[Federal Register: July 28, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 143)]
[Notices]
[Page 37224-37225]
[DOCID:fr28jy09-38]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0848; FRL-8392-4]

TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory Update; Changing Certain
Chemical Substances Identities from Confidential to Non-Confidential

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is updating the Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory) Master File to list 530
chemical substances as non-confidential on the TSCA Inventory that were
previously listed as confidential. This action is necessary because
these chemical substances no longer qualify for listing as confidential
on the TSCA Inventory.

DATES: This update is effective July 22, 2009.
    These chemical substances will be listed on public versions of the
TSCA Inventory on or after August 3, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address: TSCA-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For technical information contact: Scott Sherlock, Environmental
Assistance Division (7408M), Office Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address: sherlock.scott @epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

     You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture
(defined by statute at 15 U.S.C. 2602(7) to include import) chemical
substances, including inorganic chemical substances, subject to
reporting under TSCA. Potentially affected entities identified by their
North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes may
include, but are not limited to:
     Chemical manufacturers and importers, including chemical
manufacturers and importers of inorganic chemical substances (NAICS
codes 325 and 32411). You may also be potentially affected by this
action if you are a user of information generated under TSCA.
     This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected or interested in this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under
docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0848. All documents
in the docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
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 electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only
available in hard copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located
in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room
hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPPT
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Docket visitors are required to show
photographic identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign
the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray
machine and subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC
badge that must be visible at all times in the building and returned
upon departure.
     2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal
Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr. Information about
the TSCA Inventory is available at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/
newchems/pubs/invntory.htm.

II. Background

    The TSCA Inventory is a listing of all chemical substances
manufactured, imported, or processed for a commercial purpose, which
EPA was directed to establish and maintain pursuant to TSCA section 8.
Since the initial TSCA Inventory was published, persons intending to
manufacture or import a non-exempt chemical substance that is not on
the TSCA Inventory have been required to submit premanufacture notices
(PMNs) to the Agency under TSCA section 5; see 40 CFR part 720. For
more information about the TSCA Inventory and related requirements, go
to the TSCA Inventory webpage identified in Unit I.B.2.
    The TSCA Inventory implementing regulations in 40 CFR part 710
provide that the manufacturer or importer may claim that the identity
of a chemical substance in commerce is CBI. Confidential chemical
identities are not listed on public versions of the TSCA Inventory.
Chemical identities that are not confidential (i.e., where it is public
knowledge that the chemical substance is in commerce) are listed on
public versions of the TSCA Inventory.

III. Updating of the Public and Confidential TSCA Inventory Data

    When reporting under the TSCA Inventory Update Rule (IUR at 40 CFR
part 710), some manufacturers of these 530 chemical substances did not
include any claim of confidentiality for the chemical identity of the
chemical substance with the IUR submission. These chemical identities
were previously listed as confidential on the TSCA Inventory. IUR
regulations at 40 CFR 710.38(d) provide that where no claim of
confidentiality accompanies IUR information at the time it is submitted
to EPA, the Agency may make the information available to the public
without further notice to the submitter. By submitting non-CBI IUR
reports for previously confidential chemical identities, manufacturers
make those chemical identities eligible for inclusion on public
versions of the TSCA Inventory.
    With this action, EPA is updating the TSCA Inventory Master File to
reflect the public status of the identities of these chemical
substances. The complete list of these chemical substances is provided
in the docket at http://www.regulations.gov. The updated public version
of the TSCA Inventory will be available on or after August 3, 2009. For
information on how to access the public (also referred to as the non-
confidential) version of the TSCA Inventory, go to http://www.epa.gov/
opptintr/newchems/pubs/invntory.htm.

List of Subjects

     Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous materials,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, TSCA Inventory.

    Dated: July 22, 2009.
Stephen A. Owens,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances.

[FR Doc. E9-17944 Filed 7-27-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 243 (Tuesday, December 18, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 74775]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30389]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 243 / Tuesday, December 18, 2012 /
Rules and Regulations

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 240

[Release No. 34-68357A; File No. S7-44-10]
RIN 3235-AK87

Extension of Dates for Certain Requirements and Amendment of Form
19b-4

AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; extension of dates for certain requirements;
correction.

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

SUMMARY: On December 10, 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') published a document in the Federal Register to amend
its regulations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange
Act'') to extend the dates with respect to the requirements that
designated clearing agencies for which the Commission is the
supervisory agency file advance notices and clearing agencies file
security-based swap submissions with the Commission in an electronic
format to dedicated email addresses to December 10, 2013, and amend the
General Instructions to Form 19b-4 to clarify the process for
submitting advance notices and security-based swap submissions to the
Commission. The document contained an error with respect to the
placement and numbering of a footnote.

DATES: Effective December 18, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Riitho, Special Counsel, at
551-5592; and Wyatt A. Robinson, Attorney-Adviser, at 551-5649,
Division of Trading and Markets, Securities and Exchange Commission,
100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-7010.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of December 10, 2012 (77 FR 73302), in FR
Doc. 2012-29712, the following corrections are made to page 73305:
    1. In the second column, remove footnote 22.
    2. In the second column, under General Instructions for Form 19b-4,
the first sentence is corrected to read as follows:

    ``This form shall be used for all self-regulatory organization
filings of proposed rule changes pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') (except filings with
respect to the proposed rule changes by self-regulatory
organizations submitted pursuant to Section 19(b)(7) \1\ of the
Act), security-based swap submissions, and advance notices.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Because Section 19(b)(7)(C) of the Act states that filings
abrogated pursuant to this Section should be re-filed pursuant to
paragraph (b)(1) of Section 19 of the Act, SROs are required to file
electronically such proposed rule changes in accordance with this
form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

     December 12, 2012.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-30389 Filed 12-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 102 (Wednesday, May 28, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30485-30486]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12258]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0541; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-097-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

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

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA withdraws a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that
would supersede certain existing airworthiness directives (ADs) for The
Boeing Company Model 757-200, -200PF, and -200CB series airplanes. The
NPRM proposed to require a determination of the type of trailing edge
wedges of the leading edge slats, repetitive inspections on certain
trailing edge wedges for areas of skin-to-core disbonding, and
corrective actions if necessary; and proposed to revise the
applicability of the existing ADs to include additional airplanes. The
NPRM also provided an optional terminating action for the repetitive
inspections. Since we issued the NPRM, we have determined that the
manufacturer's service information is inadequate to accomplish the
actions necessary to address the unsafe condition. Once the
manufacturer has issued new service information to address the unsafe
condition, we may issue new rulemaking action that positively addresses
the unsafe condition identified in the NPRM. Accordingly, the NPRM is
withdrawn.

