[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 159 (Friday, August 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50138-50139]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19932]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC)
meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of the ARAC.

DATES: The meeting will be held on September 19, 2013, starting at 1:00
p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Arrange oral presentations by September 12,
2013.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591, 10th
floor, MacCracken Room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Renee Butner, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), we are giving notice of a
meeting of the ARAC taking place on September 19, 2013, at the Federal
Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC
20591. The Agenda includes:
1. Recommendation Report
    a. Airman Testing Standards and Training Working Group (ARAC)
2. Status Reports From Active Working Groups
    a. AC 120-17A Maintenance Control by Reliability Methods (ARAC)
    b. Flight Controls Harmonization Working Group (Transport Airplane
and Engine Subcommittee [TAE])
    c. Airworthiness Assurance Working Group (TAE)
    d. Engine Harmonization Working Group (TAE)
    e. Flight Test Harmonization Working Group (TAE)
3. New Tasks
    a. Engine Endurance Testing Requirements--Revision of Section

33.87
4. Status Report from the FAA
    a. Rulemaking Prioritization
    i. Potential future taskings to ARAC
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to the
space available. Please confirm your attendance with the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section no later than September
12, 2013. Please provide the following information: full legal name,
country of citizenship, and name of your industry association, or
applicable affiliation. If you are attending as a public citizen please
indicate so.
    For persons participating by telephone, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by email or phone
for the teleconference call-in number and passcode. Callers outside the
Washington metropolitan area are responsible for paying long-distance
charges.
    The public must arrange by September 12, 2013 to present oral
statements at the meeting. The public may present written statements to
the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee by providing 25 copies to
the Designated Federal Officer, or by bringing the copies to the
meeting.
    If you are in need of assistance or require a reasonable
accommodation for this meeting, please contact the person listed under
the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Sign and oral
interpretation, as well as a listening device, can be made available if
requested 10 calendar days before the meeting.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 13, 2013.
Lirio Liu,
Designated Federal Officer, Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2013-19932 Filed 8-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 3, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 107)]
[Notices]
[Page 31698-31699]
[DOCID:fr03jn08-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

Food Labeling Workshop; Public Workshop

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of public workshop.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Office of Regulatory
Affairs, Southwest Regional Small Business Representative (SWR SBR)
Program, in collaboration with The University of Arkansas (UA), is
announcing a public workshop entitled ``Food Labeling Workshop.'' This
public workshop is intended to provide information about FDA food
labeling regulations and other related subjects to the regulated
industry, particularly small businesses and startups.
    Date and Time: This public workshop will be held on August 12,
2008, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., and on August 13, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.
    Location: The public workshop will be held at the Continuing
Education Center, 2 East Center St., Fayetteville, AR (located
downtown).
    Contact: David Arvelo, Small Business Representative, Food and Drug
Administration, Southwest Regional Office, 4040 North Central
Expressway, suite 900, Dallas, TX 75204,<PHONE_NUMBER>, FAX: 214-253-
4970, or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For information on accommodation options, contact Steven C.
Seideman, 2650 North Young Ave., Institute of Food Science &
Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704, 479-575-
4221, FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Registration: You are encouraged to register by July 29, 2008. The
University of Arkansas requires a $150 registration fee to cover the
cost of facilities, materials, and breaks. Seats are limited;

please submit your registration as soon as possible. Course space will
be filled in order of receipt of registration. Those accepted into the
course will receive confirmation. Registration will close after the
course is filled. Registration at the site is not guaranteed but may be
possible on a space available basis on the day of the public workshop,
beginning at 8 a.m. The cost of registration at the site is $200,
payable to: ``The University of Arkansas.'' If you need special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Steven C. Seideman
(see Contact) at least 7 days in advance.
    Registration Form Instructions: To register, please complete the
following form and submit along with a check or money order for $150,
payable to the ``The University of Arkansas.'' Mail to: Institute of
Food Science & Engineering, University of Arkansas, 2650 North Young
Ave., Fayetteville, AR 72704.

