[Federal Register: April 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 68)]
[Notices]
[Page 16439-16440]
[DOCID:fr10ap09-125]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Commercial Space Transportation; Notice of Availability
and Request for Comment on the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement for Streamlining the Processing of Experimental Permit
Applications

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

ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), Council on
Environmental Quality NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-
1508), and FAA Order 1050.1E, Change 1, the FAA is announcing the
availability of and requesting comments on the Draft Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement for Streamlining the Processing of
Experimental Permit Applications (PEIS). The FAA Office of Commercial
Space Transportation is the lead Federal agency for the development of
the PEIS. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the
U.S. Air Force are cooperating agencies. Under the Proposed Action
evaluated in the PEIS, the FAA would issue experimental permits for the
launch and reentry of reusable suborbital rockets from both FAA-
licensed and non-licensed launch sites using the PEIS as the basis for
determining the potential environmental consequences of issuing
experimental permits.
    Under the No Action Alternative, the FAA would continue issuing
experimental permits for the launch and reentry of reusable suborbital
rockets using its present method of analyzing environmental
consequences case by case, without tiering from a programmatic
document.
    The PEIS examines the potential environmental impacts of issuing an
experimental permit for the operation of reusable suborbital rockets
anywhere in the U.S. and abroad, and the potential site-specific
impacts of permitted launches from seven FAA-licensed commercial launch
sites: California Spaceport, California; Mojave Air and Space Port,
California; Kodiak Launch Complex, Alaska; Mid-Atlantic Regional
Spaceport, Virginia; Space Florida Launch Complex-46 at Cape Canaveral
Air Force Station, Florida; Oklahoma Spaceport, Oklahoma; Spaceport
America, New Mexico; and one Federal range, the Shuttle Landing
Facility at John F. Kennedy Space Center, Florida.
    Subsequent environmental analyses that fall under the scope of the
PEIS could tier from this document and incorporate the findings of the
PEIS by reference, allowing an applicant and the FAA to focus on the
relevant and unique impacts of an experimental permit application.
Tiering and incorporation by reference would streamline the development
of subsequent environmental analyses in accordance with NEPA and FAA
Order 1050.1E.
    The PEIS will not authorize the launch or reentry of reusable
suborbital rockets from launch sites. Individual launch operators would
be required to coordinate with site operators to gain access to a site.
In addition, the launch operators would be required to apply to the FAA
for an experimental permit, which would require an individual safety
and environmental review.

DATES: The public comment period for the NEPA process begins with the
publication of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Notice of
Availability of the Draft PEIS in the Federal Register. To ensure that
all comments can be addressed in the Final PEIS, the FAA must receive
comments no later than May 25, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments submitted by mail should be addressed to Ms. Stacey
M. Zee, FAA Environmental Specialist, FAA Experimental Permits PEIS, c/
o ICF International, 9300 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA 22031. Comments may
be submitted via electronic mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Comments also may be submitted via fax to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Draft PEIS may be viewed at the following locations:

Alaska

Chiniak Public Library, Mile 41, Chiniak, AK 99615.
Kodiak Library, 319 Lower Mill Bay Road, Kodiak, Alaska 99615.

California

Kern County Library, 9507 California City Blvd., California City, CA
93505.
Lompoc Library, 3755 Constellation Rd., Lompoc, CA 93436.
Lompoc Public Library, 501 E North Ave., Lompoc, CA 93436.
Mojave Public Library, 16916-1/2 Highway 14, Mojave, CA 93501.

Florida

Merritt Island Public Library, 1195 North Courtenay Parkway, Merritt
Island, FL 32953.
Titusville Public Library, 2121 S. Hopkins Ave., Titusville, FL 32780.

New Mexico

Truth or Consequences Library, 325 Library Lane, Truth or Consequences,
NM 87901.
Hatch Public Library, 503 E Hall St., Hatch, NM 87937.

Oklahoma

Clinton Public Library, 721 Frisco Ave., Clinton, OK 73601.
Elk City Carnegie Library, 221 West Broadway, Elk City, OK 73644.

Virginia

Island Library, 4077 Main St., Chincoteague, VA 23336.
Eastern Shore Public Library, 23610 Front St., Accomac, VA 23301.

    The FAA also sent the Draft PEIS to interested persons and agencies
shown on the distribution list in Chapter 8 of the PEIS. The Draft
PEIS, along with the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the Draft PEIS,
are available on the Internet in Adobe[reg] portable document format at
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/
environmental/review/documents_progress/.
    Additional Information: Under the Proposed Action, the FAA would
issue experimental permits for the launch and reentry of reusable
suborbital rockets from both FAA-licensed and non-licensed launch sites
using the PEIS as the basis for determining the potential environmental
consequences of issuing experimental permits. An experimental permit
would implement the appropriate safety requirements as defined in 14
CFR part 437. A permit would be valid for 1 year and would authorize an
unlimited number of launches and reentries of a particular reusable
suborbital rocket design from a specified site(s). A permittee could
renew the permit by submitting a written application to the FAA for
renewal at least 60 days before the permit expired.
    Based on the FAA's review of past activities and consultations with
various organizations in the commercial space industry, the FAA
projected that a maximum of 1,000 launch and reentry events could occur
annually at any one location from 2009 to 2014. The FAA used this
estimate to develop an upper bound to assess the potential impacts of
the Experimental Permit Program. In some cases, the maximum number of
events analyzed in the PEIS for specific sites are fewer than 1,000 if
the site cannot support all of the flight profiles identified in the
PEIS. The estimates used in the PEIS are extremely conservative and the
actual number of launches per year would likely be lower.
    The PEIS considers activities associated with the launch and
reentry of reusable suborbital rockets, including pre-flight
activities, flight profile (takeoff, flight, and landing), and post-
flight activities (vehicle safing). The general suborbital rocket
designs addressed in the PEIS include vehicles resembling conventional
aircraft--30 to 140 feet long with unfueled weight of up to 9,921
pounds; vehicles resembling conventional rockets--6 to 33 feet long
with unfueled weight of up to 5,500 pounds; and vehicles that hover--up
to 20 feet in length or diameter with unfueled weight of up to 4,400
pounds. To assess potential impacts of the Experiment Permit Program,
the PEIS also considers the approximate proportions of general reusable
suborbital rocket flight profiles, as follows: (1) Horizontal takeoff
(rocket or jet powered), flight, and horizontal landing (glide or jet
powered); (2) vertical takeoff (rocket powered), flight, and vertical
landing (rocket powered or parachute); and (3) rocket powered hovering
flights (vertical takeoff and landing).
    The PEIS analyzes the potential environmental effects of permitted
launches on the impact categories described in FAA Order 1050.1E,
Change 1. The PEIS does not analyze environmental consequences specific
to construction because the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative
do not involve construction activities. The PEIS also addresses
potential cumulative impacts of the Proposed Action.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Stacey M. Zee, FAA Environmental
Specialist, FAA Experimental Permits PEIS, c/o ICF International, 9300
Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA 22031; e-mail PEIS-Experimental-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 26, 2009.
Michael McElligott,
Manager, Space Systems Development Division.
[FR Doc. E9-7913 Filed 4-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 146 (Tuesday, July 30, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36843-36844]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16127]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 146 / Tuesday, July 30, 2019 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0021; Product Identifier 2018-NM-038-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; AmSafe Inc. Seatbelts

