[Federal Register: February 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 32)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8818-8821]
[DOCID:fr15fe08-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2006-0641; A-1-FRL-8527-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Massachusetts; Certification of Tunnel Ventilation Systems in the
Metropolitan Boston Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Massachusetts. The SIP revision consists of
technical revisions to Massachusetts regulation 310 CMR 7.38,
``Certification of Tunnel Ventilation Systems in the Metropolitan
Boston Air Pollution Control District.'' The amendments better define
the emissions monitoring techniques for various types of tunnel
ventilation systems, and provide flexibility in emission monitoring
requirements. This action is being taken in accordance with the Clean
Air Act.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective April 15, 2008, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by March 17, 2008. If adverse comments
are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final
rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2006-0641 by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2006-0641,''
Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (mail code CAQ),
Boston, MA 02114-2023.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
One Congress Street, 11th floor, (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2006-0641. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://www.regulations.gov, or e-

mail, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or

in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, One Congress
Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
legal holidays.
    In addition to the publicly available docket materials available
for inspection electronically in the Federal Docket Management System
at http://www.regulations.gov, and the hard copy available at the Regional

Office, which are identified in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal
Register, copies of the state submittal and EPA's technical support
document are also available for public inspection during normal
business hours, by appointment at the State Air Agency; Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Waste Prevention, One
Winter Street, 8th Floor, Boston, MA 02108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald O. Cooke, Air Quality Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA 02114-2023, telephone
number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose.
II. Addition of Emissions Monitoring Techniques for Longitudinal
Ventilation.
III. New Requirement for an Air Emissions Monitoring Protocol.

IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On July 12, 2006, the State of Massachusetts submitted a formal
revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP revision
consists of technical revisions to 310 CMR 7.38, ``Certification of
Tunnel Ventilation Systems in the Metropolitan Boston Air Pollution
Control District.'' The technical revisions apply to the emissions
monitoring section of the regulation at 310 CMR 7.38(8)(a) and define
the emission monitoring requirements for systems that use longitudinal
ventilation, as well as add the requirement for an ``Air Emissions
Monitoring Protocol.'' A new subsection 310 CMR 7.38(1)(b) requires any
tunnel ventilation system subject to a Federal New Source Performance
Standard or National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants to
operate in compliance with those standards. A new section, 310 CMR
7.38(10), ``Removal of Air Pollution Control and Monitoring
Equipment,'' has been added to prohibit removal of air pollution
control equipment, or monitoring equipment which has been installed in
accordance with 310 CMR 7.38. In addition to the technical revisions,
typographical errors are also being corrected in the existing
regulation.
    The Certification of Tunnel Ventilation Systems in the Metropolitan
Air Pollution Control District regulation, 310 CMR 7.38, was
promulgated on January 18, 1991 and applies to the construction and
operation of any tunnel ventilation system for highway projects
constructed after January 1, 1991. On October 8, 1992, EPA approved 310
CMR 7.38 as a revision to the Massachusetts SIP (57 FR 46310). In the
final rule, EPA agreed with Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection (MA DEP) that tunnel ventilation systems are not stationary
sources subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) or to
New Source Review (NSR) permitting requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), nor to Massachusetts' Plan Approval and Emissions Limitations
regulation for stationary sources, 310 CMR 7.02.
    The purpose of the Certification of Tunnel Ventilation Systems
regulation is to require certification that tunnel ventilation systems
for highway projects in the Metropolitan Boston Air Pollution Control
District (defined in 310 CMR 7.00) meet certain air quality
requirements, thereby protecting public health and the environment. The
regulation requires an initial, ``preconstruction'' certification, an
operation certification (required 12-15 months after a project becomes
fully operational), and re-certification every five years. In
accordance with 310 CMR 7.38(2), the proponent must certify that the
project will not: (a) Cause or exacerbate a violation of any National
Ambient Air Quality Standard as set forth at 40 CFR part 50, or a
Massachusetts Ambient Air Quality Standard as set forth at 310 CMR
6.00; or (b) cause or exacerbate a violation of the MA DEP's one hour
ambient NO2 guideline of 320 [mu]g/m\3\; or (c) result in an
actual or projected increase in the total amount of non-methane
hydrocarbons measured within the project area when compared with the
no-build alternative.
    With this certification process approved as a SIP element, approval
of individual certifications or conditions which require written
approval by MA DEP will not require SIP revisions. This concept is
included in the existing SIP-approved rule, and the recent revisions do
not change this previously established process.