DATES: As of May 28, 2014, the proposed rule, which was published in
the Federal Register on July 2, 2013 (78 FR 39633), is withdrawn.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-
0541; 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 action, the NPRM (78 FR 39633, July 2, 2013), the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is 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 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Marsh, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
425-917-6590; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We proposed to amend part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations
(14 CFR part 39) with a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for a new
AD to supersede AD 90-23-06, Amendment 39-6794 (55 FR 46499, November
5, 1990; AD 91-22-51, Amendment 39-8129 (57 FR 781, January 9, 1992;
and AD 2005-07-08, Amendment 39-14032 (70 FR 16403, March 31, 2005),
for certain Model 757-200, -200PF, and -200CB series airplanes. The
NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 2, 2013 (78 FR 39633).
The NPRM proposed to require a determination of the type of trailing
edge wedges of the leading edge slats, repetitive inspections on
certain trailing edge wedges for areas of skin-to-core disbonding, and
corrective actions if necessary; and proposed to revise the
applicability of ADs 90-23-06, 91-22-51, and 2005-07-08 to include
additional airplanes. The NPRM also provided an optional terminating
action for the repetitive inspections. The NPRM was prompted by reports
of slat disbonding on airplanes on which the terminating actions of ADs
90-23-06, 91-22-51, and 2005-07-08 were completed; and we have received
reports of slats disbonding on airplanes outside of the applicability
of ADs 90-23-06, 91-22-51, and 2005-07-08.

Actions Since the NPRM (78 FR 39633, July 2, 2013) Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM (78 FR 39633, July 2, 2013), we have
determined that the manufacturer's service information is inadequate to
accomplish the actions necessary to address the unsafe condition.

FAA's Conclusions

    We have determined that the unsafe condition identified in the NPRM
(78 FR 39633, July 2, 2013) still exists. Once the manufacturer has
issued new service information to address the unsafe condition, we may
issue new rulemaking action that positively addresses the unsafe
condition identified in the NPRM. Accordingly, the NPRM is withdrawn.
    Withdrawal of the NPRM (78 FR 39633, July 2, 2013) does not
preclude the FAA from issuing the related actions or commit the FAA to
any course of action in the future.

Regulatory Impact

    Since this action only withdraws the NPRM (78 FR 39633, July 2,
2013), it is neither a proposed nor a final rule and 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

    Accordingly, we withdraw the NPRM, Docket No. FAA-2013-0541,
Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-097-AD, which published in the Federal
Register on July 2, 2013 (78 FR 39633).

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on May 16, 2014.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-12258 Filed 5-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 61 (Thursday, April 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 17165]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06745]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-2306]

TG United, Inc., et al.; Withdrawal of Approval of 27 Abbreviated
New Drug Applications; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice
that appeared in the Federal Register of January 15, 2021. The document
announced the withdrawal of approval of 27 abbreviated new drug
applications (ANDAs) from multiple applicants as of February 16, 2021.
The document indicated that FDA was withdrawing approval of the
following three ANDAs after receiving a withdrawal request from Upsher-
Smith Laboratories, LLC., 6701 Evenstad Dr., Maple Grove, MN 55369:
ANDA 084041, Chlordiazepoxide Hydrochloride (HCl) Capsules, 10
milligrams (mg); ANDA 084678, Chlordiazepoxide HCl Capsules, 5 mg; and
ANDA 084679, Chlordiazepoxide HCl Capsules, 25 mg. Before FDA withdrew
the approval of these ANDAs, Upsher-Smith Laboratories, LLC., informed
FDA that it did not want the approval of the ANDAs withdrawn. Because
Upsher-Smith Laboratories, LLC., timely requested that approval of
these ANDAs not be withdrawn, the approval of ANDAs 084041, 084678, and
084679 is still in effect. In addition, the document indicated that FDA
was withdrawing approval of ANDA 206061, Pravastatin Sodium Tablets, 20
mg, 40 mg, and 80 mg, after receiving a request from Hisun
Pharmaceutical (Hangzhou) Co., Ltd. However, the document published
with the incorrect applicant name for ANDA 206061. This document
corrects that error. All other information for ANDA 206061 remains the
same.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Martha Nguyen, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1676, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-
402-6980<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of Friday, January
15, 2021 (86 FR 4081), appearing on page 4081 in FR Doc. 2021-00833,
the following corrections are made on page 4082 in the table:
    1. The entries for ANDAs 084041, 084678, and 084679 are removed.
    2. In the third column, third item from the bottom, the applicant
name ``Hisun Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.'' is corrected to read ``Hisun
Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., U.S. Agent for Hisun Pharmaceutical
(Hangzhou) Co., Ltd.'' for ANDA 206061.

    Dated: March 29, 2021.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-06745 Filed 3-31-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 155 (Friday, August 12, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49793-49795]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17400]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0299]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Bay St. Louis, Bay St. Louis, MS

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change how the CSX Transportation
railroad drawbridge across Bay St. Louis, mile 0.5, Bay St. Louis, MS
will operate. The bridge will continue to open according to the
drawbridge regulations but the bridge tender will operate this bridge
from a remote location at the CSX railroad terminal in Mobile, Alabama.
We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and relate material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before October 11, 2022.

ADDRESSES:  You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2022-0299 using Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Douglas Blakemore, Eighth Coast Guard District
Bridge Administration Branch Chief at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
OMB Office of Management and Budget
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Advance, Supplemental)
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose and Legal Basis

    The CSX Transportation railroad drawbridge crosses Bay St. Louis,
mile 0.5, Bay St. Louis, MS. The bridge will continue to open according
to the drawbridge regulations but the bridge tender will operate this
bridge from a remote location at the CSX railroad terminal in Mobile,
AL. This bridge has a 13 foot vertical clearance at mean high water, an
unlimited vertical clearance in the open to vessel position and a 100'
horizontal clearance. The bridge operates according to 33 CFR 117.5.
    CSX Transportation has requested to operate this bridge remotely
from their railroad terminal in Mobile, AL. A copy of the bridge owners
request can be found at https://regulations.gov in the Docket USCG-
2022-2099. CSX has installed a remote operation system at the bridge
and a remote control center, located in Mobile, AL. At the bridge, CSX
has installed infrared cameras, closed circuit cameras and TVs,
communication systems and information technology systems on the bridge
that allow an operator from Mobile to monitor and control the bridge.
    This NPRM will run simultaneously with a Test Deviation; under the
same name and docket number. Both documents can be found at https://www.regulations.gov and comments can be to either document.
    This CSX drawbridge is located on Bay St. Louis, mile 0.5, Bay St.
Louis, MS. It has a vertical clearance of 13' in the closed to vessel
position. The bridge operates according to 33 CFR 117.5. Bay St. Louis
is used by commercial tows, barges and recreational vessel. The bridge
opens for vessels about six times per day and vessels that do not need
the bridge to open may pass.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    33 CFR 117.42 sets Coast Guard drawbridge regulations. This
regulation authorizes the Coast Guard District Commander to approve
operations from a remote site. The bridge opens on signal for the
passage of vessels in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5. This proposed rule
will not change the operating schedule nor will it change how to
request or signal for the bridge to open. Mariners requiring an opening
may do so by contacting the CSX remote control center on Channels 13/16
or by the phone number posted at the bridge.
    This proposed rule requires CSX to have the capability, including
resources and manpower to return the operator to the bridge location
following any of the below situations:

    (1) Any component of the remote operations system fails and
prevents the remote operator from being able to visually identify
vessels, communicate with vessels, detect vessels immediately
underneath the bridge or visually identify trains approaching the
bridge.
    (2) CSX fails to meet Federal Railway Administration (FRA) or any
other government agency safety requirements; and.
    (3) At the direction of the District Commander

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that
vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A
above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact
on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
(see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to
what degree this rulemaking would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132
(Federalism), if it has 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. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule will not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this
proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rulemaking under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The
Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule promulgates the
operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph
L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental
Planning Implementation Procedures.
    Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum
for the Record are required for this rulemaking. We seek any comments
or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To
do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2022-0299 in the
search box and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the
Search Results column, and click on it. Then click on the Comment
option. If your material cannot be submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for alternate instructions.
    Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed

rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in
the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting & Related
Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will also be
placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions
on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked Questions web page.
We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that
address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-
topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email
alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a final rule
is published of any posting or updates to the docket.
    We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and submissions in response to this
document, see DHS's eRulemaking System of Records notice (85 FR 14226,
March 11, 2020).

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; DHS Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  117.676 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.676  Bay St. Louis.

    (a) The draw of the CSX Transportation Railroad bridge, mile 0.5
Bay St. Louis, MS shall be remotely operated by the bridge tender at
CSX's bridge remote control center in Mobile, Alabama and shall open
promptly and fully when signaled to open. Vessels can contact the CSX
bridge tender via VHF-FM channel 13 or 16 or by telephone at the number
displayed on the signs posted at the bridge to request an opening of
the draw.
    (b) CSX will return the tender to the bridge location within 3
hours following any of the below situations:
    (1) Any component of the remote operations system fails and
prevents the remote operator from being able to visually identify
vessels, communicate with vessels, detect vessels immediately
underneath the bridge or visually identify trains approaching the
bridge;
    (2) CSX fails to meet Federal Railway Administration (FRA) or any
other government agency safety requirements;
    (3) Anytime at the direction of the District Commander.

     Dated: August 5, 2022.
R.V. Timme,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2022-17400 Filed 8-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Total 24 10109 a From Tables 21 and 23 of Mundt et al., ( 1999). 25 b SMR = Observed/ Expected * 100. CI = Confidence Intervals. 26 Study from Weber et al., 1981 27 Three German cohorts were investigated: Group 1 ( VCM/ PVC production; 7021 persons; 73734 28 person years, Group 2, ( reference group, 4910 persons; 76029 person years), Group 3 ( PVC processing, 29 4007 persons; 52 896 person years). West German reference mortality rates were used for comparison. 30 Malignant tumors of the liver occurred in 12 cases ( VCM/ PVC production; SMR= 1523) or 4 cases in the 31 Vinyl chloride PROPOSED 1: 3/ 2004 83 reference group ( SMR= 401) or 3 cases in PVC processing ( SMR= 434). No confidence intervals were 1 provided. No exposure concentration is known. The subclassification according to duration of employment 2 demonstrates increased mortality already after little more than 1 year of exposure ( Table D4). Results from 3 this study together with the results from the studies cited above are included in a meta analysis from 4 Boffetta et al. ( 2003) and illustrated by graphical presentation ( see figure 1; Boffetta et al., 2003) showing 5 the conflicting information about minimum exposure duration for adult workers to have a increased tumor 6 risk. 7 TABLE D4: LIVER CANCER IN VCM/ PVC PRODUCTION AND DURATION OF 8 EXPOSUREa 9 Duration of Employment ( months) 10 Cases SMR < 12 11 0