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is withdrawing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
that proposed to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) that would
have applied to all AmSafe Inc. seatbelts, as installed in, but not
limited to, various airplanes and rotorcraft. The NPRM was prompted by
reports of multiple failed keepers on seatbelt hook assemblies. The
NPRM would have required an inspection for affected parts, repetitive
general visual inspections of the seatbelt hook assembly for damage,
repetitive functional checks, and replacement of all affected parts.
Since issuance of the NPRM, the FAA has determined that a significant
portion of the affected seatbelt hook assemblies have been replaced.
The FAA has also determined that the majority of the affected parts
have exceeded their typical replacement cycle and are likely no longer
in service. The FAA performed a new risk assessment based on this data
and determined there is now an acceptable level of risk. Accordingly,
the NPRM is withdrawn.

DATES: The FAA is withdrawing the proposed rule published February 22,
2019 (84 FR 5620), as of July 30, 2019.

ADDRESSES:

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0021; 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 AD action, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for Docket Operations (telephone
800-647-5527) is U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations,
M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Farina, Aerospace Engineer,
Cabin Safety and Environmental Systems Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO
Branch, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-
627-5344; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued an NPRM that proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 by
adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The NPRM was
published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2019 (84 FR 5620).
The NPRM was prompted by reports of multiple failed keepers on seatbelt
hook assemblies.
    The NPRM proposed to require an inspection for affected parts,
repetitive general visual inspections of the seatbelt hook assembly for
damage, repetitive functional checks, and replacement of all affected
parts. The proposed actions were intended to address failed keepers on
seatbelt hook assemblies, and remove the risk of future failures by a
timed removal. Failure of keepers on seatbelt hook assemblies, if not
addressed, could result in the seatbelt disengaging from and detaching
from the seat structure under certain conditions, and could result in
injury to passengers or flightcrew.

Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued

    Since issuance of the NPRM, the FAA has determined that at least 31
percent of the affected seatbelt hook assemblies have been replaced.
The FAA has also determined that the majority of the affected parts
have exceeded their typical replacement cycle and are likely no longer
in service. The FAA performed a new risk assessment based on this data
and determined there is now an acceptable level of risk. The FAA has
also determined that the remaining parts will eventually be replaced as
specified in the applicable component maintenance manual (CMM), which
will eliminate the risk. Therefore, the FAA has determined that AD
action is not appropriate.
    Withdrawal of the NPRM constitutes only such action and does not
preclude the FAA from further rulemaking on this issue, nor does it
commit the FAA to any course of action in the future.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to comment on the NPRM. The
following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's
response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), Dominic
Savino, and FedEx indicated their support for the NPRM.

Request To Withdraw the NPRM

    AmSafe requested that the FAA withdraw the NPRM. The commenter
suggested that the proposed AD is overly broad and unnecessary based on
the number of affected parts in service. AmSafe stated that it has
confirmed the return or replacement of 67,000 affected parts, or 31
percent of the total affected parts. AmSafe further noted that the
majority of the affected seatbelts not already collected by AmSafe were
placed in service five to eight years ago and are likely no longer in
service, based on an industry average three year replacement cycle for
seatbelts. AmSafe added that it is in the process of replacing almost
4,500 affected parts for Japan Airlines and it has confirmed that all
affected parts on Alaska Airlines and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines aircraft
have been replaced. AmSafe further added that American Airlines has
reported having only one airplane with affected parts, and none of
those parts were observed to be damaged. AmSafe observed that these
operators represent the largest users of the affected parts in the
industry. AmSafe stated that the failure of a keeper itself will not
result in injury to passengers or flightcrew. AmSafe added that the
potential for injury exists only under accident conditions where the
hook is not properly restrained. AmSafe also suggested that the data
used to support the proposed AD incorrectly assumes a higher rate of
damaged parts than really

exist, because the damaged parts have been found only in cases where
the keeper is located above the seat cushion. AmSafe requested that the
FAA perform a new risk analysis based on the data it provided. AmSafe
suggested that it could report additional replacements or findings of
damaged units to the FAA as they become available. AmSafe concluded
that the NPRM was no longer needed and should be withdrawn.
    The FAA agrees with the commenter's request. Based on the data
AmSafe provided, the FAA performed a new risk assessment. This new
assessment has allowed the agency to determine that the unsafe
condition has been reduced to represent an acceptable risk. The FAA
also expects the remaining risk to be eliminated as the affected parts
are replaced.

FAA's Conclusions

    Upon further consideration, the FAA has determined that the NPRM is
unnecessary. Accordingly, the NPRM is withdrawn.

Regulatory Findings

    Since this action only withdraws an NPRM, it is neither a proposed
nor a final rule. This action therefore is not covered under Executive
Order 12866, the Regulatory Flexibility Act, or DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979).

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Withdrawal

0
Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking, Docket No. FAA-2019-
0021, which was published in the Federal Register on February 22, 2019
(84 FR 5620), is withdrawn.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on July 23, 2019.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-16127 Filed 7-29-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 208)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61060-61063]
[DOCID:fr29oc07-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0048; FRL-8482-2]
RIN 2060-AO65

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood
and Composite Wood Products

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On June 19, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit (the Court) vacated EPA's provisions in
the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood
and Composite Wood Products that established an October 1, 2008,
compliance deadline and that created and delisted a low risk
subcategory of plywood and composite wood products facilities. This
action announces the Court's decision and promulgates ministerial
amendments that will incorporate the Court's decision into the Code of
Federal Regulations.

