[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28502-28503]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11991]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2011-0054; Notice 1]

Cooper Tire & Rubber Tire Company, Receipt of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Cooper Tire & Rubber Tire Company, (Cooper),\1\ has determined that
approximately 6,964 passenger car replacement tires manufactured
between January 23, 2011 and March 26, 2011, do not fully comply with
paragraph S5.5(f) of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
139, New Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Cooper has filed an
appropriate report pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports (dated March 31, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cooper Tire & Rubber Tire Company (Cooper) is a replacement
equipment manufacturer incorporated in the state of Delaware.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), Cooper has petitioned for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    This notice of receipt of Cooper's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    Affected are approximately 6,964 size LT285/75R16 Cooper brand
Discoverer S/T MAXX model passenger car replacement tires manufactured
between January 23, 2011 and March 26, 2011, at Cooper's plant located
in Texarkana, Arkansas.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, these provisions
only apply to the 6,964 \2\ tires that Cooper no longer

controlled at the time that it determined that a noncompliance existed
in the subject tires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Cooper's petition, which was filed under 49 CFR Part 556,
requests an agency decision to exempt Cooper as a replacement
equipment manufacturer from the notification and recall
responsibilities of 49 CFR part 573 for 6,964 of the affected tires.
However, the agency cannot relieve tire distributors and dealers of
the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, introduction or
delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of the
noncompliant tires under their control after Cooper notified them
that the subject noncompliance existed. Those tires must be brought
into conformance, exported, or destroyed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Paragraph S5.5(f) of FMVSS No. 139 require in pertinent part:

    S5.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in paragraphs (a)
through (i) of S5.5, each tire must be marked on each sidewall with
the information specified in S5.5(a) through (d) and on one sidewall
with the information specified in S5.5(e) through (i) according to
the phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this standard. The markings
must be placed between the maximum section width and the bead on at
least one sidewall, unless the maximum section width of the tire is
located in an area that is not more than one-fourth of the distance
from the bead to the shoulder of the tire. If the maximum section
width falls within that area, those markings must appear between the
bead and a point one-half the distance from the bead to the shoulder
of the tire, on at least one sidewall. The markings must be in
letters and numerals not less than 0.078 inches high and raised
above or sunk below the tire surface not less than 0.015 inches * *
*
    (f) The actual number of plies in the sidewall, and the actual
number of plies in the tread area, if different * * *

    Cooper explains that the noncompliance is that, due to a mold
labeling error, the sidewall marking on the reference side of the tires
incorrectly describes the actual number of plies in the tread area of
the tires as required by paragraph S5.5(f). Specifically, the tires in
question were inadvertently manufactured with ``TREAD 1 PLY NYLON + 2
PLY STEEL + 3 PLY POLYESTER; SIDEWALL 3 PLY POLYESTER.'' The labeling
should have been ``TREAD 2 PLY NYLON + 2 PLY STEEL + 3 PLY POLYESTER;
SIDEWALL 3 PLY POLYESTER.''
    Cooper also explains that while the non-compliant tires are
mislabeled, the tires do in fact have 2 Nylon tread plies and meet or
exceed all other applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.
    Cooper reported that this noncompliance was discovered during a
review of the specified stamping requirements and visual inspection of
tire stamping.
    Cooper argues that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety because the noncompliant sidewall marking does not
create an unsafe condition and all other labeling requirements have
been met.
    Cooper points out that NHTSA has previously granted similar
petitions for non-compliances in sidewall marking.
    In summation, Cooper believes that the described noncompliance of
its tires to meet the requirements of FMVSS No. 139 is inconsequential
to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to exempt from
providing recall notification of noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C.
30120 should be granted.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and
notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted by
any of the following methods:
    a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    b. By hand delivery to U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on
weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except Federal Holidays.
    c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed
to 1-202-493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Comment closing date: June 16, 2011.

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

    Issued on: May 11, 2011.
Claude H. Harris,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2011-11991 Filed 5-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 125 (Tuesday, June 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37156]
[FR Doc No: 2015-16106]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0524]

Safety Zones; Fireworks Events in Captain of the Port New York
Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of enforcement of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce various safety zones within the
Captain of the Port New York Zone on the specified dates and times.
This action is necessary to ensure the safety of vessels and spectators
from hazards associated with fireworks displays. During the enforcement
period, no person or vessel may enter the safety zones without
permission of the Captain of the Port (COTP).

DATES: The regulation for the safety zones described in 33 CFR 165.160
will be enforced on the dates and times listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this notice,
call or email MST1 Daniel Vazquez, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast Guard will enforce the safety
zones listed in 33 CFR 165.160 on the specified dates and times as
indicated in Table 1 below. This regulation was published in the
Federal Register on November 9, 2011 (76 FR 69614).