13 60 12 2 874 beyond 95th confidence interval 61 120 13 3 1525 beyond 99th confidence interval > 121 14 7 2528 beyond 99th confidence interval Total 15 12 a From Table 3, Weber et al., 1981. 16 Vinyl chloride PROPOSED 1: 3/ 2004 84 APPENDIX E  Derivation Summary for Vinyl Chloride AEGLs 1 Vinyl chloride PROPOSED 1: 3/ 2004 85 ACUTE EXPOSURE GUIDELINES FOR VINYL CHLORIDE 1 ( CAS Reg. NO. 75 01 4) 2 AEGL 1 VALUES 3 10 minutes 4 30 minutes 1 hour 4 hours 8 hours 450 ppm 5 310 ppm 250 ppm 140 ppm 70 ppm Reference: Baretta, E. D., R. D. Stewart, J. E. Mutchler, 1969. Monitoring exposures to vinyl chloride 6 vapor: breath analysis and continuous air sampling. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 7 30, 537 544. 8 Test Species/ Strain/ Sex/ Number: human volunteers, male, 4 7 individuals 9 Exposure Route/ Concentrations/ Durations: inhalation; 3.5 hours; 459  491 ppm, 3.5  7.5 hours 10 Effects: mild headache, some dryness of eyes and nose in 2/ 7 subjects 11 Endpoint/ Concentration/ Rationale: Endpoints relevant for the derivation of AEGL 1 values for VC have 12 are: a) headache, b) odor recognition or detection, c) irritation. Occurrence of mild headache has been 13 reported by Baretta et al. ( 1969) in two subjects after acute exposure, an endpoint which can be regarded 14 as NOAEL for AEGL 1. No qualified studies on odor recognition or detection are reported for VC. 15 Irritation in humans or animals is only reported in the context of exposure to very high concentrations 16 which are lethal or cause unconsciousness. The mechanism by which headaches developed are not 17 clearly understood. The derived AEGL 1 does not necessarily exclude mutagenic or tumorigenic effects 18 by VC at similar or lower concentrations. 19 Uncertainty Factors/ Rationale: The intraspecies uncertainty factor of 3 is used to compensate for both, 20 toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic differences between individuals. For headaches, no or only very slight 21 effects would be expected for the general public after inclusion of an intraspecies factor of 3 on the 22 " mild" effects observed in volunteers. 23 Modifying Factor: not applicable 24 Animal to Human Dosimetric Adjustment: not applicable 25 Time Scaling: The duration specific values were derived by time scaling according to the dose response 26 regression equation Cn x t = k, using the default of n= 3 for shorter exposure periods and n= 1 for longer 27 exposure periods, due to the lack of suitable experimental data for deriving the concentration exponent. 28 The extrapolation to 10 minutes from a 3.5 hour exposure is justified because exposure of human at 29 4,000 ppm for 5 minutes did not result in headache ( Lester et al., 1963). 30 Data Adequacy: The study of Baretta et al. ( 1969) has been regarded as qualified for the derivation of 31 AEGL 1 values and the endpoint is supported by several findings from occupational studies ( Lilis et al., 32 1975; Suciu et al., 1975; EPA, 1987). Confirmation of the observed effects in other studies with 33 controlled exposure would be helpful, but may not be performed due to ethical reasons. 34 Vinyl chloride PROPOSED 1: 3/ 2004 86 ACUTE EXPOSURE GUIDELINES FOR VINYL CHLORIDE 1 ( CAS Reg. NO. 75 01 4) 2 AEGL 2 VALUES 3 10 minutes 4 30 minutes 1 hour 4 hours 8 hours 2,800 ppm 5 1,600 ppm 1,200 ppm 820 ppm 820 ppm Reference: Lester, D., L. A. Greenberg, W. R. Adams, 1963. Effects of single and repeated exposures of 6 humans and rats to vinyl chloride. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 24, 265 275; 7 Clark, D. G., D. J. Tinston, 1973. Correlation of the cardiac sensitizing potential of halogenated 8 hydrocarbons with their physicochemical properties. Br. J. Pharm., 49, 355 357. Mastromatteo, E., 9 A. M. Fisher, H. Christie, H. Danziger, 1960. Acute inhalation toxicity of vinyl chloride to laboratory 10 animals. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J., 21, 394 398. 11 Test Species/ Strain/ Sex/ Number: human male ( n= 3) and female ( n= 3) volunteers, 6 persons 12 Exposure Route/ Concentrations/ Durations: Inhalation, single exposure, 0, 4,000, 8,000, 12,000, 16,000, 13 20,000 ppm for 5 minutes 14 Effects: After 5 minute exposure to 16,000 ppm VC 5 of 6 persons showed dizziness, lightheadedness, 15 nausea, visual and auditory dulling. At concentrations of 12,000 ppm one of six persons reported 16 " swimming head, reeling", another was unsure of an effect and felt somewhat dizzy. A single person 17 reported slight effects (" slightly heady") of questionable meaning at 8,000 ppm ( this volunteer felt also 18 slightly heady at sham exposure and reported no response at 12,000 ppm). No effects were observed at 19 4,000 ppm. 12,000 ppm was regarded as a concentration below AEGL 2 level and taken as NOAEL. 20 Derived AEGL 2 levels are supported by the an assumed NOAEL for cardiac sensitization of 17,000 21 ppm in dogs after epinephrine challenge ( 5 minutes exposure; Clark and Tinston, 1993), leading to 22 similar values. However, the resulting AEGL 2 values may not provide a sufficient margin of safety to 23 avoid mutational events or malignancies after short term exposure to VC. 24 Endpoint/ Concentration/ Rationale: Severe dizziness may influence capability to escape and thus is 25 relevant as endpoint for AEGL 2. At 12,000 ppm no such effects were seen. Derived AEGL 2 levels are 26 supported by the an assumed NOAEL for cardiac sensitization of 17,000 ppm in dogs after epinephrine 27 challenge ( 5 minutes exposure; Clark and Tinston, 1993), leading to similar values. 28 Uncertainty Factors/ Rationale: A total uncertainty factor of 3 is used to compensate for both, 29 toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic variability, with small interindividual differences in case of CNS 30 effects. As the unmetabolized VC is responsible for the effects no relevant differences in kinetics are 31 assumed. 32 Total uncertainty factor: 3 33 Interspecies: 1 34 Intraspecies: 3 35 Modifying Factor: Not applicable 36 Animal to Human Dosimetric Adjustment: Not applicable 37 Vinyl chloride PROPOSED 1: 3/ 2004 87 Time Scaling: In analogy to other anaesthetics the effects are assumed to be solely concentration 1 dependent. Thus, after reaching steady state ( about 2 hours), at 4 and 8 hours no increase of effect size 2 by duration is expected. The other exposure duration specific values were derived by time scaling 3 according to the dose response regression equation Cn x t = k, using a factor of n= 2, based on data from 4 Mastromatteo et al. ( 1960). Mastromatteo et al. observed various time dependent prenarcotic effects in 5 mice and guinea pigs after less than steady state exposure conditions. With this, time extrapolation was 6 performed from 5 to 10, 30, 60 minutes and 2 hours, where the steady state concentration was 7 calculated. 8 Data Adequacy: The overall quality of the key study ( Lester et al., 1963) is medium. There is an 9 observed dose/ response relationship supporting the quantitative figures. Subjective reporting of effects 10 leads to limited preciseness. 11 Vinyl chloride PROPOSED 1: 3/ 2004 88 ACUTE EXPOSURE GUIDELINES FOR VINYL CHLORIDE 1 ( CAS Reg. NO. 75 01 4) 2 AEGL 3 VALUES 3 10 minutes 4 30 minutes 1 hour 4 hours 8 hours 12,000 ppm 5 6,800 ppm 4,800 ppm 3,400 ppm 3,400 ppm References: Clark, D. G., D. J. Tinston, 1973. Correlation of the cardiac sensitizing potential of 6 halogenated hydrocarbons with their physicochemical properties. British Journal of Pharmacology, 49, 7 355 357. Clark, D. G., D. J. Tinston, 1982. Acute inhalation toxicity of some halogenated and non 8 halogenated hydrocarbons. Human Toxicology, 1, 239 247., Aviado, D. M., M. A. Belej, 1974. Toxicity 9 of aerosol propellants in the respiratory and circulatory systems. I. Cardiac arrhythmia in the mouse. 10 Toxicology, 2, 31 42.; Belej, M. A., D. G. Smith, D. M. Aviado, 1974. Toxicity of aerosol propellants in 11 the respiratory and circulatory systems. IV. Cardiotoxicity in the monkey. Toxicology, 2, 381 395; 12 Prodan, L., I. Suciu, V. Pislaru, E. Ilea, L. Pascu, 1975. Experimental acute toxicity of vinyl chloride 13 ( monochloroethene). Ann. NY Acad. Sci., 246, 154 158. Mastromatteo, E., A. M. Fisher, H. Christie, H. 14 Danziger, 1960. Acute inhalation toxicity of vinyl chloride to laboratory animals. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. 15 J., 21, 394 398. 16 Test Species/ Strain/ Sex/ Number: dog, beagle, sex not reported, 4 7 dogs/ dose level ( Clark and Tinston, 17 1973) 18 Exposure Route/ Concentrations/ Durations: inhalation /" several doses" / 5 minutes ( Clark and Tinston, 19 1973) 20 Effects: Short term exposure ( 5 min) of dogs to VC induced cardiac sensitization towards epinephrine 21 ( EC50: 50,000 or 71,000 ppm in two independent experiments; Clark and Tinston, 1973; 1982). The 22 lower reported EC50 ( 50,000 ppm) was taken as NOAEL for life threatening effects. These effects were 23 also seen in mice at higher concentrations ( Aviado and Belej, 1974). In monkeys, only myocardial 24 depression after inhalation of 2.5 10% VC was observed. It is not clearly stated whether an addition 25 challenge with epinephrine was applied or not ( Belej et al., 1974). Severe cardiac sensitization is a life 26 threatening effect, but at 50,000 ppm no animal died in the reported study, providing a NOAEL for 27 AEGL 3 derivation. 28 Endpoint/ Concentration/ Rationale: Considering possible sensitive subpopulations and increased 29 excitement in case of emergency reaction epinephrine induced cardiac reactions may occur and may be 30 enhanced by high exposure concentrations to VC. The respective effects are well known for certain 31 unsubstituted and halogenated hydrocarbons. The test method using beagle dogs is well established. 32 Supported by lethality data in slightly higher concentrations ( Prodan et al., 1975). 33 Vinyl chloride PROPOSED 1: 3/ 2004 89 Uncertainty Factors/ Rationale: A total uncertainty factor of 3 is used to compensate for both, 1 toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic differences between individuals and interspecies differences. As the 2 challenge with epinephrine and the doses of epinephrine used represent a conservative scenario an 3 interspecies factor of 1 was employed. As the unmetabolized VC is responsible for the effects no relevant 4 differences in kinetics are assumed. 5 Total uncertainty factor: 3 6 Interspecies: 1 7 Intraspecies: 3 8 Modifying Factor: Not applicable 9 Animal to Human Dosimetric Adjustment: Insufficient data 10 Time Scaling: In analogy to other halocarbons ( e. g., Halon 1211, HFC 134a) which lead to cardiac 11 sensitization the effects are assumed to be solely concentration dependent. Thus, after reaching steady 12 state ( about 2 hours), at 4 and 8 hours no increase of effect size by duration is expected. The other 13 exposure duration specific values were derived by time scaling according to the dose response regression 14 equation Cn x t = k, using a factor of n= 2, based on data from Mastromatteo et al. ( 1960). Mastromatteo 15 et al. observed various time dependent prenarcotic effects ( muscular incoordination, side position and 16 unconsciousness, effects which occur immediately before lethality) in mice and guinea pigs after less 17 than steady state exposure conditions. With this, time extrapolation was performed from 5 to 10, 30, 60 18 minutes and 2 hours, where the steady state concentration was calculated. 19 Data Adequacy: Due to some discrepancies between the two studies from Clark and Tinston ( 1973, 20 1982) the data quality is judged to be medium with adequate data from human experience lacking. 21