DATES: This rule was effective on October 29, 2007.

ADDRESSES: The EPA does not seek comment on this final rule. The
opinion issued by the Court on June 19, 2007 and other information
about the rule are contained in Docket ID No. OAR-2003-0048 and Legacy
Docket ID No. A-98-44. All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be
publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or

in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-
0048, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC. 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 EPA Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning
applicability and compliance assistance, contact your State or local
representative or appropriate EPA Regional Office representative. For
other information, contact Ms. Mary Tom Kissell, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Program Division, Coatings
and Chemicals Group (E143-01), EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure
Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause
finds that notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary
or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a final rule
without first providing notice and an opportunity for public comment on
a proposed rule. There is good cause for making today's rule final
without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because the Court
vacated EPA's promulgation of the October 1, 2008, compliance date and
of the low-risk provisions. The Court ruled that EPA was without
statutory authority in our 2006 amendments to the national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) to re-set the
compliance date of October 1, 2007, first promulgated in the 2004
NESHAP. The Court also ruled that EPA had no statutory authority to
create and then delist the low-risk Plywood and Composite Wood Products
(PCWP) subcategory.\1\ Therefore, today's action has no legal effect
beyond ministerially fulfilling the Court's order and is clerical in
nature: we are merely revising the Code of Federal Regulations to
conform our rules to the Court's order and announcing the Court's
decision. Thus, notice and public procedure are unnecessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Court also remanded and vacated EPA's determinations
that certain process units at PCWP facilities need not be subject to
emissions controls. EPA will respond to that portion of the Court's
ruling in a separate notice and comment rulemaking, and is not
addressing that issue in today's final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA finds that this constitutes good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B). Providing an opportunity to comment on a proposed conforming
amendment would be impracticable because it would unacceptably delay
EPA's action beyond the October 1, 2007, compliance deadline the Court
ruled EPA must re-impose. It would also be unnecessary, since the
Court's direction was clear that EPA must remove the 2006 NESHAP's
amendment re-setting the deadline beyond October 1, 2007, and the 2004
and 2006 provisions creating and delisting the low-risk PCWP
subcategory was beyond EPA's statutory authority. Finally, it is not in
the public

interest to delay revising the rule to conform to the Court's order on
these issues, as continuing to leave the vacated provisions in place
creates confusion among the regulated community, implementing States
and local governments, and the general public.

Regulated Entities

    Categories and entities potentially affected by today's action
include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Category                    SIC code \a\   NAICS code \b\     Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................................            2421          321999  Sawmills with lumber kilns.
                                                       2435          321211  Hardwood plywood and veneer plants.
                                                       2436          321212  Softwood plywood and veneer plants.
                                                       2493          321219  Reconstituted wood products plants
                                                                              (particleboard, medium density
                                                                              fiberboard, hardboard, fiberboard,
                                                                              and oriented strandboard plants).
                                                       2439          321213  Structural wood members, not
                                                                              elsewhere classified (engineered
                                                                              wood products plants).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Standard Industrial Classification.
\b\ North American Industrial Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by today's
action. To determine whether your facility is affected by today's
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec.  63.2231
of the final rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of
today's action to a particular entity, consult your State or local
representative or the appropriate EPA Regional Office representative.

Worldwide Web (WWW)

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
today's action also will be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the
Administrator's signature, a copy of this action will be posted on the
TTN's policy and guidance page for newly promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.
 The TTN provides information and technology

exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

I. Background

    We proposed NESHAP for the PCWP source category on January 9, 2003
(68 FR 1276). The final rule (subpart DDDD in 40 CFR part 63) was
published on July 30, 2004 (69 FR 45944). In addition to adopting
maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for the PCWP
category, we adopted a risk-based approach in the 2004 final rule by
establishing and delisting a low-risk subcategory of PCWP affected
sources, which would have allowed low-risk sources to avoid complying
with MACT. Except for eight sources that we determined were already
eligible to join the low-risk subcategory and avoid MACT, all PCWP
sources were initially included in the category subject to MACT, and
any would-be low-risk sources could subsequently join the low-risk
subcategory after EPA approved their submitted low-risk demonstrations.
The methodology and criteria for PCWP affected sources to use in
demonstrating that they are eligible to join the delisted low-risk
subcategory were promulgated in the 2004 final rule in appendix B to
subpart DDDD of 40 CFR part 63. Any source who failed to obtain EPA
approval of a low-risk demonstration would remain subject to MACT.
    Following promulgation of the 2004 final PCWP rule, the
Administrator received a petition for reconsideration filed by the
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Environmental Integrity
Project (EIP) pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA). The petition requested reconsideration of nine aspects of the
final rule including the legal basis for the risk-based provisions. The
petition for reconsideration also requested a stay of the effectiveness
of the risk-based provisions. In a letter dated December 6, 2004, EPA
granted NRDC's and EIP's petition for reconsideration and declined the
petitioners' request that we take action to stay the effectiveness of
the risk-based provisions.
    On July 29, 2005 (70 FR 44012), we published a notice of
reconsideration and requested comment on the issues in the petition for
reconsideration, including the full content of appendix B to subpart
DDDD. In a separate notice published on July 29, 2005 (70 FR 44012), we
proposed amendments to subpart DDDD and both of the appendices to
subpart DDDD including a request for comment on whether the MACT
compliance date should be extended for sources submitting low-risk
demonstrations or for all sources. On February 16, 2006, EPA
promulgated amendments to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products. In the 2006 final
rule, we promulgated a revised compliance deadline of October 1, 2008,
for sources subject to the rule, which was 1 year later than the date
originally promulgated.
    Following promulgation of the 2004 final PCWP rule, four petitions
for judicial review of the final PCWP rule were filed with the Court by
NRDC and Sierra Club (No. 04-1323, D.C. Cir.), EIP (No. 04-1235, D.C.
Cir.), Louisiana-Pacific Corporation (No. 04-1328, D.C. Cir.), and
Norbord Incorporated (No. 04-1329, D.C. Cir.). The four cases were
consolidated. The NRDC, Sierra Club, and EIP petitions for judicial
review \2\ addressed three major concerns: (1) EPA's legal authority to
create and delist a low-risk subcategory; (2) EPA's re-setting of the
compliance date; and (3) EPA's failure to set emission standards for
HAP from all emission points. In March 2007, before the Court decided
the PCWP case, it ruled in Sierra Club, 479 F.3d 875, that ``EPA's
failure to set floors for existing small tunnel brick kilns and new
periodic brick kilns violated [the] CAA * * * noting that the court had
held unlawful EPA's ``no control'' emissions floors for categories in
which the best performers used no emission control technology.''
Subsequently, in April 2007, EPA requested a voluntary remand and
vacatur of the 2004 final MACT determinations for PCWP emissions points
that do not have emission limits (i.e., the ``no emission reduction''
MACT determinations also commonly known as ``no-control MACT floors'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The Louisiana-Pacific Corporation and Norbord Incorporated
petition for judicial review did not result in any change to the
PCWP NESHAP and is not discussed in this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 19, 2007, the Court issued its opinion remanding and
vacating EPA's no emission reduction MACT determinations, the low-risk
provisions,

