EPA Permit Fee Incentive Program Rulemaking

State/EPA MEETING # 2

July 26, 2006

Meeting Summary

Meeting Agenda

Introductions/Roll Call

Summary/Overview of Meeting #1 (Len Bechtel, Office of Wastewater
Management)

Definition of “Adequate Permit Fee Program” (Elaine Brenner, Office
of Wastewater Management, Water Permits Division)

Draft Proposed Rulemaking Options (Len Bechtel, Office of Wastewater
Management)

Current Level of Knowledge of State Permit Fee Resources (Lena Ferris,
Office of Wastewater Management)

meeting Participants

NAME	AGENCY/AFFILIATION	EMAIL

Leonard Bechtel	EPA Office of Wastewater Management<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Gul Beg	EPA Office of Wastewater Management<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Laura Blake	The Cadmus Group, Inc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
James Blizzard	EPA Office of Congressional & Intergovernmental Relations
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Elaine Brenner	EPA  OWM -  Water Permits Division<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Steve Brown	ECOS<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
David Bullard	Georgia Department of Natural Resources	  HYPERLINK
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

William Creal	Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Linda Eichmiller	ASIWPCA<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Lena Ferris	EPA Office of Wastewater Management<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Bonnie Lovelace	Montana Department of Environmental Protection
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Chuck Correll	Iowa Department of Natural Resources
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kristen Dunne	ECOS<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Andrew Fisk	ME DEP<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Carolyn Gillette	The Cadmus Group, Inc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Ron Hammerschmidt	Kansas Department of Health and Environment
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Denise Koch	Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Roger Larson	Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Karl Mueldener	Kansas Department of Health and Environment
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Bev Poston	Washington State Department of Ecology<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Duane Schuettpelz	Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Sandra Stavnes	EPA Region 8<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Susan Sylvester	Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Mike Tate	Kansas Department of Health and Environment
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Debrah Thomas	EPA Region 8<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kyle Winter	Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Nizanna Bathersfield	EPA OWM – Water Permits Division
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Lynn Stabenfeldt	EPA OWM – Water Permits Division
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Robert Moyer	EPA OGC<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Lauren Willis	EPA OGC<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Introduction

Mr. Bechtel, Director of EPA Office of Wastewater Management’s (OWM)
Planning, Information, and Resources Management Staff (PIRMS), reviewed
the meeting agenda and referenced the various documents sent out from
the first meeting, including the meeting summary, a draft options paper
(for permit fee incentive programs), and a draft summarization/analysis
of States’ permit fee programmatic structures.  Mr. Bechtel
highlighted that the State permit fee summarization/analysis is in the
draft stages of development and therefore has not undergone a State
validation process.

Summary/Overview of Meeting #1

The first State/EPA permit fee meeting occurred on July 13, 2006.
EPA’s central focus of this first meeting was to provide background
information on the Agency’s efforts regarding the development of an
incentive program that would facilitate State efforts in establishing
“adequate” permit fee programs.  The significant highlight of this
meeting was the development of programmatic assumptions, gained through
participant input, for EPA’s consideration as it moves forward with
the development of this rulemaking.

Mr. Bechtel asked the meeting participants for corrections or additions
to meeting summary #1 before its finalization in the formal record of
this rulemaking initiative. He suggested that participants e-mail him
any suggested comments they may have on the first meeting summary.

Definition of “Adequate Permit Fee Program”

EPA introduced its proposed options paper outlining five possible
options, based on input received from meeting participants at the July
13th meeting, that could be pursued in order to not only meet the
President’s Budget directive of establishing adequate permit fee
programs on a State-level basis, but also provide States with a certain
degree of flexibility. In order to qualify for an incentive, States
would need to demonstrate the adequacy of their permit fees.  Mr.
Bechtel continuously highlighted the importance of obtaining participant
feedback as related to the five specific distribution ideas.

Elaine Brenner, deputy director of the Water Permits Division,
introduced the proposed definitions of what constitutes an “adequate
permit fee program.” She highlighted the fact that EPA wants to avoid,
to the extent possible, the involvement of fee structures when defining
such a program.  The adequacy of State permit fee programs would be
defined by the percentage of permit program costs supported by permit
fee revenue. The three levels proposed by EPA, in terms of defining an
“adequate permit fee program,” include:

Collect at least 60% of total permit program costs

Collect at least 80% of total permit program costs

Collect 100% of total permit program costs (Reflective of OMB’s
Directive)

The regulation, when finalized, would provide States with a one-year
implementation time period if new or updated State regulations were
required, and a maximum two-year implementation phase if only new
legislation was required.  Under either proposed implementation phase,
States would continue to have flexibility in development of their
individual permit fee structures.