                                 Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.1 The IPSoft Inc. Liberty Island        Launch site: A barge
 Safety Zone 33 CFR 165.160(2.1).         located in approximate
                                          position 40[deg]41'16.5'' N.
                                          074[deg]02'23'' W. (NAD 1983),
                                          located in Federal Anchorage
                                          20-C, about 360 yards east of
                                          Liberty Island. This Safety
                                          Zone is a 360-yard radius from
                                          the barge.
                                          Date: June 25, 2015.
                                          Time: 8:50 p.m.-10:00
                                          p.m.
5.1 Hamilton LLC Pier 60 Safety Zone 33   Launch site: A barge
 CFR 165.160(5.1).                        located in approximate
                                          position 40[deg]44'49'' N.
                                          074[deg]01'02'' W. (NAD 1983),
                                          approximately 500 yards west
                                          of Pier 60, Manhattan, New
                                          York. This Safety Zone is a
                                          360-yard radius from the
                                          barge.
                                          Date: August 06, 2015.
                                          Time: 10:00 p.m.-11:15
                                          p.m.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the provisions of 33 CFR 165.160, vessels may not enter the
safety zones unless given permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. Spectator vessels may transit outside the safety zones
but may not anchor, block, loiter in, or impede the transit of other
vessels. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or
local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation.
    This notice is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.160(a) and 5
U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice in the Federal Register, the
Coast Guard will provide mariners with advanced notification of
enforcement periods via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine
information broadcasts. If the COTP determines that a safety zone need
not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to grant general permission to
enter the safety zone.

    Dated: June 12, 2015.
G. Loebl,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port New York.
[FR Doc. 2015-16106 Filed 6-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 23 (Friday, February 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4953-4954]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02132]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Modification to Previously Published Notice of Intent
To Prepare an Environmental Assessment

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is publishing this notice to advise the public of a
modification to the Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental
Assessment (EA) and notice of opportunity for public comment published
in the Federal Register on April 21, 2014, at 79 FR 22177.
Specifically, FAA is withdrawing Wildlife Fence Project from the scope
of the EA, and the project will be subject instead to a discrete
environmental review.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Parks Preston, Assistant Manager,
Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Avenue, Room 220,
College Park, Georgia 30337-2747,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Paulding Northwest Atlanta Airport (PUJ) is
located outside Atlanta, Georgia, in the town of Dallas, Georgia.
Paulding County and the Paulding County Airport Authority (PCAA) own
the airport. PUJ opened in 2008 and is designated as a general aviation
airport. An EA for the construction of PUJ was completed in 2005.
    In September 2013, the PCAA submitted an application to the FAA
requesting an Airport Operating Certificate under title 14 Code of
Regulations, Part 139. A Part 139 Airport Operating Certificate allows
the airport to accommodate scheduled passenger-carrying operations,
commonly referred to as ``commercial service.'' In November 2013,
several Paulding County residents filed a Petition for Review in the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia of two
categorical exclusions (CATEXs) issued by the Georgia Department of
Transportation (GDOT), as authorized by the FAA's State Block Grant
Program, for airfield improvement projects. The petitioners argued that
the two projects were connected to the proposed introduction of
commercial service at PUJ. On December 23, 2013, the petitioners and
the FAA entered into a settlement agreement under which the FAA agreed
to prepare, at a minimum, an EA for the proposed Part 139 Airport
Operating Certificate and all connected actions. The FAA is currently
in the process of preparing that EA (current EA). While the settlement
agreement contemplated that the current EA would include all actions
connected with the proposed issuance of the Part 139 Airport Operating
Certificate, the FAA opted to include in the current EA all reasonably
foreseeable airport improvement projects, whether or not connected with
the proposed introduction of commercial service.
    On April 21, 2014, the FAA published a ``Notice of Intent to
Prepare an Environmental Assessment and Notice of Opportunity for
Public Comment'' in the Federal Register, 79 FR 22177. The Notice of
Intent identified all of the projects intended to be reviewed in the
EA, including ``Install approximately 19,000 linear feet of wildlife
fencing around the perimeter of the Airport''. PUJ owners now desire to
move forward with the Wildlife Fence Project more expeditiously than
will be possible if the project remains within the scope of the current
EA. The primary need for expediting this project is enhance aviation
safety to General Aviaion operations at PUJ.
    The Wildlife Fence has independent utility, is not connected to the
Part 139 Airport Operating Certificate, and is therefore not required
by the National Environmental Policy Act or the terms

of the 2013 settlement agreement to be included in the EA. Accordingly,
the current EA will no longer consider direct impacts of the Wildlife
Fence Project, but will address potential cumulative impacts associated
with the project.
    To satisfy the requirements of FAA Order 1050.1F, GDOT has prepared
a Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) for the project. The CATEX is available
for review at PUJ and online at http://www.paulding.gov/DocumentCenter.