and the October 1, 2008 compliance date.
    While today's rule implements the Court's order regarding the
compliance date and low-risk subcategory provisions, EPA will
separately reconsider the MACT determinations for the emission points
for which EPA had previously determined MACT to be ``no emissions
reduction,'' and publish our proposed responses to the Court's remand
of those decisions in a separate notice.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and is, therefore,
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. Because
the agency has made a ``good cause'' finding that this action is not
subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute (see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this preamble), it is not subject to the regulatory
flexibility provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601,
et seq.), or to sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). In addition, this action does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments or impose a
significant intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and
204 of UMRA. This rule also does not significantly or uniquely affect
the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). This rule will not have
substantial direct effects 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This
rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April
23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
    This final rule does not involve technical standards; thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. The rule
also does not involve special consideration of environmental justice
related issues as required by Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994). In issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary
steps to eliminate ambiguity as required by section 3 of Executive
Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996). EPA has complied with
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the
takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order.
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.). EPA's compliance with these statutes and Executive Orders for
the underlying rule is discussed in the July 30, 2004 Federal Register
notice.
    The Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801, et seq.), as
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. Section 808 allows the issuing agency to
make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the
agency makes a good cause finding that notice and public procedure is
impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest. This
determination must be supported by a brief statement. 5 U.S.C. 808(2).
As stated previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including
the reasons therefore. EPA will submit a report containing this rule
and other required information to the United States Senate, the United
States 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 for 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: October 18, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401.

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(54), (f)(3) and
(f)(4) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.14  Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (54) ASTM D6348-03, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, incorporation by reference (IBR) approved
for Table 4 to Subpart DDDD of this part as specified in the subpart.
* * * * *
    (f) * * *
* * * * *
    (3) NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP-99.02, Impinger/Canister Source Sampling
Method for Selected HAPs and Other Compounds at Wood Products
Facilities, January 2004, Methods Manual, NCASI, Research Triangle
Park, NC, IBR approved for Table 4 to Subpart DDDD of this part.
    (4) NCASI Method ISS/FP A105.01, Impinger Source Sampling Method
for Selected Aldehydes, Ketones, and Polar Compounds, December 2005,
Methods Manual, NCASI, Research Triangle Park, NC, IBR approved for
table 4 to subpart DDDD of this part.
* * * * *

Subpart DDDD--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products--[Amended]

0
3. Section 63.2231 is amended by revising the introductory paragraph to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.2231  Does this subpart apply to me?

    This subpart applies to you if you meet the criteria in paragraphs
(a) and (b) of this section.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 63.2233 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to
read as follows:

Sec.  63.2233  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

* * * * *
    (b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with
the compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice
requirements for existing sources no later than October 1, 2007.
    (c) If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its
potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP, you must
be in compliance with this subpart by October 1, 2007 or

upon initial startup of your affected source as a major source,
whichever is later.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 63.2291 is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory
text and removing paragraph (c)(5) to read as follows:

Sec.  63.2291  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

* * * * *
    (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this
section.
    (1) * * *
* * * * *

Appendices B and C--[Removed]

0
6. Appendices B and C to Subpart DDDD of part 63 are removed.

[FR Doc. 07-5295 Filed 10-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 202 (Monday, October 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 62703]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24749]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2014-0093]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated September 12, 2014, the Long Island Rail Road Company (LIRR) has
petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of
compliance from several provisions of the Federal railroad safety
regulations. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2014-0093.
    Specifically, LIRR requests relief from certain provisions of 49
CFR Part 240, Qualification and Certification of Locomotive Engineers,
and 49 CFR Part 242, Qualification and Certification of Conductors. The
relief is contingent on LIRR's implementation of and participation in
the Confidential Close Call Reporting System (C\3\RS) pilot project.
    LIRR seeks to shield reporting employees and the railroad from
mandatory punitive sanctions that would otherwise arise as provided in
49 CFR Sections 240.117(e)(1)-(4); 240.305(a)(l)-(4) and (a)(6);
240.307; and 242.403(b), (c), (e)(l)-(4), (e)(6)-(11), (f)(l)-(2). The
C\3\RS pilot project encourages certified operating crew members to
report close calls and protects the employees and the railroad from
discipline or sanctions arising from the incidents reported per the
C\3\RS Implementing Memorandum of Understanding.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received within December 4, 2014 of the date of this
notice will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 14, 2014.
Ron Hynes,
Director, Office of Technical Oversight.
[FR Doc. 2014-24749 Filed 10-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 208 (Tuesday, October 28, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64086-64088]
[FR Doc No: 2014-25022]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-0287; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-247-AD;
Amendment 39-18000; AD 2014-21-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, &
702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes,
and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This AD was
prompted by a report that certain parts of the aft baggage door did not
conform to the design specifications and were of degraded strength.
This AD requires repetitive inspections for cracking and deformations
of certain stop fittings and striker plates of the aft baggage bay
door; and replacement, which would terminate the repetitive
inspections. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking and
deformations of certain stop fittings and striker plates, which could
result in the opening of the aft baggage bay door and rapid
decompression or reduced controllability of the airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 2, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 2,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0287; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Bombardier,
Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9,
Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You
may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc.
Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes,
Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-
600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The NPRM published in
the Federal Register on May 29, 2014 (79 FR 30751).
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2013-37, dated November 28, 2013 (referred to after this as the
Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to
correct an unsafe condition on certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-
2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702) airplanes, Model CL-600-2D24
(Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes, and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional
Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    During the manufacturing process, it was found that certain aft
baggage bay door stop fittings and striker plates did not conform to
the design specifications due to a quality control problem. This
quality escape could degrade the strength of the affected aft
baggage bay door stop fittings and striker plates. Failure of the
aft baggage bay door stop fittings or striker plates may result in
the opening of the aft baggage bay door and consequent rapid
decompression of the aeroplane during flight.
    This [Canadian] AD mandates the initial and repetitive
inspections of each aft baggage bay door stop fitting and striker
plate until the terminating action [stop fitting/striker plate
replacement] is accomplished.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0287-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (79 FR 30751, May 29,
2014) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