One State suggested that EPA also consider a 50% option, whereby States
would cover 50% of program costs and EPA would cover the remaining 50%.

Some States made reference to partially funding their permit programs
using State general funds.  Meeting participants asked whether State
usage of general funds could account toward the 60%, 80%, or 100% goals.
 Participants emphasized that if States partially or fully fund their
permit programs with State funds, they should not be penalized for not
collecting fees.  EPA indicated that this may possibly be a flexible
issue that warrants further consideration.  For example, the rule could
be developed allowing State contributions to be counted toward the
permit program’s adequacy goals.  The negative aspect of permitting
the usage of both fees and State contributions is the non-encouragement
of additional revenue into State water quality programs, hindering the
achievement of the OMB goal.  Meeting participants suggested that EPA
re-approach OMB to further discuss this issue.

Two State representatives expressed concerns that State legislatures
will be unlikely to double or triple permit fees in order to meet even
the minimum 60% programmatic adequacy goal.  Meeting participants
stressed that EPA needs to be prepared for State petitions for
re-delegation if asked for 100% permit fee coverage.

One participant inquired about the reasoning behind the development of
the 60% and 80% adequacy goals, especially as related to the twenty
percent gap between the two.   EPA responded by indicating that these
two adequacy goals were developed taking into consideration the fact
that OMB would not be satisfied with less than 100% attainment, and that
probably attaining less than sixty percent would not even be accepted.

Permit Program Components

EPA discussed the various elements that would be considered to
constitute individual States’ NPDES programs (including stormwater,
biosolids, industrial pretreatment programs, and ambient monitoring only
in support of permit development), including activities related to
permitting, compliance, and enforcement.  Example activities include:

Permit Activities

Review permit applications

Enter data into ICIS database

Review monitoring data in support of permit development

Conduct modeling and other technical services to support permit
development

Draft individual NPDES permits

Draft general permits

Issue public notices/hold public hearings

Issue final permits

Review Notices of Intent (NOIs) to be covered by general permits

Process administrative challenges to permits

Compliance & Enforcement Activities

Conduct inspections to determine permit compliance

Review monitoring reports and other submittals to assess compliance

Enter data into ICIS

Investigate complaints concerning noncomplying discharges

Review discharge and ambient water quality monitoring to assess
compliance with permit limits

Take enforcement actions for violations of permit conditions

Provide technical assistance to the general public, municipalities, and
industrial facilities

EPA indicated that this list is meant to provide examples of general
permit-related programmatic activities, and by no means should be
considered exhaustive in nature.  EPA also asked States for feedback on
this list, especially pertaining to whether the list should remain
general as is, or whether any additional activities should be
incorporated.  Individual States continuously stressed the importance of
keeping this programmatic activity list as general as possible, since
the inclusion of additional program-specific activities would require
fees to be collected for those specific activities.  Also, meeting
participants mentioned that by having a broad definition of adequacy,
more State legislatures would be willing to provide additional
assistance in the implementation of this rulemaking.

Lena Ferris, of EPA OWM, emphasized EPA’s efforts in providing States
with an adequate comment period, regardless of which time schedule this
rulemaking follows.  She highlighted that the final rule will be
published in the Federal Register for an official sixty-day comment
period.

Draft Proposed Options for Rulemaking

Mr. Bechtel presented the proposed rulemaking allocation concepts and
their associated pros/cons, which were developed by EPA taking into
account input obtained from the prior meeting on July 13th. Mr. Bechtel
highlighted the fact that OMB would like to see additional revenue
streams entering State water quality programs.  He also responded to an
inquiry regarding the amount of clarification OMB has provided regarding
the rulemaking.  He indicated that there has not been a high level of
communication between EPA and OMB at this stage, adding that EPA wanted
to obtain further input before proceeding with senior management and
possibly OMB.  However, OMB provided clear direction through their
discussions and recommended follow-up action items resulting from the
Section 106 Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) review; one of the
recommendations was EPA’s development of this permit rulemaking.
Before beginning the discussion of the proposed options, Mr. Bechtel
indicated that these options were not necessarily mutually exclusive,
and therefore perhaps the meeting participants could assist in working
several of the concepts into a recommended option. The proposed rule
concepts follow below:

1. CWA Section 106 Future Funding Increase for Adequate Permit Fee
Programs

Under this option, only States with adequate permit fee programs would
be eligible for future increases in Section 106 funding.  States without
adequate permit fee programs would not be eligible for future increases
in Section 106 funding.  This option protects the core program
activities.