II. Addition of Emissions Monitoring Techniques for Longitudinal
Ventilation

    During the late 1980s when the CA/T Project was initially planning
and designing the ventilation system, the only Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) authorized tunnel ventilation system was the
traditional ``full transverse ventilation.'' Therefore, when 310 CMR
7.38 was promulgated in 1991, the emissions monitoring requirements
were based on full transverse ventilation technology. In 1995, FHWA
issued a memorandum entitled ``Mechanical Ventilation in Road Tunnels
using Jet Fans'' authorizing applicable projects to use longitudinal
ventilation with jet fan technology. The availability of this
additional ventilation technology was neither anticipated nor provided
for in 310 CMR 7.38(8).
    Following the FHWA authorization memo, the Central Artery/Third
Harbor Tunnel (CA/T) project studied the supplementary use of
longitudinal ventilation at several exit ramps as a cost saving
measure. The CA/T Project subsequently filed a Notice of Project
Change, and implemented longitudinal ventilation at eight exit ramps.
Although longitudinal ventilation was approved for use on the CA/T
Project, the resulting emission impacts at the eight exit ramp portals
cannot be monitored using 40 CFR part 60 Continuous Emissions
Monitoring (CEM) methods because those methods are designed to measure
emissions from stacks, not exit ramp portals. The revised subsection
7.38(8)(a) specifically requires emissions monitoring and recording
equipment in tunnel roadway exit portals that utilize longitudinal
ventilation.
    The revisions to the Certification of Tunnel Ventilation Systems
regulation contain a revised set of allowable techniques and emissions
monitoring approaches that incorporate elements of 40 CFR part 58--
Ambient Air Quality Surveillance, 40 CFR part 60--Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources, 40 CFR part 75--Continuous
Emission Monitoring, as well as statistical analysis, computer
modeling, and innovative technologies. This ``hybrid'' approach to
emission monitoring, which includes elements of ambient air quality
monitoring and continuous emission monitoring, will provide more
accurate monitoring of ambient emissions within the portal area
environment which could not be conducted with the original stack
monitoring approach under 40 CFR part 60, appendix B--Performance
Specifications.

III. New Requirement for an Air Emissions Monitoring Protocol

    MA DEP has also revised the emissions monitoring requirements at
310 CMR 7.38(8)(a) to require that any person who constructs and
operates a tunnel ventilation system which is subject to the
requirements of 310 CMR 7.38 shall, prior to commencing operation of
the tunnel ventilation system or opening the project roadway for public
use, develop and submit to the Department for review and approval an
``Air Emissions Monitoring Protocol.'' This subsection requires that
all emissions monitoring and recording equipment be installed and
operated in accordance with the approved protocol. Lastly, this
subsection allows the ``Air Emissions Monitoring Protocol'' to be
modified with prior written approval of the Department. This allows
flexibility so that as technological advances occur in contaminant and
emissions monitoring, MA DEP will be able to modify the monitoring
procedures without necessarily having to complete a regulatory revision
process. Therefore, the regulation allows affected projects to
periodically modify or update their air emission monitoring protocol
with written approval of MA DEP.