``Contacting the Manufacturer'' Paragraph in This AD

    Since late 2006, we have included a standard paragraph titled
``Airworthy Product'' in all MCAI ADs in which the FAA develops an AD
based on a foreign authority's AD.
    We have become aware that some operators have misunderstood or
misinterpreted the Airworthy Product paragraph to allow the owner/
operator to use messages provided by the manufacturer as approval of
deviations during the accomplishment of an AD-mandated action. The
Airworthy Product paragraph does not approve messages or other
information provided by the manufacturer for deviations to the
requirements of the AD-mandated actions. The Airworthy Product
paragraph only addresses the requirement to contact the manufacturer
for corrective actions for the identified unsafe condition and does not
cover deviations from other AD requirements. However, deviations to AD-
required actions are addressed in 14 CFR 39.17, and anyone may request
the approval for an alternative method of compliance to the AD-required
actions using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
    To address this misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the
Airworthy Product paragraph, we have changed the paragraph and retitled
it ``Contacting the Manufacturer.'' This paragraph now clarifies that
for any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a
manufacturer, the actions must be accomplished using a method approved
by the FAA, TCCA, or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval
Organization (DAO).
    The Contacting the Manufacturer paragraph also clarifies that, if
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature. The DAO signature indicates that the data and information
contained in the document are TCCA-approved, which is also FAA-
approved. Messages and other information provided by the manufacturer
that do not contain the DAO-authorized signature approval are not TCCA-
approved, unless TCCA directly approves the manufacturer's message or
other information.
    This clarification does not remove flexibility previously afforded
by the Airworthy Product paragraph. Consistent with long-standing FAA
policy, such flexibility was never intended for required actions. This
is also consistent with the recommendation of the Airworthiness
Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee to increase
flexibility in complying with ADs by identifying those actions in
manufacturers' service instructions that are ``Required for
Compliance'' with ADs. We continue to work with manufacturers to
implement this recommendation. But once we determine that an action is
required, any deviation from the requirement must be approved as an
alternative method of compliance.
    We also have decided not to include a generic reference to either
the ``delegated agent'' or ``design approval holder (DAH) with State of
Design Authority design organization approval,'' but instead we have
provided the specific delegation approval granted by the State of
Design Authority for the DAH.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD with the changes described
previously and minor editorial changes. We have determined that these
minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (79 FR 30751, May 29, 2014) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (79 FR 30751, May 29, 2014).
    We also determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 73 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Required parts will cost $0 per product. Based on
these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD on U.S. operators to be
$6,205, or $85 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will
take about 22 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a cost of
$1,870 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need this action.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-0287; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2014-21-07 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18000. Docket No. FAA-
2014-0287; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-247-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective December 2, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Bombardier, Inc. airplanes specified in
paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3) of this AD, certificated in
any category.
    (1) Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702)
airplanes, serial numbers 10303 through 10333 inclusive.
    (2) Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes,
serial numbers 15257 through 15284 inclusive.
    (3) Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes,
serial numbers 19011 through 19024 inclusive.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report that certain parts of the aft
baggage door did not conform to the design specifications and were
of degraded strength. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking and
deformations of stop fittings and striker plates, which could result
in the opening of the aft baggage bay door and rapid decompression
or reduced controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspections of the Aft Baggage Bay Door Stop Fittings and Striker
Plates

    Within 600 flight hours or 6 months after the effective date of
this AD, whichever occurs first: Do a detailed visual inspection for
cracking and deformations of the stop fittings and striker plates of
the aft baggage bay door, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-52-037, Revision
B, dated September 16, 2013. Repeat the inspection thereafter at
intervals not to exceed 2,000 flight hours or 12 months, whichever
occurs first, until the terminating action specified in paragraph
(h) of this AD has been accomplished. If a crack or deformation is
found on a stop fitting or striker plate, before further flight,
replace the affected fittings and striker plates, in accordance with
the Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin
670BA-52-037, Revision B, dated September 16, 2013.

(h) Terminating Action--Replacement of the Aft Baggage Bay Door Stop
Fittings and Striker Plates

    Within 6,000 flight hours or 36 months, whichever occurs first,
after the effective date of this AD: Replace the affected stop
fittings and striker plates, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-52-037, Revision
B, dated September 16, 2013. Replacement of the affected stop
fittings and striker plates of the aft baggage bay door constitutes
terminating action for the repetitive inspections required by
paragraph (g) of this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, 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 local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, Engine and Propeller Directorate, FAA; or Transport Canada
Civil Aviation (TCCA); or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval
Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must
include the DAO-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2013-37, dated November 28,
2013, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-0287-0002.

(k) 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 this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-52-037, Revision B, dated
September 16, 2013.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax 514-855-
7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 13, 2014.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-25022 Filed 10-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 1, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67395-67396]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28270]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 167

[USCG-2009-0765]

Port Access Route Study: In the Approaches to Los Angeles-Long
Beach and in the Santa Barbara Channel