2. CWA Section 106 5% Funding Reduction for Inadequate Permit Fee
Programs & Supplemental Incentive Funding for Adequate Permit Fee
Programs

Under this option, States that do not have adequate permit fee programs
would receive a 5% reduction in Section 106 funding.  The funds
generated from the 5% reduction would serve as an “incentive pool”
and be distributed to States with adequate permit fee programs.  This
might be viewed by some States as being more of a disincentive option
than an incentive option.

3. CWA Section 106 Overall Funding Reduction & Supplemental Incentive
Funding for Adequate Permit Fee Programs

Under this option, the overall Section 106 base funding allocation would
be reduced by 5%.  The funds generated from the 5% reduction would serve
as an “incentive pool” and be distributed to States with adequate
permit fee programs.

-EPA highlighted that the net effect of options 2 & 3 above would be the
same.  States need to look at both options from the perspective of being
a disincentive vs. an incentive.

4. CWA Section 106 Overall $3 Million Funding Reduction & Competitive
Grants to Support the Development of Permit Fee Programs

Under this option, the overall Section 106 base funding allocation would
be reduced by $3 million.  This $3 million would be used to fund a
competitive grant program to support capacity building for State permit
fee programs.  States would compete for funding that they could use to
conduct analyses or organizational/financial work to establish adequate
permit fee programs.  Remaining funds (after grants are allocated) would
be given to States with adequate permit fee programs.  This option is
based on direct suggestions made at the July 13th meeting.  Meeting
participants commented that while funding assistance could assist with
some of the information gathering needs necessary for the development of
a permit program, individual States would still have to receive
legislative authority to charge fees in the first place.

5. Non-Monetary Incentives

Under this option, non-monetary incentives, such as regulatory relief or
measures to streamline the permitting process, would be given to States
with adequate permit fee programs.  EPA recognized that this option
would need to be further discussed with Regions and appropriate general
counsel, in order to identify adequate non-monetary incentives.

ECOS referenced options #2, #3, and #4 as being contrary to ECOS’
policy.  The Section 106 program is classified as a core environmental
program, only warranting the consideration of future increases, not
reductions.

One State participant suggested that an incentive of five percent,
referenced in options #2 and #3 above, would not be sufficient to cover
States’ administration fees associated with fee collection activities.
 Further information regarding realistic States’ fee administration
costs would be needed in order to conduct an analysis and provide an
option with a more adequate incentive than the one currently proposed.

Another State participant questioned EPA as to whether there was any
indication of OMB’s preference among the various options.  EPA
responded by stating no such indication currently existed, but EPA
believes that OMB would probably favor the first three options,
considering that these three options emphasize the mechanism of
distribution and the size of the incentive.

An additional State participant highlighted option #4 as being
limited-term, to which EPA agreed.  A short discussion occurred
regarding whether this option, if chosen, would meet OMB’s
expectations, and the high likelihood of OMB requiring a change in the
nature of the proposed incentive.

Current Level of Knowledge of State Permit Fee Resources

Mr. Bechtel indicated that EPA lacked comprehensive and detail-oriented
information/data regarding the current status of State permit fee
programs, such as information detailing what percentage of State program
costs are currently covered through permit fees.  This type of
information would definitely prove to be value-added to EPA as it
attempts to initiate a rulemaking that is both reasonable and achievable
from a State standpoint.

Lena Ferris, of EPA OWM, referred meeting participants to the draft
summarization/analysis of States’ permit fee programmatic structures,
sent out prior to this meeting to illustrate estimated permit fees
currently being charged by States.  EPA stressed that the document is
still in draft form and reflects the results of research conducted only
through the use of State web-sites.   Therefore, the data is only
reflective of publicly-available information, through usage of State
web-sites, and has not yet been State-validated.  As much as EPA is
cognizant of the need to perform State data validation, this would
require the development and approval of an Information Collection
Request (ICR).  Undergoing this type of effort would be extremely
time-consuming, deterring EPA from keeping pace with the accelerated
schedule for this rulemaking, leading to further hinderance in meeting
the established target rulemaking completion date of December 2006.
However, EPA could possibly work with the Association of State and
Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) to
facilitate such data collection efforts involving the States.