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 204 (Monday, October 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64581-64582]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25951]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Summary Notice No. PE-2012-33]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition for exemption received.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of 14 CFR. The purpose of this notice is to
improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, this aspect of
FAA's regulatory activities. Neither publication of this notice nor the
inclusion or omission of information in the summary is intended to
affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.

DATE: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number involved and must be received on or before November 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments identified by Docket Number FAA-2012-
0815 using any of the following methods:
     Government-wide rulemaking web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to the Docket Management Facility;
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Fax comments to the Docket Management Facility at
202-493-2251.
     Hand Delivery: Bring comments to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Privacy: We will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. Using the search function of our docket Web site, anyone can
find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including
the name of the individual sending the comment (or signing the comment
for an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act

Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR
19477-78).
    Docket: To read background documents or comments received, go to
http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to the Docket Management
Facility in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tyneka Thomas ARM-105,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
FAA, Office of Rulemaking, 800 Independence Ave SW., Washington, DC
20591. This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 15, 2012.
Lirio Liu,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2012-0815.
    Petitioner: Aero Sports Connection, Inc.
    Section of 14 CFR Affected: 14 CFR 103.1(e)(1).
    Description of Relief Sought: Aero Sports Connection petitioned for
an exemption from Sec.  103.1(e)(1) to allow for an increased weight
for the installation of proven safety devices like gyroplane pre-
rotator systems/starters and gyroplane horizontal stabilizer systems.

[FR Doc. 2012-25951 Filed 10-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 178 (Thursday, September 13, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 46392]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19747]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2018-0800]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Sacramento River, Sacramento, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Tower Drawbridge across the
Sacramento River, mile 59.0, at Sacramento, CA. The deviation is
necessary to allow the community to participate in the Making Strides
Walk against Breast Cancer event. This deviation allows the bridge to
remain in the closed-to-navigation position.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 8 a.m. through 11 a.m. on
October 14, 2018.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, USCG-2018-0800, is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email Carl T. Hausner, Chief, Bridge
Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The California Department of Transportation
has requested a temporary change to the operation of the Tower
Drawbridge, mile 59.0, over Sacramento River, at Sacramento, CA. The
drawbridge navigation span provides a vertical clearance of 30 feet
above Mean High Water in the closed-to-navigation position. The draw
operates as required by 33 CFR 117.189(a). Navigation on the waterway
is commercial and recreational.
    The drawspan will be secured in the closed-to-navigation position
from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. on October 14, 2018, to allow the community to
participate in the Making Strides Walk against Breast Cancer event.
This temporary deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users.
No objections to the proposed temporary deviation were raised. Vessels
able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may do so at
anytime. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and there is
no immediate alternate route for vessels to pass. The Coast Guard will
also inform the users of the waterway through our Local and Broadcast
Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for the bridge
so that vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize any
impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: September 6, 2018.
Carl T. Hausner,
District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2018-19747 Filed 9-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 203 (Monday, October 23, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48917-48919]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22562]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0563; Product Identifier 2017-NM-021-AD; Amendment
39-19076; AD 2017-21-05]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Formerly
Known as Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B
airplanes. This AD was prompted by the determination that new
inspection tasks for the drag brace support fitting of the main landing
gear (MLG) and corrosion prevention and control program (CPCP) related
tasks are necessary. This AD requires revising the maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate airworthiness
limitations, including new inspection tasks for the drag brace support
fitting of the MLG and to implement CPCP related tasks. We are issuing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 27, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 27,
2017.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics, SE-581 88, Link[ouml]ping, Sweden;
telephone +46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email
[email protected]; Internet http://www.saabgroup.com.
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is
also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0563.

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-2017-
0563; 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 Office (telephone
800-647-5527) is 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 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shahram Daneshmandi, Aerospace
Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
425-227-1149.

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 Saab AB, Saab
Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes. The NPRM
published in the Federal Register on June 21, 2017 (82 FR 28271) (``the
NPRM'').
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2017-0033, dated February 17, 2017 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all Saab AB, Saab
Aeronautics Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B airplanes. The MCAI
states:

    The airworthiness limitations and/or certification maintenance
instructions for SAAB SF340A and 340B, which are approved by EASA,
are currently defined and published in the SAAB SF340A and 340B
Airworthiness Limitation Manual (ALM). These instructions have been
identified as mandatory for continued airworthiness.
    Failure to accomplish these instructions could result in an
unsafe condition [reduced structural integrity of the airplane].
    Recently, Saab AB, Aeronautics issued SAAB SF340A and 340B ALM
Revision 1, mainly to add new inspection tasks for the Main Landing
Gear drag brace support fitting, and to implement Corrosion
Prevention and Control Program related tasks.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0563.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The

following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's
response.