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability of study results.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces the availability of a Port Access
Route Study (PARS) which evaluated the continued applicability of and
the potential need for modifications to the traffic separation schemes
in the approaches to Los Angeles-Long Beach and in the Santa Barbara
Channel. The study was completed in June 2011. This notice summarizes
the study and final recommendation.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble, as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2009-0765 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0765 in the ``Keyword''
box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning this
notice, contact Lieutenant Lucas Mancini, Eleventh Coast Guard
District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing the docket, contact Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Definitions: The following definitions should help the reader to
understand terms used throughout this document:
    Marine Environment, as defined by the Ports and Waterways Safety
Act, means the navigable waters of the United States and the land
resources therein and thereunder; the waters and fishery resources of
any area over which the United States asserts exclusive fishery
management authority; the seabed and subsoil of the Outer Continental
Shelf of the Unites States, the resources thereof and the waters
superjacent thereto; and the recreational, economic, and scenic values
of such waters and resources.
    Precautionary area means a routing measure comprising an area
within defined limits where vessels must navigate with particular
caution and within which the direction of traffic flow may be
recommended.
    Traffic lane means an area within defined limits in which one-way
traffic is established. Natural obstacles, including those forming
separation zones, may constitute a boundary.
    Traffic Separation Scheme or TSS means a routing measure aimed at
the separation of opposing streams of traffic by appropriate means and
by the establishment of traffic lanes.
    Vessel routing system means any system of one or more routes or
routing measures aimed at reducing the risk of casualties; it includes
traffic separation schemes, two-way routes, recommended tracks, areas
to be avoided, no anchoring areas, inshore traffic zones, roundabouts,
precautionary areas, and deep-water routes.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard published a notice of study in the Federal Register
on April 7, 2010 (75 FR 17562), entitled ``Port Access Route Study: In
the Approaches to Los Angeles-Long Beach and in the Santa Barbara
Channel'' and completed the study in June, 2011.
    The study covered the geographic area with a northern boundary at
34[deg]30' N; a western boundary at 121[deg]00' W; a southern boundary
at 33[deg]15' N; and an eastern boundary along the shoreline. This area
encompasses the traffic separation schemes in the Santa Barbara Channel
and in the approaches to Los Angeles-Long Beach; and the approach to
the San Pedro Channel from the Pacific Ocean, particularly the area
south of San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and Anacapa Islands; and
north of San Nicolas, Santa Barbara, and Santa Catalina Islands where
an increase in vessel traffic has been identified.
    The primary purpose of the study was to reconcile the need for safe
access routes with other reasonable waterway uses, to the extent
practical. The goal of the study was to help reduce the risk of marine
casualties and increase the

efficiency of vessel traffic in the study area. When vessels follow
predictable and charted routing measures, congestion may be reduced,
and mariners may be better able to predict where vessel interactions
may occur and act accordingly.
    Fourteen letters and six studies were received in response to the
published notice of study. The Eleventh Coast Guard District also held
public meetings in Oxnard and San Pedro California to allow for
comments in person. These meetings were announced in the Federal
Register and conducted at the Port Hueneme Harbor District office on
October 13, 2010 and the Port of Los Angeles Administration Building,
on October 14, 2010.
    The recommendations of the PARS are based in large part on the
comments received to the docket, public outreach, and consultation with
other government agencies.

Study Recommendations

    The PARS evaluated 4 major concerns and 5 separate options for
modification to the current vessel routing system before reaching a
recommendation. We considered information presented in various studies
and data collected by the U.S. Coast Guard and by other stakeholder
organizations on vessel traffic patterns, density, and risks. The
actual PARS should be consulted for a detailed explanation of the final
recommendation. It can be accessed as described in the ADDRESSES
section of this notice.

Conclusion

    Based upon the results of the PARS, we found unbounded vessel
traffic transiting the waters south of the Channel Islands to be a
safety concern. With increased vessel traffic, the risk of collision
needed to be addressed. The Coast Guard recommends creating traffic
lanes south of the Channel Islands to increase predictability by
providing a defined route for vessel traffic transiting south of the
islands. The Coast Guard also recommends decreasing the width of the
separation scheme in the Santa Barbara Channel to help in preserving
the marine environment. The current separation scheme would be reduced
from 4nm to 3nm, moving the southern inbound lane 1nm toward the
northern lane, and reducing the separation zone between the lanes from
2nm to 1nm. The northern outbound lane would remain in place.
Decreasing the width of the separation zone and shifting the southern
lane 1nm to the north, will move vessel traffic away from the Channel
Islands National Marine Sanctuary.
    The PARS contains recommendations which would require the approval
of the International Maritime Organization for implementation. The
Coast Guard will follow the Federal rulemaking process for
implementation of any of the proposed changes to the traffic separation
scheme. This process will also include consultations with the National
Marine Fisheries Service in accordance with the Endangered Species Act.
This will provide ample opportunity for additional comments on proposed
changes to the existing vessel routing system through a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: October 13, 2011.
J.R. Castillo,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2011-28270 Filed 10-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 127 (Friday, July 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38603-38605]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16218]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

State Responsibility for the Timely Reporting and Posting of
Certain Convictions and Disqualifications Involving Commercial Driver's
License Holders

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration announces
guidance to State driver licensing agencies (SDLAs) to support their
efforts at achieving compliance with the Federal Commercial Driver's
license (CDL) rules concerning timely reporting and posting of
convictions for traffic offenses. This action is in response to the
Department of Transportation Office of the Inspector General's (OIG)
2009 report Audit of the Data Integrity of the Commercial Driver's
License Information System (CDLIS).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Selden Fritschner, Chief, Commercial
Driver's License Division, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590. E-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 202 of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (PL
106-159) requires that whenever an individual is convicted of certain
traffic offenses in a State, and the individual has a commercial
driver's license (CDL) issued by another State, the State of Conviction
(SOC) must notify the driver's State of Record (SOR) in a timely
manner. This includes all convictions (as defined in 49 CFR 383.5), in
any type of motor vehicle, involving a State or local law relating to
motor vehicle traffic control (other than a parking violation). This
also includes some convictions listed in 49 CFR 383.51 that are not
directly related to motor vehicle traffic control but that are deemed
critical to ensuring highway safety.
    On July 31, 2002, FMCSA published a final rule (67 FR 49761)
requiring SOCs to begin notifying a driver's SOR within 30 days for all
convictions occurring after September 30, 2005. Beginning September 30,
2008, the SOCs were required to report convictions to the SORs within
10 days (49 CFR 384.209).
    In July 2009, the Department of Transportation's Office of
Inspector General released the report Audit of the Data Integrity of
the Commercial Driver's License Information System) as required by the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) (Pub. L. 109-59). In preparing this
report, OIG evaluated several factors related to CDLIS, including the
timeliness of convictions received from courts and posted by State
driver licensing agencies. In its CDLIS report, OIG estimated that
500,000 active CDL holders have convictions on their driver history
record (DHR) from States other than their SOR. The OIG further
estimated that up to 20 percent of those CDL holders have convictions
on their DHR that were not reported to their SOR and posted in a timely
manner.
    This reporting delay reduces highway safety by enabling CDL holders
convicted of disqualifying offenses to continue driving without being
detected by roadside inspection officials. These delays also make it
difficult for motor carriers to identify and remove from service
drivers who have been convicted of disqualifying offenses. In some
instances, this includes drivers who have been convicted of multiple
major traffic offenses and who should be disqualified from holding a
CDL for life. As part of its mission to reduce the number of
fatalities, injuries, and crashes involving large trucks and buses, and
as part of its responsibility to ensure State compliance with the
minimum CDL program standards established by Federal regulations, FMCSA
provides this notice and guidance to all SDLAs on the conviction
reporting requirements.