    Issued in Atlanta, Georgia, on January 29, 2018.
Parks Preston,
Assistant Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2018-02132 Filed 2-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


United States Environmental Protection Agency

Docket Index for

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0269]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans;

State of California; Legal Authority

	Docket Index

Category/ Item 	Number

I.	Reserved

II.	Federal Register Notices

37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972)	II-A

44 FR 38912 (July 3, 1979)	II-B

45 FR 53136 (August 11, 1980)	II-C

69 FR 67062 (November 16, 2004)	II-D

73 FR 9260 (February 20, 2008)	II-E

III.	Other Relevant Documents

ARB Letter to Air Pollution Control Officers/Districts, Regarding Implementation of Permit Provisions of Senate Bill 700, dated September 3, 2008	III-A

Earthjustice Letter to EPA dated January 7, 2008	III-B

California Attorney General Letter to EPA dated November 3, 2003	III-C

Senate Bill 700	III-D

Transmittal Memo, Recommendation and Evaluation Report Concerning Chapter 3 (Legal Authority) of Revision to California SIP from Paul De Falco, EPA, dated June 25, 1979	III-E

ARB Transmittal Letter for Chapter 3 (Legal Authority) of  Revision to California SIP, dated March 16, 1979	III-F

Chapter 3 (Legal Authority), Revision to California SIP, December 1978 III-G

Chapter 2 (Statewide Perspective), Revision to California SIP, October 1978	III-H

Chapter 1 (Introduction), SIP-78 Working Document, April 1978	III-I

Foreword to the State of California’s 1979 SIP Amendments in Response to the CAA Amendments of 1977, July 1979	III-J

Excerpt from 40 CFR part 51, subpart B (“Plan content and requirements”) (1977)	III-K

Governor’s Letter to EPA transmitting 1972 California SIP, dated February 21, 1972	III-L

California SIP, dated January 30, 1972, cover page and table of contents III-M

Chapter 7 (Legal Considerations), 1972 California SIP	III-N

Appendix II (State Statutes and Other Legal Documents Pertinent to Air Pollution Control in California), 1972 California SIP	III-O

Excerpt from 40 CFR part 51, subpart B (“Plan content and requirements”) (1972)	III-P

Excerpts from Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970	III-Q

IV.	EPA Rulemaking Documents

Federal Register Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Pre-publication Version IV-A

75 FR 4742 (January 29, 2010)	IV-B

Federal Register Notice of Final Rulemaking, Pre-publication Version IV-C

V. 	Comment Letters on Proposed Action

San Joaquin Valley APCD, Comment Letter, February 24, 2010	V-A

Paul Cort, Earthjustice, Comment Letter, March 1, 2010	V-B

Brent Newell, CRP&E, Comment Letter, March 1, 2010	V-C

Greenberg-Glusker, Comment Letter, March 1, 2010	V-D

VI.	Supplemental Materials for Final Rule

62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997)	VI-A

72 FR 64158 (November 15, 2007)	VI-B

  PAGE  2


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 216 (Friday, November 6, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 71074]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24695]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9053-7]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.epa.gov/nepa.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)
Filed October 26, 2020 10 a.m. EST Through November 2, 2020 10 a.m. EST
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

    Notice: Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make
public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's
comment letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20200217, Final, USFS, CO, Pike & San Isabel National Forests
Motorized Travel Management (MVUM) Analysis, Review Period Ends: 12/21/
2020, Contact: John Dow<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200218, Draft, TREAS, MD, Construction and Operation of a
Currency Production Facility, Comment Period Ends: 12/21/2020, Contact:
Chuck Davis<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200219, Draft, AZDOT, FHWA, AZ, Sonoran Corridor Tier 1
Environmental Impact Statement, Comment Period Ends: 01/08/2021,
Contact: Ammon Heier<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20200220, Final, USFWS, OR, Deschutes Basin Habitat
Conservation Plan, Review Period Ends: 12/07/2020, Contact: Bridget
Moran<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notice

EIS No. 20200196, Final, FTA, CA, Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Final Environmental Impact Report (Vol. 1) for the East San Fernando
Valley Transit Corridor Project, Review Period Ends: 11/17/2020,
Contact: Ms. Charlene Lee Lorenzo<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Revision to FR Notice Published 10/02/2020; Extending the Comment
Period from 11/02/2020 to 11/17/2020.

    Dated: November 2, 2020.
Candi Schaedle,
Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2020-24695 Filed 11-5-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P