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name:                                        ...................................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Affiliation:                                 ...................................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mailing Address:                             ...................................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

City/State/Zip Code:                         ...................................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Phone:                                       ...................................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fax:                                         ...................................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E-mail:                                      ...................................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special Accommodations Required:             ...................................................................

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

    Transcripts: Transcripts of the public workshop will not be
available due to the format of this workshop. Course handouts may be
requested at cost through the Freedom of Information Office (HFI-35),
Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, rm. 12A-16, Rockville,
MD 20857, approximately 15 working days after the public workshop at a
cost of 10 cents per page.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This public workshop is being held in
response to the large volume of food labeling inquiries from small food
manufacturers and startups originating from the area covered by the FDA
Dallas District Office. The SWR SBR presents these workshops to help
achieve objectives set forth in section 406 of the Food and Drug
Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (21 U.S.C. 393(f)), which
include working closely with stakeholders and maximizing the
availability and clarity of information to stakeholders and the public.
This is consistent with the purposes of the SBR Program, which are in
part to respond to industry inquiries, develop educational materials,
and sponsor workshops and conferences to provide firms, particularly
small businesses, with firsthand working knowledge of FDA's
requirements and compliance policies. This workshop is also consistent
with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(Pub. L. 104-121), as an outreach activity by a government agency to
small businesses.
    The goal of this public workshop is to present information that
will enable manufacturers and regulated industry to better comply with
labeling requirements, especially in light of growing concerns about
obesity and food allergens. Information presented will be based on
agency position as articulated through regulations guidance. Topics to
be discussed at the workshop include: (1) Mandatory label elements, (2)
nutrition labeling requirements, (3) health and nutrition claims, (4)
the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act of 2004, and (5)
special labeling issues such as exemptions. FDA expects that
participation in this public workshop will provide regulated industry
with greater understanding of the regulatory and policy perspectives on
food labeling and increase voluntary compliance.

    Dated: May 27, 2008.
Jeffrey Shuren,
Associate Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E8-12301 Filed 6-2-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 60 (Thursday, March 28, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18801-18802]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06913]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0821; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASW-8]

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Beeville, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace at Beeville, TX.
Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate new Area Navigation
(RNAV) Standard Instrument Approach Procedures at Chase Field
Industrial Airport. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the safety
and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at the
airport.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, June 27, 2013. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone 817-321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On November 30, 2012, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish Class E airspace at
Chase Industrial Airport, Beeville, TX (77 FR 71365) Docket No. FAA-
2012-0821. Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the
FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace designations are
published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012,
and effective September 15, 2012, which is incorporated by reference in
14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document
will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface within a 6.8-mile radius of Chase Field Industrial
Airport, Beeville, TX, to ensure that required controlled airspace
exists to contain new standard instrument approach procedures at the
airport. This action enhances the safety and management of IFR
operations at the airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at Chase Field Industrial
Airport, Beeville, TX.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist

that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface.

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Beeville, TX [New]

Chase Field Industrial Airport, TX
    (Lat. 28[deg]21'36'' N., long. 97[deg]39'36'' W.)

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.8-mile radius of Chase Field Industrial Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 15, 2013.
David P. Medina,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-06913 Filed 3-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 71)]
[Notices]
[Page 17469]
[DOCID:fr15ap09-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13342-000]

Hydro Energy Technologies, LLC; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Applications Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comment, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

April 8, 2009.
    On December 9, 2008, Hydro Energy Technologies, LLC filed an
application, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act,
proposing to study the feasibility of the Berlin Lake Hydroelectric
Project, to be located on the Mahoning River, in Portage and Mahoning
Counties, Ohio.
    The proposed Berlin Lake Project would be located at: (1) The
existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Berlin Lake Dam, which is 663.5
feet long and 96 feet high; and (2) an existing 5,500-acre reservoir
with a water surface elevation of 1,032 feet mean sea level.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) A new powerhouse
containing one or more turbine/generators with a total installed
capacity of 2.5 megawatts; (2) a new 90-inch-diameter, 250-foot-long
penstock; (3) a new 0.5-mile-long, 12.5-kilovolt transmission line; and
(4) appurtenant facilities. The Berlin Lake Project would have an
estimated average annual generation of 12,155 megawatts-hours, which
would be sold to a local utility.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Anthony J. Marra Jr., Managing Partner,
31300 Solon Rd., Suite 12, Solon, Ohio 44139,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: John Ramer,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. If unable to be filed electronically,
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-
comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13342) in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-8557 Filed 4-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 56 (Wednesday, March 23, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16308-16311]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6440]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0477; FRL-8866-2]

Dichlormid; Pesticide Tolerances

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of
dichlormid in or on field corn, pop corn, and sweet corn commodities.
Dow AgroSciences requested these tolerances under the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).