Request To Clarify the Reason for the NPRM

    Silver Airways requested clarification of the need for an AD.
Silver Airways stated that the proposed requirements are already
covered by the airworthiness limitation manual.
    We agree that clarification is necessary. Once an aircraft is
produced under a type certificate, the type design of that particular
aircraft is fixed in time. Under 14 CFR 21.31(c), the airworthiness
limitation section (ALS) is part of a product's type design. In order
to require a revision to an ALS for in-service aircraft, the FAA issues
an AD under notice and comment rulemaking procedures in accordance with
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Therefore, an AD is necessary
to mandate the airworthiness limitations in SAAB 340 Airworthiness
Limitation Manual, Revision 1, dated December 1, 2016, including
inspection tasks for the drag brace support fitting of the MLG and CPCP
related tasks. We have not changed this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD as proposed. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics has issued SAAB 340 Airworthiness
Limitation Manual, Revision 1, dated December 1, 2016. This service
information describes airworthiness limitations, including inspection
tasks for the drag brace support fitting of the MLG and CPCP related
tasks. This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 87 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
                Action                         Labor cost           Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revision of the airplane maintenance    1 work-hour x $85 per                 $0             $85          $7,395
 or inspection program.                  hour = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to transport category airplanes to
the Director of the System Oversight Division.

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.

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):

2017-21-05 Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (Formerly Known as Saab AB,
Saab Aerosystems): Amendment 39-19076; Docket No. FAA-2017-0563;
Product Identifier 2017-NM-021-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 27, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics (formerly known as
Saab AB, Saab Aerosystems) Model 340A (SAAB/SF340A) and SAAB 340B
airplanes, certificated in any category, with an original
certificate of airworthiness or original export certificate of
airworthiness that was issued on or before December 1, 2016.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 05, Time Limits/
Maintenance Checks.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by the determination that new inspection
tasks for the drag brace support fitting of the main landing gear
(MLG) and corrosion prevention and control program (CPCP) related
tasks are necessary. We are issuing this AD to prevent reduced
structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD: Revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate
airworthiness limitations, including inspection tasks for the drag
brace support fitting of the MLG and CPCP related tasks, specified
in SAAB 340 Airworthiness Limitation Manual, Revision 1, dated
December 1, 2016. The compliance time for the initial airworthiness
limitation tasks is at the applicable compliance time specified in
SAAB 340 Airworthiness Limitation Manual, Revision 1, dated December
1, 2016, or within 30 days after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later.

(h) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, Critical Design Configuration
Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

    After the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, has
been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, and/or CDCCLs may be used
unless the actions, intervals, and/or CDCCLs are approved as an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information
may be emailed to: [email protected]. 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.
    (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, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Saab AB, Saab Aeronautics' EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the approval
must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2017-0033, dated February 17,
2017, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-0563.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Shahram
Daneshmandi, Aerospace Engineer, International Section, ANM-116,
Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA
98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

(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) SAAB 340 Airworthiness Limitation Manual, Revision 1, dated
December 1, 2016.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Saab
AB, Saab Aeronautics, SE-581 88, Link[ouml]ping, Sweden; telephone
+46 13 18 5591; fax +46 13 18 4874; email
[email protected]; Internet http://www.saabgroup.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 11, 2017.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-22562 Filed 10-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 783-785]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00009]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Docket Number DOT-OST-2019-0187]

Request for Information (RFI) for the Inclusive Design Challenge

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Request for information (RFI).

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Office of the
Secretary of Transportation (OST) is seeking feedback on a proposed
inclusive design challenge (Challenge) via this Request for Information
(RFI). The Challenge is intended to incentivize creation of innovative,
inclusive design solutions to enable access to automated vehicles (AV),
also known as Highly automated Vehicles (HAV), for persons with
disabilities. The Challenge seeks to emphasize the opportunities and
challenges introduced by AVs which human occupants are not expected to
drive, nor supervise the driving functions of the automated system, or
perform any other element of the dynamic driving task as long as the
vehicle remains within its operational design domain.
    The Challenge will solicit solutions addressing obstacles faced by
persons with physical, sensory, and/or cognitive disabilities. The goal
of the Challenge is to inspire inclusive designs as AVs are developed,
which may also increase access to conventional vehicles today.
Solutions proposed should aim to decrease the need to modify Level 4
and 5 AVs post-production, or to reduce the cost of retrofitting AVs
for use by persons with disabilities, including wheelchair users.

DATES:  Responses to the RFI must be received by January 31, 2020, no
later than 5:00 p.m. (ET).

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted using any one of the
following methods:
     Electronic mail: Email comments to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Responses must be provided as attachments to
an email. It is recommended that attachments with file sizes exceeding
25MB be compressed (i.e., zipped) to ensure message delivery. Responses
must be provided as a Microsoft Word (.docx) attachment to the email,
and be no more than 5 pages in length, with 12-point font and 1-inch
margins.
     Internet: To submit comments electronically, go to the
Federal regulations website at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
    Respondents may answer as many or as few questions as they wish.
    DOT will not respond to individual submissions or publish publicly
a compendium of responses. A response to this RFI will not be viewed as
a binding commitment to develop or pursue the project or ideas
discussed.
    Respondents are requested to provide the following information at
the beginning of their response to this RFI:

 Company/institution name
 Company/institution contact
 Contact's address, phone number, and email address

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  The monitored inbox at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may also contact David Carter, Office of
the Under Secretary, OST<PHONE_NUMBER>). You may send email to Mr.
Carter at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of this RFI is to solicit
feedback from academia, research laboratories, industry, government
agencies, and other stakeholders on the scope and ideal outcomes of the
Challenge. DOT is interested specifically in information on how best to
structure a multi[hyphen]phase prize competition to attract novel
systems that use design solutions to enhance accessibility in AVs.

Background

    DOT is eager to realize the potential mobility benefits that AVs
could bring to persons with disabilities. However, DOT also recognizes
that this is not an easy problem to solve and there is no single
solution. The wide diversity of disabilities and resulting needs for
inclusive vehicle designs increase the complexity of the engineering
challenge. While some mobility services (e.g., transit vehicles and
service, and other for-hire vehicles, such as taxis) currently
incorporate some accessibility features, few such features have been
universally included in passenger vehicles. Existing solutions,
particularly to enable access to and use of vehicles by wheelchair
users, typically are added through aftermarket modifications, which can
be expensive and cumbersome for persons with disabilities, rather than
integrated as original equipment.
    Automated vehicles introduce new design opportunities, particularly
to enable independent use by persons with physical, sensory, and/or
cognitive disabilities. By using the challenge format, DOT seeks to
draw attention to the topic of passenger vehicle accessibility;
encourage new cross-disciplinary collaborations; incentivize the
development of new approaches and technologies to help people move
independently; and tap into the creativity and knowledge of the
disability community, researchers, advocates, manufacturers, and
entrepreneurs.
    DOT aims to attract ideas from around the nation to identify new
solutions for common access issues. The Challenge is expected to be
open to individuals and teams (Designers) from the academic, research,
and business communities, including but not limited to universities,
research institutions, technology companies, and entrepreneurs. As with
other government competitions, the Challenge aims to create a vibrant
community of thinkers and doers who drive revolutionary innovation. As
such, DOT encourages teams to organize themselves in a manner that best
allows them to meet the Challenge. DOT expects teams to describe how
they have engaged with stakeholders to understand the needs and
constraints of both industry and travelers with disabilities when
explaining the feasibility and impact of their design. DOT also
encourages teams to identify representatives from both industry and the
disability advocacy community to serve as advisors and to help inform
the

direction of their ideas based on their knowledge and expertise.

