the 2008 Bay Area to Central Valley
HST EIR/EIS and selected the Pacheco Pass via Gilroy as the route to
connect the main line of the HST network in the Central Valley with the
Peninsula and San Francisco. The Authority and SJRRC proposed to
develop a dedicated regional rail corridor through Altamont Pass and
the Tri Valley area capable of supporting intercity and commuter rail
passenger services. The project was planned to improve the existing ACE
service managed by SJRRC by accommodating more trains per day, reducing
travel times, and eliminating freight railroad delays by providing
separate passenger tracks. The Altamont Corridor was planned to serve
as a feeder to the statewide HST System being planned and developed by
the Authority. The project considered connections between the Altamont
corridor and the HST mainline between Stockton and Modesto and HST
compatible infrastructure that would have allowed trains to run from
one rail line to the other in order to accommodate intercity travel
between stations along the Altamont Corridor and regional stops on the
greater statewide HST System.
    Scoping was completed for the EIR/EIS in 2009 and the development
of preliminary alternatives in 2010 and 2011. No further work was
completed on the EIS. Due to the proposed change in leadership and
direction of this project, FRA is issuing this notice terminating the
preparation of the Altamont Corridor Rail Project EIS.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 13, 2013.
Renee Cooper,
Staff Director, Office of Passenger and Freight Programs.
[FR Doc. 2013-22599 Filed 9-17-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


 E-mail

From:	"cneufeld"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To:	Gil Wood/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date:	04/09/2012 10:26 AM Subject:	RE: CHC Concerns

Gil:   You are correct.  Engineering time required to develop a catalytic wood stove is far less than a non catalytic.  In fact, since the fall of 2010, we developed, tested and received EPA approval for two different catalytic fireboxes.  We have a single engineer, Mr. Ivo Hoovers, who developed both fireboxes.   As for patents, ours expired many, many years ago.  In fact, the hybrid wood stove patent that another manufacture has applied for is somewhat interesting.  In 1983, Blaze King built, by current definitions, a hybrid wood stove.  It used both secondary air tubes and a catalytic combustor.  We have advised the patent office of this fact.   In 2011, at our industry Expo (you were present as I recall) major players did not display catalytic wood stoves.  One year later, Travis, Regency and others are all now promoting the catalytic models they have made and that are coming to market.  One of the most outspoken manufacturers, with solid political connections, does not even know that his anti-catalytic statements in past are about to cause some awkwardness.  Their corporate offices and engineering labs overseas are buying combustors for their new catalytic prototypes!   As for the old R & C (research and copy) it is indeed far more prevalent that you might ever imagine.  As far as catalyst suppliers, they will sell without restriction.  In fact, in the past year, several new US suppliers have really picked up on the market potential and have approached wood stove manufacturers.   There are at least 7 manufacturers, Blaze King, Woodstock Soapstone, Vermont Castings, Kuma, Buck, Regency, Travis, and others currently making or introducing catalytic models.  I would expect that a single standard would encourage manufacturers to make cleaner burning stoves, both catalytic and non catalytic;ytic alike.   What I feel is important, as you know since I have said this so many times in the past three years, testing requirements and standards should both reflect and be based upon how wood stoves are used in a home not a test lab.  Wood stoves spend 80% of their time on low settings.  Catalytic wood stoves shine on the lowest settings and even on high burn are cleaner than most non catalytic models.   Keep in mind that if a catalytic wood stove is certified at 1.0 gr/hr., that is the average based on the four burns.  In fact, since 80% of the time the stove is actually burned on a lower setting, the emissions are much, much lower than 1.0 gr/hr.   In a non catalytic model, you have the inverse scenario.  A non catalytic model certified at 3.5 gr/hr, spending 80% of the time on low, is actually producing more than 3.5 since low is where they burn dirtiest.   Now you can see why industry wants to increase the low burn rate by 15% to 1.15kg/hr.  It's just out right game playing.   I was on a call two weeks ago with most of the industry executives and they were complaining about the 70% HHV efficiency requirement stating that 30% of the stoves on the market would not make that number.  I spoke up and said, " In the pest two years you have all beat your chests and said your stoves were more than 75% efficient so your products would qualify for the tax credit.  Now, the HHV efficiency gets introduced, which is more reflective of real world use and you're all worked up about it."   They met with EPA staff last week to raise their concerns over the matters and I hope EPA stays the course!  I will loose two models, but that's o.k., we'll just innovate, build cleaner and more efficient models.  Isn't that what the NSPS is all about?   Thanks Chris   PS I am off to by a bullet proof vest for my next industry wide meeting.