Ideally, EPA needs data regarding not only the dollars that each State
is currently collecting through permit fee programs, but also the total
cost of running each State’s permit fee program (including the total
dollar costs of the permitting and compliance/enforcement activities
listed above), in order to make this rulemaking the most beneficial it
can possibly be.  Meeting participants generally agreed that it would be
beneficial, in terms of the development of this rulemaking, to have the
following information on a per-State basis: 1) total permit program cost
and 2) the amount/percent of that cost covered by: a) federal funds; b)
State funds; and c) permit fees.

One State participant highlighted EPA’s possible use of Permitting for
Environmental Results (PER) profiles to determine a State’s
contribution as well as the federal contribution regarding implementing
a State’s permit fee program.  It was also suggested that EPA
undertake data collection efforts regarding quantifying the
amount/percent of overhead costs States incur from the administration of
their individual permit fee programs.

Wrap-Up

To provide closure to this second meeting, Mr. Bechtel indicated that
feedback provided by the individual  participants during not only this
second meeting, but also the first meeting, will be taken into
consideration and appropriately relayed to Office of Water (OW) Senior
Management.

The next meeting is scheduled for August 22nd.  EPA will send out any
relevant documents prior to this meeting.  Mr. Bechtel expressed EPA’s
appreciation for everyone’s time, thoughts, and suggestions as related
to this rulemaking.

 PAGE

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 62561]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19637]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings # 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER22-1837-004.
    Applicants: Florida Power & Light Company.
    Description: Compliance filing: FPL Settlement Agreement Compliance
Filing to be effective 7/13/2022.
    Filed Date: 9/5/23.
    Accession Number: 20230905-5163.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/26/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER22-2110-004.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance Filing Notifying
Commission of Tariff Part VIII Effective Date to be effective 10/5/
2023.
    Filed Date: 9/5/23.
    Accession Number: 20230905-5145.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/26/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-1847-001.
    Applicants: The Potomac Edison Company, PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Refund Report: The Potomac Edison Company submits
tariff filing per 35.19a(b): Potomac Edison submits Refund Report in
Docket No. ER23-1847 to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 9/5/23.
    Accession Number: 20230905-5134.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/26/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2415-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Designated Entity
Agreement, SA No. 7000 in ER23-2415 to be effective 6/16/2023.
    Filed Date: 9/5/23.
    Accession Number: 20230905-5147.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/26/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2416-001.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to Designated Entity
Agreement, SA No. 7001 in ER23-2416 to be effective 6/16/2023.
    Filed Date: 9/5/23.
    Accession Number: 20230905-5146.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/26/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2769-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
Consumers Energy Company, Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2023-
09-06_SA 3536 Termination of METC-CE TSA to be effective 9/7/2023.
    Filed Date: 9/6/23.
    Accession Number: 20230906-5061.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/27/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2770-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc.,
Consumers Energy Company, Michigan Electric Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Midcontinent Independent
System Operator, Inc. submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2023-
09-06_SA 3315 Termination of METC-CE TSA to be effective 4/18/2023.
    Filed Date: 9/6/23.
    Accession Number: 20230906-5063.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/27/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2771-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Notice of Cancellation of WMPA, SA
No. 6364; Queue No. AG2-374 re: breach to be effective 11/6/2023.
    Filed Date: 9/6/23.
    Accession Number: 20230906-5068.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/27/23.

    Docket Numbers: ER23-2772-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original NSA, Service
Agreement No. 7083; Queue No. AD1-155 to be effective 11/6/2023.
    Filed Date: 9/6/23.
    Accession Number: 20230906-5081.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/27/23.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a
complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with
Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the
specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is
necessary to become a party to the proceeding. eFiling is encouraged.
More detailed information relating to filing requirements,
interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can
be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf.
For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call
(202) 502-8659.
    For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Commission's Office of Public Participation
(OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in
Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including
landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and
others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission
processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such
as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: September 6, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-19637 Filed 9-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14231-14232]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06190]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2008-0312]

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Exemption
Renewal for Lytx, Inc.