IV. Final Action

    EPA has reviewed the revised rule and has found that it is
consistent with requirements of the Clean Air Act. EPA is approving
this rule because it will

improve emission monitoring techniques, allowing the state greater
flexibility to assess and quantify emissions, for the roadway tunnel
ventilation systems in the Boston Metropolitan Air Control District.
EPA is approving Massachusetts amendments to 310 CMR 7.38, entitled
``Certification of Tunnel Ventilation Systems in the Metropolitan
Boston Air Pollution Control District,'' and incorporating this revised
rule into the Massachusetts SIP. The EPA is publishing this action
without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments.
However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register
publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as
the proposal to approve the SIP revision should relevant adverse
comments be filed. This rule will be effective April 15, 2008 without
further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by
March 17, 2008.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties
interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on April 15, 2008 and no further action will be
taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 15, 2008. Interested
parties should comment in response to the proposed rule rather than
petition for judicial review, unless the objection arises after the
comment period allowed for in the proposal. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 1, 2008.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

0
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart W--Massachusetts

0
2. Section 52.1120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(134) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (134) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection on July 12, 2006.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Massachusetts Regulation 310 CMR 7.38, entitled ``Certification
of Tunnel Ventilation Systems in the Metropolitan Boston Air Pollution
Control District,'' effective in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on
December 30, 2005.
    (B) Massachusetts Regulation Filing, dated December 13, 2005,
amending 310 CMR 7.38 entitled ``Certification of Tunnel Ventilation
Systems in the Metropolitan Boston Air Pollution Control District.''
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) Letter from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection dated July 12, 2006, submitting a revision to the
Massachusetts State Implementation Plan.

0
3. In Sec.  52.1167, Table 52.1167 is amended by adding two new
citations to the existing entry for 310 CMR 7.38 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1167  EPA-approved Massachusetts State regulations.

* * * * *

                              Table 52.1167--EPA-Approved Massachusetts Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Date          Date          Federal                       Comments/
   State citation     Title/subject   submitted by   approved by      Register      52.1120(c)      unapproved
                                          State          EPA          citation                       sections
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
310 CMR 7.38.......  Tunnel vent           7/12/06       2/15/08  [Insert Federal           134  Amendments to
                      certification                                Register page                  Certification
                      regulation.                                  number where                   of Tunnel
                                                                   the document                   Ventilation
                                                                   begins].                       Systems in the
                                                                                Metropolitan
                                                                                Boston Air
                                                                                Pollution
                                                                                Control
                                                                                District.
                                           7/12/06       2/15/08  [Insert Federal           134  Massachusetts
                                                                   Register page                  Regulation
                                                                   number where                   Filing, dated
                                                                   the document                   December 13,
                                                                   begins].                       2005,
                                                                                substantiating
                                                                                December 30,
                                                                                2005, State
                                                                                effective date
                                                                                for amended
                                                                                310 CMR 7.38
                                                                                ``Certificatio
                                                                                n of Tunnel
                                                                                Ventilation
                                                                                Systems in the
                                                                                Metropolitan
                                                                                Boston Air
                                                                                Pollution
                                                                                Control
                                                                                District.''

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
1. This table lists regulations adopted as of 1972. It does not depict regulatory requirements which may have
  been part of the Federal SIP before this date.
2. The regulations are effective statewide unless stated otherwise in comments or title section.

[FR Doc. E8-2745 Filed 2-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 104)]
[Notices]
[Page 30420-30421]
[DOCID:fr01jn10-100]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1915-DR;Docket ID FEMA-2010-0002]

South Dakota; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of South Dakota (FEMA-1915-DR), dated May 13,
2010, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: May 13, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Recovery Directorate,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated May 13, 2010, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of South Dakota resulting from flooding beginning on March 10, 2010,
and continuing, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a
major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster
Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the
``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster
exists in the State of South Dakota.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds

available for these purposes such amounts as you find necessary for
Federal disaster assistance and administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and Hazard Mitigation throughout the State.
Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance is
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation will be limited to 75
percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Nancy M. Casper, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of South Dakota have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Aurora, Beadle, Brown, Brule, Buffalo, Charles Mix, Clark, Clay,
Codington, Day, Edmunds, Faulk, Grant, Hamlin, Hanson, Hutchinson,
Hyde, Jerauld, Kingsbury, Lyman, Marshall, McCook, McPherson, Miner,
Roberts, Sanborn, Spink, Sully, Turner, and Union Counties for
Public Assistance.
    All counties within the State of South Dakota are eligible to
apply for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-13029 Filed 5-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 219 (Monday, November 15, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69611-69612]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28583]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0960; Directorate Identifier 98-ANE-09-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc RB211-Trent 768, 772,
and 772B Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); rescission.

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

SUMMARY: We propose to rescind an airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. The existing AD, AD 98-09-27, resulted from
aircraft certification testing which revealed that stresses on the
thrust reverser hinge were higher than had been anticipated during
engine certification, and the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority,
issuing AD 008-03-97.
    Since we issued AD 98-09-27, we discovered that its requirements
were duplicated in airplane-level AD 2001-09-14, issued by the FAA
Transport Airplane Directorate. This proposal to rescind the engine-
level AD allows the public the opportunity to comment on the FAA's
determination of the duplication of requirements in another AD, before
we rescind the engine-level AD.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 30,
2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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 this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Operations office (phone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the
same as the Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Strom, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD rescission. Send your comments to an
address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-
2010-0960; Directorate Identifier 98-ANE-09-AD'' at the beginning of
your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall
regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this
proposed AD rescission. We will consider all comments received by the
closing date and may amend this proposed AD rescission based on those
comments.

    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD rescission. Using the
search function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments
in any of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the
individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an
association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

Discussion

    On April 23, 1998, the FAA Engine & Propeller Directorate issued
engine AD 98-09-27 (63 FR 24911, May 6, 1998). On April 30, 2001, the
FAA Transport Airplane Directorate issued airplane AD 2001-09-14 (66 FR
23838, May 10, 2001). Those ADs both require the same initial and
repetitive visual inspections of Rolls-Royce plc RB211-Trent 768 and
772 series turbofan engine thrust reverser hinge lugs and attachment
ribs for cracks, and, if necessary, removal from service and
replacement with serviceable parts.
    Since we issued engine AD 98-09-27 and airplane AD 2001-09-14, we
determined that duplicate ADs to address the same unsafe condition were
unnecessary.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD Rescission

    We are proposing this AD rescission of AD 98-09-27 because we
evaluated all information and determined that two FAA ADs with the same
requirements are not necessary.

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 proposed AD rescission would not have
federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD
rescission would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on
the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed rescission
of a regulation:
    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 proposed AD rescission and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by rescinding airworthiness directive
(AD) 98-09-27, Amendment 39-10508 (63 FR 24911, May 6, 1998):

Rolls-Royce plc: Docket No. FAA-2010-0960; Directorate Identifier
98-ANE-09-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by December 30, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD rescinds AD 98-09-27.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc RB211-Trent 768, 772, and
772B turbofan engines. These engines are installed on, but not
limited to, Airbus A330-341 and A330-342 series airplanes.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 5, 2010.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-28583 Filed 11-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 76 (Thursday, April 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21435-21437]
[FR Doc No: 2021-08329]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0025; Notice 1]

Combi USA, Receipt of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Combi USA (Combi), has determined that certain Combi USA
BabyRide rear-facing child restraint systems manufactured between March
1, 2016, and September 2, 2019, do not fully comply with Federal Motor
Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Combi
filed an original noncompliance report dated March 8, 2021, and later
amended it on March 10, 2021, and March 11, 2021. Subsequently, Combi
petitioned NHTSA on March 30, 2021, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This notice announces receipt of Combi's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before May 24, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that the comments you have submitted by mail
were received, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with
the comments. Note that all comments received will be posted without
change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided.
    All comments and supporting materials received before the close of
business on the closing date indicated above will be filed in the
docket and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the fullest extent possible.
    When the petition is granted or denied, notice of the decision will
also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the authority
indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the docket. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelley Adams-Campos, Safety Compliance
Engineer, NHTSA, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Combi has determined that certain Combi USA BabyRide rear-facing
child restraint systems manufactured between March 1, 2016, and
September 2, 2019, do not fully comply with the requirements of
paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) of FMVSS No. 213, Child Restraint Systems (49 CFR
571.213). Combi filed an original noncompliance report dated March 8,
2021, and later amended it on March 10, 2021, and March 11, 2021,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. Combi subsequently petitioned NHTSA on March 30, 2021, for
an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as
it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or
Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of Combi's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any Agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.