From: Gil Wood<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 6:19 AM To: cneufeld Subject: RE: CHC Concerns

Thank you for the confidential cost info Chris!

A continuing issue for having one emission limit for both catalytic and noncatalytic stoves is the cost for R& D for noncatalytic manufacturers to develop catalytic stoves [or other low emission systems] that meet the tighter emission limits that catalytic stoves can already easily meet...

To me, it seems like a manufacturer or consultant that has experience developing EPA-certified noncatalytic stoves could also develop a new catalytic stove a lot cheaper than what it took for them to develop their EPA-certified noncatalytic stove... since presumably they already know a lot about combustion and materials and the catalyst will do a lot of the additional work to get the emissions even lower... Would one engineer for a year seem reasonable?

How solid are the stove patents for BlazeKing and other companies that make catalytic stoves? I presume some competitors will try to reverse engineer from what they see from your stoves...

Do you sell licenses for your stove catalyst integration technology?

I presume there are no limits by the catalyst manufacturers on buying/using their catalysts, right?

How long do you think it would take to meet the total stove demand mostly by catalytic stoves instead of mostly noncats?

Thanks again.

Gil


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 130 (Monday, July 10, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43479-43482]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14330]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1222; Project Identifier AD-2023-00574-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2021-02-15, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 747-100,
747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400,
747-400D, 747-400F, and 747SR series airplanes. AD 2021-02-15 requires
repetitive replacement of certain parts; an inspection to determine
production configuration for certain parts; repetitive lubrication of
certain parts and a repetitive inspection of certain parts for any
exuding grease; repetitive inspections of certain parts for loose or
missing attachment bolts, cracks or bushing migration, cracks or
gouges, or broken, binding, or missing rollers; repetitive inspections
of certain parts for cracks or corrosion; repetitive lubrication; and
on-condition actions if necessary. Since the FAA issued AD 2021-02-15,
the FAA determined that certain compliance times must be reduced in
order to address the unsafe condition. This proposed AD would continue
to require the actions specified in AD 2021-02-15 with certain reduced
compliance times. The FAA is

proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 24,
2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1222; or in person at Docket Operations between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this NPRM, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; website myboeingfleet.com.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available at
regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2023-1222.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stefanie Roesli, Aviation Safety
Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: 206-
231-3964; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1222; Project Identifier
AD-2023-00574-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Stefanie Roesli, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St.,
Des Moines, WA 98198; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives that is
not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket
for this rulemaking.

Background

    The FAA issued AD 2021-02-15, Amendment 39-21398 (86 FR 10750,
February 23, 2021) (AD 2021-02-15), for certain The Boeing Company
Model 747-100, 747-100B, 747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F,
747-300, 747-400, 747-400D, 747-400F, and 747SR series airplanes. AD
2021-02-15 was prompted by reports of partial and full inboard foreflap
departures from the airplane. Inboard flap departures have been
attributed to inadequate lubrication of the outboard fitting assembly,
corrosion of the outboard fitting assembly, and corrosion in the
inboard link assembly. In addition, broken center toggle rollers at the
inboard sequence carriage and binding of inboard foreflap tracks due to
defective or seized foreflap track rollers can lead to higher than
normal loads on the outboard fitting assembly and the inboard link
assembly. AD 2021-02-15 requires repetitive replacement of certain
parts; a general visual inspection to determine production
configuration for certain parts; a repetitive lubrication of certain
parts and a repetitive general visual inspection of certain parts for
any exuding grease; repetitive detailed inspections of certain parts
for loose or missing attachment bolts, cracks or bushing migration,
cracks or gouges, or broken, binding, or missing rollers; repetitive
detailed inspections of certain parts for cracks or corrosion;
repetitive lubrication; and on-condition actions if necessary. The
agency issued AD 2021-02-15 to address departures of the inboard
foreflap assembly from the airplane, which could result in damage to
the airplane and adversely affect the airplane's continued safe flight
and landing.