DATES: This regulation is effective March 23, 2011. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before May 23, 2011, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0477. 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, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The Docket
Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pv Shah, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those
engaged in the following activities:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to
provide 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. The North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in
determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a
particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of EPA's
tolerance regulations at 40 CFR part 180 through the Government
Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0477 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
May 23, 2011. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing that does not contain any CBI for inclusion in the public
docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2
may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit a copy of
your non-CBI objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0477, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. Summary of Petitioned-For Tolerance

    In the Federal Register of December 22, 2010 (75 FR 80489) (FRL-
8857-8), EPA issued a notice pursuant to section 408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21
U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP
9E7517) by Dow AgroSciences, 9330 Zionsville Rd., Indianapolis, IN
46268. The petition requested that 40 CFR part 180 be amended by
establishing permanent tolerances for residues of the herbicide safener
dichlormid, N,N-diallyl-2,2-dichloroacetamide, in or on corn, field,
forage; corn, field, grain; corn, field, stover; corn, pop, grain;
corn, pop, stover; corn, sweet, forage; corn, sweet, kernel plus cob
with husks removed; and corn, sweet, stover at 0.05 parts per million
(ppm). That notice referenced a summary of the petition prepared by Dow
AgroSciences, the registrant, which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. Comments were received on the notice of filing.
EPA's response to these comments is discussed in Unit IV.C.

III. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(b)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish a
tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a
food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section
408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines ``safe'' to mean that ``there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure
to the pesticide chemical residue, including