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

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA renews Lytx, Inc.'s (Lytx) (previously DriveCam, Inc.)
\1\ exemption which allows the placement of video event recorders
within the swept area of the windshields on commercial motor vehicles
(CMVs). Motor carriers may continue to use the video event recorders
mounted in the windshield area to increase safety through (1)
identification and remediation of risky driving behaviors such as
distracted driving and drowsiness; (2) enhanced monitoring of passenger
behavior for CMVs in passenger service; and (3) enhanced collision
review and analysis. The Agency has concluded that granting this
exemption renewal will maintain a level of safety that is equivalent to
or greater than the level of safety achieved without the exemption.
However, the Agency requests comments and information on the exemption,
especially from anyone who believes this standard will not be
maintained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On November 4, 2013, the company changed its name from
DriveCam, Inc. to Lytx, Inc.).

DATES: This decision is effective March 18, 2015. Comments must be
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
received on or before April 17, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) number FMCSA-2008-0312 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Ground Floor, Room W12-140, DOT Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and
docket number for this notice. For detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information on the exemption process, see the
``Public Participation'' heading below. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided. Please see the ``Privacy Act''
heading for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or to Room W12-140,
DOT Building, New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS) is available 24 hours each day, 365
days each year. If you want acknowledgement that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Luke Loy, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Office of Bus and Truck Standards and Operations,
MC-

PSV,<PHONE_NUMBER>; Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in
the Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted,
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period and explain
the terms and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed
(49 CFR 381.300(b)).

Basis for Renewing Exemption

    Lytx applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.60(e)(1) to allow the
placement of video event recorders within the area swept by CMV
windshield wipers. On April 15, 2009, FMCSA published a notice of final
disposition granting the exemption (74 FR 17549). On April 18, 2011,
FMCSA published a notice of final disposition renewing this exemption
until April 16, 2013 (76 FR 21791). On March 22, 2013, FMCSA published
a notice of final disposition renewing this exemption until April 16,
2015 (78 FR 17750). The renewal outlined in this Notice extends the
exemption through April 16, 2017.
    FMCSA is not aware of any evidence showing that the installation of
video event recorders on CMVs, in accordance with the conditions of the
original exemption, has resulted in any degradation in safety. FMCSA
continues to believe that the potential safety gains from the use of
video event recorders to improve driver behavior will improve the
overall level of safety to the motoring public.
    The exemption is renewed subject to the requirements that video
event recorders installed in CMVs be mounted not more than 50mm (2
inches) below the upper edge of the area swept by the windshield
wipers, and located outside the driver's sight lines to the road and
highway signs and signals. The exemption will be valid for two years
unless rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if:
(1) Motor carriers and/or commercial motor vehicles fail to comply with
the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has
resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was
granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent
with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315.
    The Agency believes that extending the exemption for another two
years will likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or
greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption
because (1) based on the technical information available, there is no
indication that the video event recorders obstruct drivers' views of
the roadway, highway signs and surrounding traffic; (2) trucks and
buses generally have an elevated seating position which greatly
improves the forward visual field of the driver, and any impairment of
available sight lines is minimal; and (3) the location within the top
two inches of the area swept by the windshield wiper and out of the
driver's normal sightline is reasonable and enforceable at roadside. In
addition, the Agency believes that the use of video event recorders by
fleets to deter unsafe driving behavior is likely to improve the
overall level of safety to the motoring public.
    Without the exemption, FMCSA and the motor carrier industry would
be unable to continue to test this innovative safety management control
system.

Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA requests comments from parties with data concerning the
safety record of CMVs equipped with video event recorders by April 17,
2015. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted and, if
safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption would
not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the Lytx
exemption.

    Issued on: March 12, 2015.
T.F. Scott Darling III,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-06190 Filed 3-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: October 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 212)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 64874-64876]
[DOCID:fr31oc08-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0623; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-089-AD;
Amendment 39-15699; AD 2008-22-04]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional
Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), and
CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
for the products listed above. This AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as:

    Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the
aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards * * *.
    [A]ssessment showed that supplemental maintenance tasks [for the
fuel tank wiring harness installation, and the hydraulic system No.
3 temperature transducer, among other items] are required to prevent
potential ignition sources inside the fuel system, which could
result in a fuel tank explosion. * * *

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 5, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 5,
2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of Section 3, ``Fuel System Limitations,'' of Part 2 of
Bombardier CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15, and CL-600-2D24 Maintenance
Requirements Manual CSP B-053, Revision 9, dated July 20, 2007, listed
in this AD, as of April 16, 2008 (73 FR 13098, March 12, 2008).