Actions Since AD 2021-02-15 Was Issued

    Since the FAA issued AD 2021-02-15, the FAA determined that certain
compliance times must be reduced in order to address the unsafe
condition. Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-57A2367 RB, dated
November 15, 2019, which is the appropriate source of service
information for accomplishing the actions required by AD 2021-02-15,
includes compliance times in Tables 1 through 4 of the ``Compliance''
paragraph that specify ``whichever occurs later'' instead of
``whichever occurs first.''
    Boeing issued Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-57A2367 RB,
Revision 1, dated March 20, 2023, to reduce the compliance time by
replacing ``Within 2 years after the original issue date of
Requirements Bulletin 747-57A2367 RB or within 1,960 flight cycles
after the original issue date of Requirements Bulletin 747-57A2367 RB,
whichever occurs later'' with ``Within 2 years after the Revision 1
date of Requirements Bulletin 747-57A2367 RB or within 1,960 flight
cycles after the original issue date of Requirements Bulletin 747-
57A2367 RB, whichever occurs first.''

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other
products of the same type design.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-57A2367 RB,
Revision 1, dated March 20, 2023. This service information specifies
procedures for repetitive replacement of certain parts; a general
visual inspection to determine production configuration for certain
parts; a repetitive lubrication of certain parts and a repetitive
general visual inspection of certain parts for any exuding grease;
repetitive detailed inspections of certain parts for loose or missing
attachment bolts, cracks or bushing migration, cracks or gouges, or
broken, binding, or missing rollers; repetitive detailed inspections of
certain parts for cracks or corrosion; repetitive lubrication; and on-
condition actions if necessary. On-condition actions include
replacements and repair.
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES.

Proposed AD Requirements in This NPRM

    Although this proposed AD does not explicitly restate the
requirements of AD 2021-02-15, this proposed AD would retain all the
requirements of AD 2021-02-15, with certain reduced compliance times.
Those requirements are referenced in the service information identified
previously, which, in turn, is referenced in paragraph (g) of this
proposed AD.
    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information already described and except for any
differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this
proposed AD. For information on the procedures and compliance times,
see this service information at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-
2023-1222.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 134 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repetitive replacement (retained   Up to 10 work-hours         $35,719  Up to $36,569 per    Up to $4,900,246
 actions from AD 2021-02-15).       x $85 per hour =                     replacement cycle.   per replacement
                                    Up to $850 per                                            cycle.
                                    replacement cycle.
General visual inspection for      1 work-hour x $85                 0  $85................  $11,390.
 parts production configuration     per hour = $85.
 (retained actions from AD 2021-
 02-15).
Repetitive detailed inspections    4 work-hours x $85                0  $340 per inspection  $45,560 per
 (retained actions from AD 2021-    per hour = $340                      cycle.               inspection cycle.
 02-15).                            per inspection
                                    cycle.
Repetitive inspection for          1 work-hour x $85                 0  $85 per lubrication  $11,390 per
 lubrication and repetitive         per hour = $85 per                                        lubrication.
 lubrication (retained actions      lubrication.
 from AD 2021-02-15).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-
condition actions that would be required. The FAA has no way of
determining the number of aircraft that might need these on-condition
actions:

              Estimated Costs of On-Condition Replacements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Labor cost                 Parts cost       Cost per product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 8 work-hour x $85 per hour  Up to $17,720.....  Up to $18,400.
 = $680.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the FAA
to provide cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in
this proposed AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by:
0
a. Removing Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2021-02-15, Amendment 39-21398
(86 FR 10750, February 23, 2021), and
0
b. Adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2023-1222; Project Identifier AD-
2023-00574-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by August 24, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2021-02-15, Amendment 39-21398 (86 FR 10750,
February 23, 2021) (AD 2021-02-15).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 747-100, 747-100B,
747-100B SUD, 747-200B, 747-200C, 747-200F, 747-300, 747-400, 747-
400D, 747-400F, and 747SR series airplanes, certificated in any
category, as identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-
57A2367 RB, Revision 1, dated March 20, 2023.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by reports of partial and full inboard
foreflap departures from the airplane. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address departures of the inboard foreflap assembly from the
airplane, which could result in damage to the airplane and adversely
affect the airplane's continued safe flight and landing.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Actions, With Revised Compliance Times and Service
Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2021-02-15, with revised compliance times and service information.
Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable
times specified in the ``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing Alert
Requirements Bulletin 747-57A2367 RB, Revision 1, dated March 20,
2023, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance
with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements
Bulletin 747-57A2367 RB, Revision 1, dated March 20, 2023.
    Note 1 to paragraph (g): Guidance for accomplishing the actions
required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
747-57A2367, Revision 1, dated March 20, 2023, which is referred to
in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-57A2367 RB, Revision 1,
dated March 20, 2023.

(h) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) Where the Compliance Time columns of the tables in the
``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-
57A2367 RB, Revision 1, dated March 20, 2023, use the phrase ``the
original issue date of Requirements Bulletin 747-57A2367 RB,'' this
AD requires using March 30, 2021 (the effective date of AD 2021-02-
15).
    (2) Where the Compliance Time columns of the tables in the
``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-
57A2367 RB, Revision 1, dated March 20, 2023, use the phrase ``the
Revision 1 date of Requirements Bulletin 747-57A2367 RB,'' this AD
requires using ``the effective date of this AD.''

(i) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the
effective date of this AD using Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
747-57A2367 RB, dated November 15, 2019.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, AIR-520 Continued Operational Safety Branch,
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or
responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the certification office,
send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph
(k)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, AIR-520
Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To
be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or
alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the
airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved for AD 2021-02-15 are approved as AMOCs for
the corresponding provisions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin
747-57A2367 RB, Revision 1, dated March 20, 2023, that are required
by paragraph (g) of this AD.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Stefanie Roesli,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA
98198; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (l)(3) and (4) of this AD.

(l) 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) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 747-57A2367 RB, Revision
1, dated March 20, 2023.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; website myboeingfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (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, [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on June 15, 2023.
Michael Linegang,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-14330 Filed 7-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68414-68415]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23987]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9953-70-ORD]

Human Studies Review Board; Notification of Public Meetings

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of the
Science Advisor announces two separate public meetings of the Human
Studies Review Board (HSRB) to advise the Agency on the ethical and
scientific review of research involving human subjects.

DATES: A public virtual meeting will be held on October 19-20, 2016,
from 1:00 p.m. to approximately 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time each day. A
separate, subsequent teleconference meeting is planned for Tuesday,
December 13, 2016, from 2:00 p.m. to approximately 3:30 p.m. for the
HSRB to finalize its Final Report of the October 19-20, 2016 meeting.

ADDRESSES: Both of these meetings will be conducted entirely by
telephone and on the Internet using Adobe Connect. For detailed access
information visit the HSRB Web site: http://www2.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public who wishes to
receive further information should contact the HSRB Designated Federal
Official, Jim Downing on telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 564-2070; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or mailing address:
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of the Science Advisor, Mail
code 8105R, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Meeting access: These meetings are open to the public. Meeting
materials are available at the HSRB Web site: http://www2.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board for questions on document availability, or
if you do not have access to the Internet, consult with Jim Downing
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Special accommodations. For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, or to request accommodation of a
disability, please contact Jim Downing listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT at least 10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA
as much time as possible to process your request.

How may I participate in this meeting?

    The HSRB encourages the public's input. You may participate in
these meetings by following the instructions in this section.
    1. Oral comments. Requests to present oral comments during either
conference call will be accepted up to Noon Eastern Time on Wednesday,
October 12, 2016, for the October 19-20, 2016 meeting and up to Noon
Eastern Time on Thursday, December 8, 2016 for the December 13, 2016
conference call. To the extent that time permits, interested persons
who have not pre-registered may be permitted by the HSRB Chair to
present oral comments during either call at the designated time on the
agenda. Oral comments before the HSRB are generally limited to five
minutes per individual or organization. If additional time is
available, further public comments may be possible.
    2. Written comments. Submit your written comments prior to the
meetings. For the Board to have the best opportunity to review and
consider your comments as it deliberates, you should submit your
comments by Noon Eastern Time on Wednesday, October 12, 2016, for the
October 19-20, 2016 conference call, and by noon Eastern Time on
Thursday, December 8, 2016 for the December 13, 2016 teleconference. If
you submit comments after these dates, those comments will be provided
to the HSRB members, but you should recognize that the HSRB members may
not have adequate time to consider your comments prior to their
discussion. You should submit your comments to Jim Downing listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. There is no limit on the length of
written comments for consideration by the HSRB.