II. Child Restraint Systems Involved

    Approximately 13,880 Combi USA BabyRide rear-facing child restraint
systems with model number 378099, manufactured between March 1, 2016,
and September 2, 2019, are potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    Combi explains that the noncompliance is that the subject rear-
facing child restraint systems are equipped with 25-mm-wide webbing
used in the center front harness adjuster that does not comply with the
minimum breaking strength requirements as required in paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) of FMVSS No. 213. Specifically, the subject child restraint
systems have an initial breaking strength of between 9,622 N and 10,
136 N (median load 9,871 N), which is less than the required minimum
breaking strength of 11,000 N.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) of FMVSS No. 213 includes the requirements
relevant to this petition. The webbing of belts provided with a child
restraint system and used to attach the system to the vehicle or to
restrain the child within the system shall have a minimum breaking
strength for new webbing of not less than 15,000 N in the case of
webbing used to secure a child restraint

system to the vehicle, including the tether and lower anchorages of a
child restraint anchorage system, and not less than 11,000 N in the
case of the webbing used to secure a child to a child restraint system
when tested in accordance with paragraph S5.1 of FMVSS No. 209. Each
value shall be not less than the 15,000 N and 11,000 N applicable
breaking strength requirements, but the median value shall be used for
determining the retention of breaking strength in paragraphs (b)(1),
(c)(1), and (c)(2) of paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>. ``New webbing'' means webbing
that has not been exposed to abrasion, light, or micro-organisms as
specified elsewhere in FMVSS No. 213..