all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which
there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to
infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue.''
    Consistent with section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, and the factors
specified in section 408(b)(2)(D) of FFDCA, EPA has reviewed the
available scientific data and other relevant information in support of
this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to
make a determination on aggregate exposure for dichlormid including
exposure resulting from the tolerances established by this action.
EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with dichlormid
follows.
    In the Federal Register of March 27, 2000 (65 FR 16143) (FRL-6498-
7), EPA published a final rule establishing time-limited tolerances for
residues of the herbicide safener dichlormid in or on field corn
forage, grain and stover; and pop corn grain and stover at 0.05 ppm. In
the Federal Register of September 30, 2004 (69 FR 58285) (FRL-7680-8),
EPA published a final rule establishing time-limited tolerances for
residues of dichlormid in or on sweet corn forage, kernel plus cob with
husks removed, and stover at 0.05 ppm. EPA has extended the expiration
date of the time-limited tolerances on several occasions, most recently
in the Federal Register of July 29, 2009 (74 FR 37621) (FRL-8422-2).
The tolerances expired on December 31, 2010.
    The corn tolerances were time-limited due to an incomplete database
for dichlormid. Data gaps included several chemistry and toxicology
studies, as identified in the March 27, 2000 and September 30, 2004
final rules. In addition, in December, 2007, EPA began requiring
functional immunotoxicity testing of all food and non-food use
pesticides (40 CFR part 158, subpart F), including safeners, such as
dichlormid. The outstanding chemistry and toxicology data (including
immunotoxicity testing) have all been submitted and reviewed, so that
the database for dichlormid is now considered complete. No changes in
tolerance levels or toxicological endpoints and doses used in the human
health risk assessment for dichlormid are needed as a result of the new
data. Copies of EPA's reviews of these data may be found in docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0477.
    The risk assessments that EPA relied on in establishing and
extending the time-limited tolerances for dichlormid were highly
conservative. Due to the nature and number of data gaps and qualitative
evidence of increased susceptibility of in utero rabbits in a prenatal
developmental toxicity study, the FQPA safety factor (SF) was retained
at 10X for the acute dietary risk assessment and increased to 30X for
the chronic dietary risk assessment. Since the data gaps have been
filled, uncertainty factors associated with database deficiencies may
be removed. In addition, EPA used tolerance level residues, 100 percent
crop treated, and default processing factors in the dietary food
exposure assessments and made conservative (protective) assumptions in
the modeling used to assess exposure to dichlormid in drinking water.
Using these highly conservative assumptions and SFs, acute dietary
exposure to dichlormid in food was estimated to be less than or equal
to 7.5% of the acute population adjusted dose (aPAD) for all population
subgroups; chronic dietary exposure to dichlormid in food was estimated
to be less than or equal to 15% of the chronic population adjusted dose
(cPAD) for all populations subgroups.
    Because this prior risk assessment showed dichlormid risks to be
acceptable and the effect of submission of the required data on the
assessment of dichlormid risk will be to lower estimated risks (due to
the removal of additional safety factors), EPA is relying on that prior
risk assessment and the findings in the prior dichlormid FR notices,
subject to one modification, to demonstrate the safety of the
tolerances established in this action. The one modification of the
prior risk assessment and FR notices is to update how exposure to
dichlormid in drinking water is factored into the risk assessment.
    Previously, EPA assessed aggregate exposure (food and drinking
water) to dichlormid using the DWLOC (drinking water level of
comparison) approach. The DWLOC is the concentration of a chemical in
drinking water that would be acceptable as an upper limit considering
total aggregate exposure to that chemical from food, water, and
residential sources. In this case, there are no residential uses of
dichlormid. Acute and chronic aggregate risks from dichlormid exposure
were assessed by comparing the calculated DWLOCs to the estimated
environmental concentrations (EECs) of dichlormid in surface water and
groundwater. Since the EECs (< 1 ppm in both surface and groundwater)
were well below the calculated DWLOCs for acute exposure (73 parts per
billion (ppb)) and chronic exposure (20 ppb), acute and chronic
aggregate risks were determined to be below the Agency's level of
concern. Details of the risk assessment for dichlormid may be found in
the document ``Human Health Risk Assessment for Dichlormid-Request for
Establishing Permanent Tolerances for Dichlormid on Corn,'' which is
available in docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0477.
    The Agency no longer uses the DWLOC approach for assessing
aggregate exposure to pesticides. Rather, estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs) are directly entered into the dietary exposure
model to assess the contribution of drinking water exposure to
aggregate exposure. EPA then determines whether acute and chronic
dietary pesticide exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure
estimates to the aPAD and cPAD. Using this approach, together with the
conservative assumptions and SFs discussed earlier in this unit, EPA
has concluded that acute and chronic exposure to dichlormid from food
and water will utilize 56% of the aPAD and 34% of the cPAD for infants,
less than one year old, the population group receiving the greatest
exposure.
    Based on the prior and updated risk assessments as well as the
findings in the prior dichlormid FR notices, EPA concludes that there
is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general
population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to
dichlormid residues.

IV. Other Considerations

A. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    Adequate enforcement methodology (gas chromatography with nitrogen
selective thermionic detection) is available to enforce the tolerance
expression. The method may be requested from: Chief, Analytical
Chemistry Branch, Environmental Science Center, 701 Mapes Rd., Ft.
Meade, MD 20755-5350; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
B. International Residue Limits

    In making its tolerance decisions, EPA seeks to harmonize U.S.
tolerances with international standards whenever possible, consistent
with U.S. food safety standards and agricultural practices. EPA
considers the international maximum residue limits

(MRLs) established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), as
required by FFDCA section 408(b)(4). The Codex Alimentarius is a joint
U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization food
standards program, and it is recognized as an international food safety
standards-setting organization in trade agreements to which the United
States is a party. EPA may establish a tolerance that is different from
a Codex MRL; however, FFDCA section 408(b)(4) requires that EPA explain
the reasons for departing from the Codex level.
    The Codex has not established a MRL for dichlormid in or on corn
commodities.