Background

    The HSRB is a Federal advisory committee operating in accordance
with the Federal Advisory Committee Act 5 U.S.C. App. 2 Sec.  9. The
HSRB provides advice, information, and recommendations on issues
related to scientific and ethical aspects of human subjects research
that are submitted to the Office of Pesticide Programs to be used for
regulatory purposes. The major objectives of the HSRB are to provide
advice and recommendations on: (1) Research proposals and protocols;
(2) reports of completed research with human subjects; and (3) how to
strengthen EPA's programs for protection of human subjects of research.
    Topics for discussion. On Wednesday, October 19, 2016, EPA's Human
Studies Review Board will consider a Protocol for Laboratory Evaluation
of Mosquito Bite Protection from Permethrin-treated Clothing for the
U.S. Army after 0, 20 and/or 50 washings. On Thursday, October 20, 2016
the HSRB will consider: A Study for Measurement of Potential Dermal and
Inhalation Exposure during Manual Pouring of Two Solid Formulations
Containing an Antimicrobial. Meeting materials for these two topics
will be available in advance of the meeting at http://www2.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board.
    On December 13, 2016, the Human Studies Review Board will review
and finalize their draft Final Report from the October 19-20, 2016
meeting. The draft report will be available prior to the conference
call at http://www2.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board.
    Meeting minutes and final reports. Minutes of these meetings,
summarizing the matters discussed and recommendations made by the HSRB,
will be released within 90 calendar days of the meeting. These minutes
will be available at http://www2.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board. In addition, information regarding the HSRB's Final Report, will
be found at http://www2.epa.gov/osa/human-studies-review-board or from
Jim Downing listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Thomas A. Burke,
EPA Science Advisor.
[FR Doc. 2016-23987 Filed 10-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Tuesday, February 23, 2016 2:00 PM
To:
David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>French, Chuck<EMAIL_ADDRESS>'Volker Schmid'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Bill Osborn<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Bryan Kresak<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Charles Jones<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Chris Hardin<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Coleen Davis<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dan Belack<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dave Hacker<EMAIL_ADDRESS>David Fanning<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ed Dinsmore<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>James Hosfield<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Janis Deitch<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jay Cornelius<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Joe Hanning<EMAIL_ADDRESS>John Hill<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jonelle Scheetz<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Julianne Kurdila<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Katie Kistler<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Keith Nagel<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Krista Armentrout<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Marian Gammon<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mark Poling<EMAIL_ADDRESS>May, Jeffrey X<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mike Dzurinko<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Nicole Siviy<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Parker Adams<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Patrick Smith<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Peter Libell<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Randy Wiler<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Rich Zavoda<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Scott Kiechle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Solomon Nyathi<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Taylor Mackey<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tishie Woodwell<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Traci Self<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Victoria Morton<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: final drafts of enclosure 1&2 for coke ovens - facility lists

Thank you for your comments. I know many of you put in a lot of work to get this done. I will give your document a thorough review and discuss with appropriate staff and managers at EPA. We will make as many change as we can to lower the cost to industry while keeping within our goals to achieve the statutory requirements we need to fulfill. Unfortunately, because of a much delayed schedule, I will not be able to provide an amended version of the ICR before it is sent out. But we will work with the individual facilities on any issues that arise during your fulfillment of our request. Thanks again.
_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D 243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