V. Summary of Combi's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of Combi's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by
Combi. They have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect
the views of the Agency. Combi describes the subject noncompliance and
contends that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to
motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Combi submitted the following
reasoning:
    1. Combi has not received any reports from consumers related to the
strength of the 25-mm-wide webbing in the BabyRide infant car seat.
    2. The BabyRide with the 25-mm-wide webbing at issue complies with
dynamic testing requirements of FMVSS No. 213, paragraph S5.1, in
testing conducted by both NHTSA and Combi between 2016 and 2019. This
includes testing with the 12-month-old CRABI ATD that represents the
heaviest child that the BabyRide infant car seat is used with.
    3. The actual webbing strength of the 25-mm-wide webbing far
exceeds the strength needed for the application of an infant car seat
used with children 10 kg (22 lbs.) or less.
    a. Load applied during dynamic testing
    i. When tested with the 12-month-old CRABI ATD that weighs 22 lbs.,
representing the maximum weight occupant for the car seat, the maximum
load that the 25-mm-wide webbing is subjected to during an FMVSS No.
213 compliance crash test is 302.9 N.
    ii. Combi believes that the peak loading of the 25-mm-wide webbing
when dynamically tested per FMVSS No. 213 with the 12-month-old CRABI
ATD and represented in the 2021 test conducted by UMTRI in Test Report
No. AG2101 represents the maximum load applied to the 25-mm-wide
webbing in all Combi USA BabyRide infant car seats. Combi bases that
belief on the total belt load applied to the vehicle lap belt and LATCH
belt recorded in the 2016 UMTRI and 2021 UMTRI testing with the 12-
month-old ATD. The total vehicle lap belt load recorded in the 2021
test (AG2101) of 4206 N (945.6 lbs.) is consistent with the total
vehicle lap belt and LATCH belt loading recorded in the 2016 tests
conducted by UMTRI with the 12-month-old ATD of 4,067.2 N (851.4 lbs.)
in Test TT1603 and 3,989.1 N (896.8 lbs.) in Test TT1604.
    iii. The maximum load measured in the 25-mm-wide webbing in the
BabyRide infant car seat is much lower than the total load applied to
the vehicle lap belt and LATCH belt as the car seat is for rear-facing
use only and for use with a child weighing 10 kg (22 lb.) or less. In a
rear-facing car seat, a significant portion of the load from the ATD
during the dynamic test is transferred and supported by the seatback,
thus reducing the maximum load applied to the harness system including
the 25-mm-wide webbing.
    b. FMVSS No. 213 S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) Minimum breaking strength of original
webbing
    i. The initial breaking strength of the 25-mm-wide webbing in NHTSA
and Combi's testing is between 9,266 N and 10,126 N.
    ii. Based on test reports collected in response to a request for
information from NHTSA's Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance,\1\ all
production testing for the 25-mm-wide webbing from 2016 through 2019
measured between 9,600 N to 9,900 N.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In their petition, Combi mistakenly referred to the Office
of Vehicle Safety Compliance as the Office of Defects Investigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    c. FMVSS No. 213 S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)(1) Webbing strength after abrasion
    i. The breaking strength of the 25-mm-wide webbing after abrasion
in the Combi testing was an average of 8,047 N or 86.7 percent of the
original breaking strength.
    ii. As the breaking strength of the 25-mm-wide webbing after
abrasion is 86. 7 percent of the original breaking strength, the
webbing complies with requirements in S<IP_ADDRESS>(b)(l) of FMVSS No. 213,
which requires the webbing have a breaking strength of not less than 75
percent of the new webbing strength.
    d. FMVSS No. 213 S<IP_ADDRESS>(c)(l) Webbing strength after exposure to
light
    i. The breaking strength after exposure to light of the 25-mm-wide
webbing tested by NHTSA averages 9,752 N or 98.8 percent of the
original breaking strength.
    ii. As the breaking strength of the 25-mm-wide webbing after
exposure to light is 98.8 percent of the original breaking strength,
the webbing complies with requirements in paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>(c)(l) of
FMVSS No. 213 which requires the webbing have a breaking strength of
not less than 60 percent of the new webbing.
    4. FMVSS No. 213 regulates child restraint systems and the webbing
used in those restraint systems for use with children weighing up to 36
kg (80 lbs.). The minimum strength requirements defined in paragraph
S<IP_ADDRESS> of FMVSS No. 213 for harness belts used in all child restraint
systems for use with children 36 kg (80 lbs.) or less, including
infant-only restraint systems, are listed below.
    a. S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) Minimum breaking strength for new webbing
    i. Minimum breaking strength of not less than 11,000 N.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In their petition, Combi mistakenly referred to the minimum
breaking strength for new webbing as the median breaking strength
for new webbing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. S<IP_ADDRESS>.(b) Minimum breaking strength after abrasion
    i. Median breaking strength webbing after abrasion of not less than
75 percent of the new webbing strength. Based on the 11,000 N minimum
strength for new webbing, at least 8,250 N after abrasion.
    ii. The median breaking strength of the 25-mm webbing used in the
BabyRide after abrasion is 8,047 N, or 2.5 percent less than the
minimum allowed for all child restraints, including those designed for
children up to 80 lbs.
    c. S<IP_ADDRESS>(b) Minimum breaking strength after exposure to light
    i. Median breaking strength after exposure to light of not less
than 60 percent of the new webbing strength or based on the 11,000 N
minimum strength for new webbing, at least 6,600 N after exposure to
light.
    ii. The breaking strength of the 25-mm webbing used in the BabyRide
is 47.7 percent greater than the minimum breaking strength allowed for
all child restraints after exposure to light, including those designed
for children up to 80 lbs.
    5. Combi has reviewed the harness webbing specifications defined in
FMVSS No. 213 and notes the following:
    a. Harness webbing as specified in FMVSS No. 213 is for webbing for
use with children up to 80 lbs. (36 kg). The webbing specified is
sufficiently strong to restrain an 80 lb. occupant when forward-facing.
    b. The BabyRide car seat is an infant car seat, which is used rear-
facing only