II. Requirements

    Whenever a CDL holder, or a person operating a CMV who is required
to have a CDL, is convicted of a traffic offense in a State other than
the State in which he or she is licensed, the SOC must notify the SOR
within 10 days of the conviction (See 49 CFR 384.209).
    Whenever a CDL holder is disqualified or has his driving privileges
withdrawn or suspended from operating a CMV for longer than 60 days in
a State other than the State in which he or she is licensed, the State
of Withdrawal must notify the SOR within 10 days of the
disqualification action. This notification must include information
related to the disqualification and the violation that resulted in the
disqualification, or suspension (See 49 CFR 384.208).
    Whenever a SDLA receives notification of a conviction or
disqualification from another State, it must post the information to
the DHR within 10 days of receipt (See 49 CFR 384.225(c) (1)). Further,
whenever a SDLA receives notification of a conviction occurring within
the same State, it must post the information to the DHR within 10 days
of the conviction (See 49 CFR 384.225(c) (2)).

Guidance

    FMCSA provides the following guidance to States on how to come into
compliance with the provisions of the Federal regulations related to
the timely reporting and posting of convictions and disqualifications.

I. Incoming Conviction Reports on Paper

    SDLAs that receive conviction data from courts on paper (either
direct mailing of the traffic citation with the disposition indicated
or conviction summary reports generated by the courts) have several
options to expedite processing:
     Sort incoming conviction data and prioritize handling for
any conviction that indicates the violation involved a CDL holder, a
CMV that requires the driver to hold a CDL, hazardous material, or a
passenger CMV (collectively hereafter referred to as CDL/CMV
convictions);
     Designate certain data entry personnel within the SDLA to
process CDL/CMV convictions exclusively, or as their highest priority
when such data is received;
     Request that courts pre-sort CDL/CMV conviction data and
provide special markings when reporting it to the SDLA (see section III
for further information);
     Request that courts send conviction data related to CDL/
CMV convictions as soon as practicable after disposition (the same day
if possible);
     Prioritize the correction of any internal or external data
entry errors that involve CDL/CMV convictions;
     Explore options for expedited delivery of CDL/CMV
conviction data to the SDLA; and
     Explore options for an electronic conviction transmission
system (see section II for further information).

II. Incoming Conviction Reports via Electronic Transmission

    SDLAs that receive CDL/CMV conviction data from courts by an
electronic conviction transmission system are at an advantage. The data
entry is already completed and can be posted to the driver's record
with minimal effort, and the actual transmission of the information is
either instantaneous or submitted daily through a batch process. SDLAs
can expedite processing electronic transmission further if they:
     Request that courts process dispositions for CDL/CMV
offenses into their case management systems the same day as the final
determination;
     Request that courts alter their case management systems to
transmit CDL/CMV conviction data to the SDLA on a daily basis (rather
than weekly or monthly);

     Prioritize the correction of any transmission or
processing errors involving CDL/CMV convictions;
     Work to ensure that all courts use electronic transmission
of CDL/CMV convictions if it is an available alternative; and
     Continuously improve the electronic conviction
transmission system to take advantage of emerging technological
advances.

III. Judicial Outreach

    SDLAs should strengthen their partnerships with the courts in their
jurisdiction to bring about greater success in achieving compliance
with the reporting requirements. SDLAs can take several steps to help
strengthen these partnerships and their judicial outreach efforts if
they:
     Determine which court personnel are most responsible for
ensuring that information related to CDL/CMV offenses are transmitted
to the SDLA in a timely manner; this may be the Judge, the Clerk of
Court's Office, or the Prosecutor;
     Designate an individual or organizational unit within the
SDLA as having responsibility to engage in judicial outreach
activities;
     Ensure that all involved personnel understand the
importance of timely conviction reporting. FMCSA evaluates compliance
of the SDLA and all involved entities that impact the State's CDL
program and contribute to compliance with the requirements of 49 CFR
part 384;
     Engage in proactive steps to discuss process improvement,
including site visits, routine e-mails or newsletters, and
presentations at State or regional conferences;
     Request assistance in outreach efforts from other State
level agencies and organizations if appropriate (e.g., Administrative
Office of the Courts, the Governor's Highway Safety Office,
Associations/Counsels for judges, clerks, and prosecutors); and
     Request from FMCSA information and guidance on judicial
training.

IV. Utilize CDLIS

    CDLIS has the capability to transmit conviction and
disqualification information to other States. All States now have the
ability to receive these convictions and disqualifications
electronically. States should utilize this functionality whenever
possible to expedite the transmission and final posting of CDL/CMV
convictions and disqualifications.

V. Statutory Reporting Periods

    If State statutes address the timely reporting and posting of
convictions, they must not conflict with the applicable Federal
regulations (this includes court reporting convictions to the SDLA, the
SDLA reporting out-of-State convictions to the SOR, or the SDLA posting
in-State convictions to the DHR).
    Some States have statutory or due process requirements that prevent
courts from sending a conviction to the SDLA immediately upon
disposition. This requirement generally allows for appeals or other
procedural actions prior to the State posting the conviction to the DHR
or sending it to the SOR. States reported to FMCSA that these mandatory
holding periods negatively impact their ability to comply with the
timeliness requirements. In these instances, FMCSA stands ready to
discuss the requirements unique to each State and discuss alternatives
that may reduce or eliminate the negative impact to the State's
compliance.

VI. Funding

    SDLAs have secured various funding sources for electronic
conviction reporting systems, including fees assessed against those
convicted of traffic offenses, direct appropriation in the State's
budget, or through other available revenue. The FMCSA encourages SDLAs
to engage in direct communication with other SDLAs to solicit ideas and
implementation strategies.
    States also have the option of requesting grants from various
Federal agencies, including FMCSA's CDL Program Improvement grant
(CDLPI). While CDLPI grants cannot fund an entire statewide electronic
conviction system, and cannot be used to support any effort
indefinitely, States can request financial assistance to establish
demonstration projects and other proof-of-concept efforts that can help
SDLAs secure additional funding through other means.