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on June 9, 2008 (73 FR
32486) and proposed to supersede AD 2008-06-01, Amendment 39-15413 (73
FR 13098, March 12, 2008). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the
aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards introduced
in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of
Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2002-043. The identified non-compliances
were then assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001,
to determine if mandatory corrective action is required.
    The assessment showed that supplemental maintenance tasks [for
the fuel tank wiring harness installation, and the hydraulic system
No. 3 temperature transducer, among other items] are required to
prevent potential ignition sources inside the fuel system, which
could result in a fuel tank explosion. Revision has been made to
Canadair Regional Jet Models CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15 and CL-600-
2D24 Maintenance Requirements Manual, CSP B-053, Part 2, Section 3
``Fuel System Limitations'' to introduce the required maintenance
tasks.

The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations Section
(ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate
new limitations for fuel tank systems. You may obtain further
information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Remove References to Later Revisions

    We removed the references to ``later revisions'' of the applicable
service information in paragraphs (f) and (g)(2) of this AD to be
consistent with FAA policy and Office of the Federal Register
regulations. We may consider approving the use of later revisions of
the service information as an alternative method of compliance with
this AD, as provided by paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.

New Service Information

    We received Revision 10, dated March 20, 2008, of Section 3, ``Fuel
System Limitations,'' of Part 2 of Bombardier CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15,
and CL-600-2D24 maintenance requirements manual CSP B-053. The tasks
specified in Revision 10 of the Maintenance Requirements Manual (MRM)
are essentially the same as those in the previous revision of the MRM
cited in the NPRM. We have revised paragraphs (f) and (g)(1) of the AD
to reference Revisions 9 and 10 of the MRM.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described
previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 289 products 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 $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $23,120, or $80 per
product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

Examining the AD Docket

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
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 removing Amendment 39-15413 (73 FR
13098, March 12, 2008) and adding the following new AD:

2008-22-04 Bombardier, Inc. (Formerly Canadair): Amendment 39-15699.
Docket No. FAA-2008-0623; Directorate Identifier 2008-NM-089-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective December
5, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2008-06-01, Amendment 39-15413.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all Bombardier Model CL-600-2C10
(Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet
Series 705), and CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes,
certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

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

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28: Fuel.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    Bombardier Aerospace has completed a system safety review of the
aircraft fuel system against fuel tank safety standards introduced
in Chapter 525 of the Airworthiness Manual through Notice of
Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2002-043. The identified non-compliances
were then assessed using Transport Canada Policy Letter No. 525-001,
to determine if mandatory corrective action is required.
    The assessment showed that supplemental maintenance tasks [for
the fuel tank wiring harness installation, and the hydraulic system
No. 3 temperature transducer, among other items] are required to
prevent potential ignition sources inside the fuel system, which
could result in a fuel tank explosion. Revision has been made to
Canadair Regional Jet Models CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15 and CL-600-
2D24 Maintenance Requirements Manual, CSP B-053, Part 2, Section 3
``Fuel System Limitations'' to introduce the required maintenance
tasks.

The corrective action is revising the Airworthiness Limitations
Section (ALS) of the Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to
incorporate new limitations for fuel tank systems.

Restatement of Certain Requirements of AD 2008-06-01

    (f) Unless already done, within 60 days after April 16, 2008
(the effective date of AD 2008-06-01), revise the ALS of the
Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to incorporate the
inspection requirements in Section 3, ``Fuel System Limitations,''
of Part 2 of Bombardier CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15, and CL-600-2D24
Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP B-053, Revision

9, dated July 20, 2007; or Revision 10, dated March 20, 2008.

New Requirements of This AD: Actions and Compliance

    (g) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) For task numbers 24-90-00-601, 24-90-00-602, 28-00-00-601,
28-11-23-601, 28-11-23-602, 28-12-13-601, 29-30-00-601, and 29-30-
00-602 identified in Section 3, ``Fuel System Limitations,'' of Part
2 of Bombardier CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15, and CL-600-2D24
Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP B-053, Revision 9, dated July
20, 2007; or Revision 10, dated March 20, 2008: The initial
compliance times start at the later of the applicable ``Threshold''
and ``Grace Period'' times specified in Table 1 of this AD, and the
repetitive limitation tasks must be accomplished thereafter at the
applicable interval specified in Revision 9 or Revision 10 of the
Bombardier CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15, and CL-600-2D24 Maintenance
Requirements Manual CSP B-053, except as provided by paragraph
(g)(2) and (h)(1) of this AD.