with infants 22 lbs. (10 kg) or less. Rear-facing infant car seats
provide restraint of the infant primarily by supporting the infant's
head and back on the seatback support surface of the restraint and
additionally by the harness system. The loads carried by the seatback
support surface significantly reduce the loading experienced by the
harness webbing and center front adjuster webbing as shown in the UMTRI
test AG2101. That load is significantly lower than the harness and
center front adjuster webbing used in a forward-facing restraint system
that is used up to 80 lbs.
    c. Rear-facing use of the BabyRide car seat with children 22 lbs.
or less will subject the harness belts and adjuster belt to only a
small percentage of the load applied when forward-facing with an
occupant weighing 80 lbs.
    i. During a rear-facing test, the test AG2101 shows that the
maximum load applied to the 25-mm-wide webbing was 302.9 N.
    6. Combi believes that the initial minimum breaking strength of
11,000 N is much higher than the strength needed for a rear-facing car
seat like the BabyRide, even when occupied by a child at the maximum
weight, and that the 25-mm-wide webbing used in the BabyRide exceeds
the forces applied in a crash.
    Combi concludes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety and that its petition to be
exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required
by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by
49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject child restraint systems that
Combi no longer controlled at the time it determined that the
noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not
relieve equipment distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the
sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into
interstate commerce of the noncompliant child restraint systems under
their control after Combi notified them that the subject noncompliance
existed.

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

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2021-08329 Filed 4-21-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 61 (Wednesday, March 30, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17541-17542]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7416]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0163]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Mermentau River, Grand Chenier,
LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
SR 82 swing span bridge across the Mermentau River, mile 7.1, at Grand
Chenier, Cameron Parish, Louisiana. This deviation is necessary for
physical and mechanical repairs pertaining to the bridge's main span
and components.

This deviation allows the bridge to remain closed to navigation for
approximately 5 consecutive days, sometime within a nineteen day
period.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. on April 25, 2011
through 5 p.m. on May 13, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0203 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0203 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Jim Wetherington, Bridge Administration Branch, Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Louisiana Department of Transportation
and Development has requested a temporary deviation from the operating
schedule of the swing span bridge across the Mermentau River at mile
7.1 in Grand Chenier, Cameron Parish, Louisiana. The closure is
necessary in order to perform physical and mechanical repairs
pertaining to the bridge's main span and components. This maintenance
is essential for the continued operation of the bridge.
    The operating schedule for the bridge is in 33 CFR 117.480 and
states the bridge opens on signal; except that, from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m.
the draw shall open on signal if at least 4 hours notice is given, for
the passage of vessels. This deviation allows the bridge to remain
closed to navigation for approximately 5 consecutive days, occurring
sometime between April 25, 2011 and May 13, 2011. Exact times and dates
for the closures will be published in the Local Notice to Mariners and
broadcast via the Coast Guard Broad Notice to Mariners system.
    The vertical clearance of the swing span bridge in the closed-to-
navigation position is 13.15 feet above Mean High Water, elevation 3.1
feet Mean Sea Level. Vessels are able to transit under the bridge
during operations. There is an alternate navigation route via Grand
Lake for vessels unable to pass under the bridge. Navigation on the
waterway consists of tugs with tows, fishing vessels and recreational
craft. Due to prior experience and coordination with waterway users, it
has been determined that the closure will not have a significant effect
on navigation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: March 15, 2011.
David M. Frank,
Bridge Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-7416 Filed 3-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P