Challenge Features

    Through the Challenge, DOT seeks innovative ideas and design
solutions to enable persons with disabilities to use AVs independently
and ultimately to create a more accessible transportation future for
all. Designers will compete for cash prizes by developing innovative
design solutions to increase access to, and reduce the cost of building
and/or modifying AVs for use by, persons with physical, sensory, and/or
cognitive disabilities. Successful solutions will demonstrate
consideration of production feasibility.
    DOT expects to consider the following factors in the Challenge in
evaluating design solutions that aim to both propose future vehicle
designs and create components in support of inclusive design features.
     Vehicle Platform: All design solutions should be targeted
toward integration into light duty passenger vehicles. Solutions may
address any vehicle manufacturing stage (aftermarket modification and
purpose-built).
     Vehicle Use: For the Challenge, design inclusiveness will
be evaluated in part based on the extent to which proposed solutions
enable each element of vehicle use, as outlined below. Designers will
develop inclusive design solutions to address one or more of the
following tasks that an AV user with a disability will need to complete
independently:
    [cir] Locating an AV--Including, but not limited to, being notified
that a vehicle has arrived; identifying the correct vehicle and
locating and navigating to the correct vehicle.
    [cir] Entering an AV--Including, but not limited to, unlocking and
opening vehicle door(s); deploying and stowing ramps or other equipment
enabling access for wheelchair users or persons with other physical
disabilities or mobility equipment; and closing vehicle door(s).
    [cir] Securing Passengers and Mobility Equipment--Including, but
not limited to, securing seatbelts and other passenger restraints;
securing wheelchairs or other mobility equipment to the vehicle; and
securing service animals.
    [cir] Inputting Information--Including, but not limited to,
confirming passenger identity; searching for, entering, and changing a
desired destination; confirming the vehicle's destination; selecting a
specific drop-off point (e.g., a particular entrance to a large complex
or a location with a curb cut or sufficient space to deploy a ramp or
other physical device).
    [cir] Interacting with the vehicle in routine and emergency
situations--Including, but not limited to, operating passenger
convenience and safety features (e.g., entertainment, window controls,
locks, climate control); monitoring the vehicle's location and route
progress; changing the vehicle's destination enroute; requesting
assistance (emergency or non-emergency); understanding and performing
appropriate actions in the event of a breakdown or crash.
    [cir] Exiting an AV--Including, but not limited to, being notified
and confirming that a vehicle has reached its intended destination;
releasing passenger and/or mobility equipment restraints; identifying
and locating the safe and appropriate door(s) from which to exit the
vehicle; recognizing when it is safe to exit a vehicle; opening door(s)
and deploying and stowing ramps or other equipment enabling access for
wheelchair users or persons with other physical disabilities or
mobility equipment.
     Disability Types: For the Challenge, inclusiveness will be
evaluated in part based on the extent to which proposed solutions
address a range of disabilities and needs. Designers will also focus
their efforts by designing solutions for use by one or more of the
following audiences:

[cir] Persons with physical disabilities
[cir] Persons with sensory disabilities
[cir] Persons with cognitive disabilities

General Structure of the Prize

    The Challenge is expected to consist of two stages. Individuals/
teams will compete for an overall prize purse of up to $5,000,000. The
prize purse is part of the $100 million provided in FY 2018 to the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration for a HAV research and
development program. In Stage I, up to 15 semi-finalists will receive
$100,000 each for developing promising concepts. In Stage II up to four
Stage I Designers will move on to be named finalists and receive a
portion of the remaining prize purse, including a potential grand prize
of $2,000,000.
     Stage I, Ideation: In Stage I, all eligible Designers will
submit proposals for ideas to develop inclusive design solutions for
AVs. Up to 15 semifinalists will be selected to advance to Stage II to
develop a functional prototype of their idea and compete for a cash
prize. If a selectee declines to participate in the next stage, an
alternate may be selected.
     Stage II, Prototype/Demonstration: In Stage II, the semi-
finalists from Stage I will develop their concepts into functional
prototypes (i.e., detailed system designs and prototypes to be
demonstrated) for an inclusive design solution. DOT anticipates that
partway through Stage II one or more design charrettes will be held
subject matter experts from industry and the disability community. At
the end of Stage II, teams will be invited to Washington, DC to
demonstrate their prototypes. After this the final prize selections
will be announced. A travel stipend will be provided to teams for
travel to Washington, DC, for the charrette(s) and demonstration. Up to
four finalists will be selected and awarded a portion of the remaining
prize purse, contingent upon review of the Stage II submissions and
demonstrations against the evaluation criteria.

Disclaimer and Important Notes

    This is solely an RFI and not a Notice of Funding Opportunity or
the opening of a challenge competition. Therefore, DOT is not accepting
applications at this time. DOT may issue a prize in the future based on
or related to the content and responses to this RFI; however, DOT may
also elect not to issue a prize. There is no guarantee that a prize
will be issued as a result of this RFI. Responding to this RFI does not
provide any advantage or disadvantage to potential applicants if DOT
chooses to issue a prize regarding the subject matter. Final details,
including the anticipated award size, quantity, and timing of DOT
funded awards, will be at the discretion of the Secretary of
Transportation.
    Any information obtained as a result of this RFI is intended to be
used by the government on a non-attribution basis for planning and
strategy development; this RFI does not constitute a formal
solicitation for proposals or abstracts. Responses to this notice will
be treated as information only. DOT will review and consider all
responses in its formulation of program strategies for the identified
materials of interest that are the subject of this request. DOT will
not provide reimbursement for costs incurred in responding to this RFI.
Respondents are advised that DOT is under no obligation to acknowledge
receipt of the information received or provide feedback to respondents
with respect to any information submitted under this RFI. Responses to
this RFI do not bind DOT to any further actions related to this topic.
DOT may use or disclose responses for any lawful purpose.

Proprietary Information

    Because information received in response to this RFI may be used to
structure future programs and/or otherwise be made available to the
public, respondents are strongly advised to NOT include any information
in their responses that might be considered business sensitive,
proprietary, or otherwise confidential. However, respondents may choose
to include such information in their submissions if they believe it
will significantly assist DOT in the design of the Challenge.
    Responses containing confidential, proprietary, or privileged
information must be conspicuously marked as described below. Failure to
comply with these marking requirements may result in the disclosure of
the unmarked information under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C.
552.
    If a response contains trade secrets or confidential commercial or
financial information, the respondent must include a cover sheet
identifying the specific pages containing that information. The cover
sheet must also provide evidence that the respondent actually or
customarily treats the information as private.
    In addition, the respondent must (1) mark the header and footer of
every page that contains trade secrets or confidential commercial or
financial information with ``Contains Confidential Information Exempt
from Public Disclosure'' and (2) identify every line and paragraph
containing such information with double brackets or highlighting.