                      Table 1--Initial Inspections
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Compliance time (whichever occurs later)
         Description         -------------------------------------------
                                    Threshold           Grace period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tasks with limiting           Before the            Within 2,000 flight
 intervals of 8,000 flight     accumulation of       hours after the
 hours.                        8,000 total flight    effective date of
                               hours.                this AD.
Tasks with limiting           Before the            Within 6,000 flight
 intervals of 20,000 flight    accumulation of       hours after the
 hours.                        20,000 total flight   effective date of
                               hours.                this AD.
Tasks with limiting           Before the            Within 6,000 flight
 intervals of 30,000 flight    accumulation of       hours after the
 hours.                        30,000 total flight   effective date of
                               hours.                this AD.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) After accomplishing the actions specified in paragraph
(g)(1) of this AD, no alternative inspections/limitation tasks or
inspection/limitation task intervals may be used unless the
inspection/limitation task or inspection/limitation task interval is
approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD.

FAA AD Differences

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

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (h) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. Send information to ATTN: Rocco Viselli, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe and Propulsion Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York
ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, New York 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any
approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your
appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards
District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (i) Refer to MCAI Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-2007-28,
dated November 22, 2007; and Section 3, ``Fuel System Limitations,''
of Part 2 of Bombardier CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15, and CL-600-2D24
Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP B-053, Revision 9, dated July
20, 2007; or Revision 10, dated March 20, 2008; for related
information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use Section 3, ``Fuel System Limitations,'' of Part
2 of Bombardier CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15, and CL-600-2D24
Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP B-053, Revision 9, dated July
20, 2007; or Section 3, ``Fuel System Limitations,'' of Part 2 of
Bombardier CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15, and CL-600-2D24 Maintenance
Requirements Manual CSP B-053, Revision 10, dated March 20, 2008; to
do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies
otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of Section 3, ``Fuel System
Limitations,'' of Part 2 of Bombardier CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15, and
CL-600-2D24 Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP B-053, Revision 10,
dated March 20, 2008, under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) The Director of the Federal Register previously approved the
incorporation by reference of Section 3, ``Fuel System
Limitations,'' of Part 2 of Bombardier CL-600-2C10, CL-600-2D15, and
CL-600-2D24 Maintenance Requirements Manual CSP B-053, Revision 9,
dated July 20, 2007, on April 16, 2008 (73 FR 13098, March 12,
2008).
    (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; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://
www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or 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 9, 2008.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-25302 Filed 10-30-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 221 (Monday, November 16, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 72918]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25164]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0497; Airspace Docket No. 20-ASO-1]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of V-5 and V-178, and Revocation of V-513 in the
Vicinity of New Hope, KY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: This action withdraws the final rule published in the Federal
Register on October 26, 2020. In that action, the FAA amends VHF
Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways V-5 and V-178 in the
vicinity of New Hope, KY, and removes V-513 in its entirety due to the
planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the New Hope, KY, VOR/
Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) navigation aid. The FAA has
determined that withdrawal of the final rule is warranted since there
has been a change in the date for the decommissioning of the New Hope,
KY, VOR.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, November 16, 2020, the final rule
published October 26, 2020 (85 FR 67649), is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register for Docket
No. FAA-2020-0497 (85 FR 67649, October 26, 2020) amending Title 14
Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by modifying VOR Federal
airways V-5 and V-178 in the vicinity of New Hope, KY, and removing V-
513 in its entirety due to the planned decommissioning of the New Hope,
KY, VOR. Subsequent to publication, the FAA determined that the New
Hope, KY, VOR navigation aid will not be decommissioned at this time.
As a result, the final rule is being withdrawn.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Withdrawal

0
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the final rule
published in the Federal Register on October 26, 2020 (85 FR 67649), FR
Doc. 2020-23377, is hereby withdrawn.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 9, 2020.
George Gonzalez,
Acting Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.
[FR Doc. 2020-25164 Filed 11-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P