Compliance

    FMCSA takes seriously its responsibility to ensure State compliance
with all provisions of 49 CFR part 384, especially those involving the
timely reporting and posting of convictions and disqualifications.
FMCSA will work with the States to the greatest extent practicable to
address the findings in the OIG report and to ensure compliance by
using available electronic reporting and manual auditing methods. FMCSA
will examine these reports and conduct audits independently of any
established evaluation cycle or review process. FMCSA will begin
posting maps and matrices providing details regarding State compliance
with timeliness requirements on the FMCSA Web site in the third quarter
of fiscal year 2010. FMCSA will post this information quarterly. States
should review this status information to determine the scope of the
efforts needed to come into compliance.

    Issued on: June 23, 2010.
Anne S. Ferro,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-16218 Filed 7-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48473-48474]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22500]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0082; FRL-9969-63-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Illinois; Regional Haze Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the regional haze progress report under the Clean Air Act as a
revision to the

Illinois state implementation plan (SIP). Illinois has satisfied the
progress report requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. Illinois has
also met the requirements for a determination of the adequacy of its
regional haze plan with its negative declaration submitted with the
progress report.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 17, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2017-0082 at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the Illinois SIP submittal as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule.
    EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule, and if that provision may be
severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those
provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located
in the Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: September 28, 2017.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2017-22500 Filed 10-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:A 75 day comment period is insufficient time for the vaping industry and vaping community.  I respectfully request that the period for comment to be extended to 180 days.  Thank you for taking the time to read comments.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 143 (Wednesday, July 25, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35273-35275]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15923]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0266; FRL-9979-93]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Renewal of an
Existing Collection (EPA ICR No. 0161.14); Comment Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this
document announces that EPA is planning to submit an Information
Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The ICR, entitled: ``Foreign Purchaser Acknowledgement Statement of
Unregistered Pesticides'' and identified by EPA ICR No. 0161.14 and OMB
Control No. 2070-0027, represents the renewal of an existing ICR that
is scheduled to expire on March 31, 2019. Before submitting the ICR to
OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting

comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection
that is summarized in this document. The ICR and accompanying material
are available in the docket for public review and comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 24, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0266, 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 Confidential Business
Information (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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carolyn Siu, Field and External
Affairs Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)),
EPA specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility.
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used.
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected.
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

II. What information collection activity or ICR does this action apply
to?

    Title: ``Foreign Purchaser Acknowledgement Statement of
Unregistered Pesticides''.
    ICR number: EPA ICR No. 0161.14.
    OMB control number: OMB Control No. 2070-0027.
    ICR status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on March 31,
2019. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays
a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), after
appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR
part 9, are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or
by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection
instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers
for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This information collection enables the EPA to provide
notice to foreign purchasers of unregistered pesticides exported from
the United States that the pesticide product cannot be sold in the
United States. Section 17(a)(2) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires an exporter of any pesticide not
registered under FIFRA section 3 or sold under FIFRA section 6(a)(1) to
obtain a signed statement from the foreign purchaser acknowledging that
the purchaser is aware that the pesticide is not registered for use in,
and cannot be sold in, the United States. A copy of this statement;
which is known as the Foreign Purchaser Acknowledgement Statement
(FPAS), must be transmitted to the Designated National Authority or
appropriate official of the government in the importing country. This
information is submitted in the form of annual or per-shipment
statements to the EPA, which maintains original records and transmits
copies, along with an explanatory letter to appropriate government
officials of the countries which are importing the pesticide.
    In addition to the export notification for unregistered pesticides,
FIFRA requires that all exported pesticides include appropriate
labeling. There are different requirements for registered and
unregistered products. Export labeling requirements meet the definition
of third-party notification. In the interests of consolidating various
related information collection requests, this ICR includes the burden
estimates for the FPAS requirement for unregistered pesticides, as well
as the labeling requirement for all exported pesticides, both
registered and unregistered. These burdens have been consolidated in
this information collection since the implementation of the 1993
pesticide export policy governing the export of pesticides, devices,
and active ingredients used in producing pesticides.
    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to be 1 to 8
hours per response, depending on the activity. Burden is defined in 5
CFR 1320.3(b).
    The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related
materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities
and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by
this ICR are individuals or entities engaged that either manufacture
and export pesticides or that reformulate or repackage and export
pesticides. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
code assigned to the parties responding to this information is 3250A1.
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 2,240 annually.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Estimated total average number of responses for each respondent: 2.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 16,660 hours.
    Estimated total annual costs: $1,087,102. This includes an
estimated burden cost of $1,087,102 and an estimated cost of $0 or
capital investment or maintenance and operational costs.

III. Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    There is a decrease of 1,333 hours in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease reflects EPA's decrease in the annual
number of foreign purchaser acknowledgment statements submitted (from
3,024 to 2,774) which resulted in a change to the annual burden hours
for respondents from 3,205 in the previous renewal to 2,940 in the
current renewal.

The respondent burden associated with labeling requirements for
unregistered exported pesticides decreased from 4,888 in the previous
renewal to 4,480 in the current renewal. The respondent burden
associated with labeling requirements for registered exported
pesticides decreased from 9,900 in the previous renewal to 9,240 in the
current renewal. The decrease in burden is due to a decrease in the
estimated number of respondents per calendar year of 2015-2017. Total
labor costs for respondents decreased due to a decrease in the
estimated number of respondents per calendar year from 2015-2017 and
changes in the wage rates made to reflect current wage rates. The new
wage estimates incorporated higher estimates for benefits than was used
in the previous renewal. These changes are an adjustment.

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

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

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: July 16, 2018.
Charlotte Bertrand,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2018-15923 Filed 7-24-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 216 (Friday, November 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 71118]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24811]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting; Cancellation

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 85 FR 69370,
November 2, 2020.

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING: Wednesday, November
4, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The Closed Meeting scheduled for Wednesday,
November 4, 2020 at 2:00 p.m., has been cancelled.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  For further information; please
contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202)
551-5400.

    Dated: November 4, 2020.
Vanessa A. Countryman,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-24811 Filed 11-4-20; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P