Evaluation and Administration by Federal and Non-Federal Personnel

    Federal employees are subject to criminal prosecution for the
unauthorized disclosure of appropriately and properly marked
confidential information under 18 U.S.C. 1905. The government may seek
the advice of qualified non-federal personnel and use non-federal
personnel to conduct routine, nondiscretionary administrative
activities. Submissions may be reviewed by support contractors and
private consultants. By submitting your response, the respondent
consent to DOT providing it to non-federal parties. Non-federal parties
will be obliged to maintain the confidentiality of any submissions
prior to being given access to those submissions.

Request for Information

Category 1: Challenge Topic and Design

    1. The Challenge could address elements of independently using a
passenger vehicle, as described above. Are crucial elements missing? If
so, please describe the missing element(s) and discuss how they create
challenges for independent travel.
    2. Is there benefit to including an option for the development of a
full concept design for inclusive vehicles (i.e., in reimagining the
vehicle design)? If so, please explain why and describe what
requirements should be considered as part of this concept proposal.
    3. How can proposals account for uncertainty in the development
path of automated vehicles while still demonstrating novel and
realistic concepts for inclusive design?
    4. Stakeholder engagement is an important aspect of the Inclusive
Design Challenge. In what ways should DOT continue stakeholder
engagement throughout the project to support teams in receiving
valuable feedback on their designs (e.g., expert panels, public
webinars that solicit feedback etc.)?
    5. Are Stage I awards sufficient for enabling the development of a
prototype for Stage II?
    6. Do the proposed Challenge background, purpose, and challenge
features sections above provide sufficient information to inform
proposals? If not, what additional information would be helpful?

Category 2: Evaluation

    1. How can DOT evaluate proposals on the basis of:
    a. Inclusiveness?
    b. Production feasibility?
    c. Expected user experience?
    2. What evaluation criteria are most important when considering how
proposals can best enable access to AVs for persons with disabilities:

a. Description of how the proposed solution contributes to independent
travel
b. Demonstration of a realistic understanding of users and their unique
needs
c. Demonstration of the engineering needs and explaining how the team
arrived at that determination of need
d. Determination of the potential cost and manufacturability
e. Thorough description of the user experience when the technology is
implemented
f. Consideration of the human-machine interface needs both inside and
outside of the vehicle
g. Consideration of a range of needs and limitations, including users
in a range of geographic contexts, income brackets, and with and
without access to a smartphone or bank account
h. Other criteria

    3. How would evaluation criteria be different if there were two
types of proposals being considered (such as components and full
design)?

Footnotes

1. Dynamic Driving Task and Operational Design Domain are both
defined by SAE International in standard J3016: Taxonomy and
Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-
Road Motor Vehicles (https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016_201806/)
2. See SAE International standard J3016: Taxonomy and Definitions
for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor
Vehicles for definitions of driving automation levels (https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016_201806/)

Finch Fulton,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-00009 Filed 1-6-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


PM Standards Revision - 2006

  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/PM/naaqsrev2006.html" \l "background"
Background

  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/PM/naaqsrev2006.html" \l "what"  What do
the new standards mean for your area?

  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/PM/naaqsrev2006.html" \l "maps"  Maps

  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/PM/naaqsrev2006.html" \l "timeline"
Timeline

  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/PM/naaqsrev2006.html" \l "more"  More
information

Background

Particle pollution, also called particulate matter or PM, is a complex
mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets in the air.
When breathed in, these particles can reach the deepest regions of the
lungs. Exposure to particle pollution is linked to a variety of
significant health problems, ranging from aggravated asthma to premature
death in people with heart and lung disease. Particle pollution also is
the main cause of visibility impairment in the nation’s cities and
national parks.

To protect public health and welfare, EPA issues National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/"  six criteria pollutants , particulate
matter is one of these.  EPA first issued standards for particulate
matter in 1971; and revised the standards in 1987 and 1997.  In
September 2006, the Agency revised the 1997 standards.

The revised 2006 standards address two categories of particle pollution:
fine particles (PM2.5), which are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and
smaller; and inhalable coarse particles (PM10) which are smaller than 10
micrometers and larger than 2.5 micrometers.

The 2006 standards tighten the 24-hour fine particle standard from 65
micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 35 µg/m3, and retain the current
annual fine particle standard at 15 µg/m3.

EPA has decided to retain the existing 24-hour PM10 standard of 150
µg/m3. Due to a lack of evidence linking health problems to long-term
exposure to coarse particle pollution, the Agency has revoked the annual
PM10 standard.

The Agency selected the levels for the final standards after reviewing
thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies about the effects of
particle pollution on public health and welfare. External scientific
advisors and the public examined EPA's science and policy review
documents. The Agency also carefully considered public comments on the
proposed standards. EPA held three public hearings and received over
120,000 written comments.

While EPA provisionally assessed new, peer-reviewed studies about
particulate matter and health (including some studies received during
the comment period), these studies were not the basis for the final
decision. EPA will consider those studies during the next review of the
PM standards.    HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/PM/process.html"  Learn
more about the process of reviewing air quality standards .

What do the New Standards Mean for Your Area?

In 2004, several areas in the United States were designated as not
meeting the 1997 air quality standards for fine particulate matter
(PM2.5).    HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/1997standards/state.htm"  See if your
area was designated as not meeting the 1997 standards .

In 2006, EPA strengthened the air quality standards for particle
pollution.  The Agency expects designations based on 2007-2009 air
quality data to take effect in 2010.

Maps

  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/PM/pdfs/20061025_graphsmaps.pdf"  Graph
and Maps (10/25/06)  (PDF, 10 pp, 1.2 MB)

Timeline

Milestone	1997 PM2.5 Primary NAAQS	2006 PM2.5 Primary NAAQS

Promulgation of Standard	July 1997	Sep. 2006

Effective Date of Standard	Sep. 1997	Dec. 18, 2006

State Recommendations to EPA	Feb. 2004

(based on 2001-2003 monitoring data)	Dec. 18, 2007

(based on 2004-2006 monitoring data)

Final Designations Signature	Dec. 2004	October 8, 2009

Effective Date of Designations	April 2005	30 days after publication in
the Federal Register

SIPs Due	April 2008	3 years after effective date of designations

Attainment Date	April 2010

(based on 2007-2009 monitoring data)	No later than 5 years after
effective date of designations

Attainment Date with Extension	Up to April 2015	No later than 10 years
from effective date of designations

More Information

  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/PM/actions.html"  Final Rule

  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/PM/implement.html"  Learn more about
what state, tribal and local governments do to reduce particle pollution
emissions