From: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 7:50 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: 'GABRIELLE RAYMOND'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>French, Chuck<EMAIL_ADDRESS>'Volker Schmid'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Bill Osborn<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Bryan Kresak<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Charles Jones<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Chris Hardin<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Coleen Davis<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dan Belack<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dave Hacker<EMAIL_ADDRESS>David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>David Fanning<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ed Dinsmore<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>James Hosfield<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Janis Deitch<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jay Cornelius<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Joe Hanning<EMAIL_ADDRESS>John Hill<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jonelle Scheetz<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Julianne Kurdila<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Katie Kistler<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Keith Nagel<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Krista Armentrout<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Marian Gammon<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mark Poling<EMAIL_ADDRESS>May, Jeffrey X<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mike Dzurinko<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Nicole Siviy<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Parker Adams<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Patrick Smith<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Peter Libell<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Randy Wiler<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Rich Zavoda<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Scott Kiechle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Solomon Nyathi<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Taylor Mackey<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tishie Woodwell<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Traci Self<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Victoria Morton<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: final drafts of enclosure 1&2 for coke ovens - facility lists

Donna Lee:

As I reported to you on January 7, the COETF engaged CleanAir Engineering (Pittsburgh, PA) (CAE) early in 2016 to assist us in conducting an in-depth review of draft ICR Enclosure 2.  We and CAE have just completed that review, and the resulting comments are attached (see "COETF Comments on ICR Draft Enclosure 2.pdf").

As the comments explain, the draft version of Enclosure 2 on which we and CAE focused was that dated November, 17, 2015, "... taking into consideration modifications communicated via email to the COETF [since then]..." by yourself.  As we have not had an opportunity yet to review the "final draft" of Enclosure 2 you sent last week, the comments do not address that draft.  We are targeting the end of this week to send you our comments on that draft, as well as the "final draft" of  Enclosure 1.

Please note that the comments we are submitting today on draft Enclosure 2 are loosely divided into four groups:

 Issues related to the testing at intermittent emission sources, addressing method challenges and biases, as well as general test program logistical issues due to the extended test durations at these sources, especially under reduced operating conditions;

 Specific issues with testing at quench towers, including non-conformance of test locations with standard EPA methods, expected low flows and the impact of saturated flue gas conditions with entrained water droplets and subsequent consequences for the sampling strategies for water soluble compounds;

 Issues with proposed test methodologies and inconsistences in testing approaches for some target analytes and process parameters at specific sources; and,

 Burden of the proposed test program to the industry, framing the current production rate of the industry and establishing a cost estimate for testing activities in accordance with the current draft ICR.

Also, please note that CAE estimates that implementing the test program as proposed by the draft ICR Enclosure 2 "... will exceed $700,000 per facility, at current prevalent coke oven operating conditions (extended coking times).  This does not account for any modifications necessary to accommodate testing at some sources and to provide safe access to them."

Considering the dire economic condition of the industry, we urge you to give serious consideration to our comments.  Please contact me if you have any questions.  DCA

David C. Ailor, P.E.
President
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
eFax.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.accci.org

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 3:01 PM
To: David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc: GABRIELLE RAYMOND<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: final drafts of enclosure 1&2 for coke ovens - facility lists

Hello. As promised, here are the final versions of the enclosures for the coke ICR. I've also included the facility lists. Unfortunately, because of the dual nature of the ICR for the by-product industry, in terms of extended coking standards vs normal operating standards, I don't have the flexibility to allow switching out one facility for another in the case of multiple facilities under one company. I believe this only applied to one company.

I know, David, you had said that the ACCCI had been working with a test consultant on getting additional comments on enclosure 2 to me by February 10[th]. I don't know if you all are delayed or maybe your issues were addressed in the comments I sent a few weeks ago in response to SunCoke's comments on enclosure 2. Regardless, it will take us about 2 weeks to get the packages together and the letters signed, so if I get comments in the next two weeks, I will still take a look at them. Since we have discussed all of the testing issues a number of time, I doubt if there would be any broad changes at this point to the test requests. But if there are facility=specific issues that are still a problem, we can discuss these on an individual facility basis even after the letters go out.

If either of you have any comments or see any errors with the two enclosures in the next 2 weeks, let me know. Again, not expecting to be able to make broad changes but interested in correcting errors and also adding any flexibility we can, as long as the integrity of the rule is not jeopardized.

_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D 243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.