C. Response to Comments

    An anonymous comment was received objecting to the presence of any
pesticide residue on food. The Agency understands the commenter's
concerns and recognizes that some individuals believe that pesticides
should be banned completely. However, the existing legal framework
provided by section 408 of the FFDCA contemplates that tolerances
greater than zero may be set when persons seeking such tolerances or
exemptions have demonstrated that the pesticide meets the safety
standard imposed by that statute. This citizen's comment appears to be
directed at the underlying statute and not EPA's implementation of it;
the citizen has made no contention that EPA has acted in violation of
the statutory framework.

D. Revisions to Petitioned-for Tolerances

    EPA is revising the requested tolerance expression to clarify the
chemical moieties that are covered by the tolerances and specify how
compliance with the tolerances is to be measured. The revised tolerance
expression makes clear that the tolerances cover residues of the
herbicide safener dichlormid, including its metabolites and degradates,
but that compliance with the tolerances is to be determined by
measuring only dichlormid (2,2-dichloro-N,N-di-2-propenylacetamide).
EPA has determined that it is reasonable to make this change final
without prior proposal and opportunity for comment, because public
comment is not necessary, in that the change has no substantive effect
on the tolerance, but rather is merely intended to clarify the existing
tolerance expression.

V. Conclusion

    Therefore, tolerances are established for residues of dichlormid,
including its metabolites and degradates, in or on corn, field, forage;
corn, field, grain; corn, field, stover; corn, pop, grain; corn, pop,
stover; corn, sweet, forage; corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks
removed; and corn, sweet, stover at 0.05 ppm. Compliance with the
tolerances is to be determined by measuring only dichlormid (2,2-
dichloro-N,N-di-2-propenylacetamide).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This final rule establishes tolerances under section 408(d) of
FFDCA in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from
review under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and
Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this final rule has been
exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this final rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This final rule does not contain any
information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., nor does it require any
special considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under section 408(d) of FFDCA, such as the tolerance in
this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.) do not apply.
    This final rule directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of section 408(n)(4) of FFDCA. As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this final rule. In addition,
this final rule does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any
unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).

VII. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report 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 this final rule in the Federal
Register. This final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 8, 2011.
Lois Rossi,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. Section 180.469 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

Sec.  180.469  Dichlormid; tolerances for residues.

    (a) General. Tolerances are established for residues of dichlormid,
including its metabolites and degradates, when used as an inert
ingredient (herbicide safener) in pesticide formulations, in or on the
commodities in the following table.

Compliance with the tolerances is to be determined by measuring only
dichlormid (2,2-dichloro-N,N-di-2-propenylacetamide).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Parts per
                         Commodity                             million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corn, field, forage........................................         0.05
Corn, field, grain.........................................         0.05
Corn, field, stover........................................         0.05
Corn, pop, grain...........................................         0.05
Corn, pop, stover..........................................         0.05
Corn, sweet, forage........................................         0.05
Corn, sweet, kernel plus cob with husks removed............         0.05
Corn, sweet, stover........................................         0.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2011-6440 Filed 3-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 60 (Monday, March 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 16579-16583]
[FR Doc No: 2015-07109]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 175

[Docket No. PHMSA-2009-0126, Notice No. 15-3]

Hazardous Materials: Spare Fuel Cell Cartridges Containing
Flammable Gas Transported by Aircraft in Passenger and Crew Member
Checked Baggage

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notification of a More Definitive Statement.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA issued a 2011 final rule in which we did not harmonize
with international regulations regarding the carriage of spare fuel
cell cartridges in passenger and crew member checked baggage.
Lilliputian Systems, Inc. (Lilliputian) contested this final rule,
first by filing an administrative appeal, then challenging the final
rule in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit. On January 31, 2014, the Court remanded the rule and ordered
PHMSA to provide further explanation for the prohibition on airline
passengers and crew carrying flammable gas fuel cell cartridges in
their checked baggage, including its response to Lilliputian's
comments. 741 F.3d 1309, 1314 (D.C. Cir. 2014). As a result, we are
issuing this document which provides a more thorough explanation and
substantial evidence to support PHMSA's decision to prohibit the
carriage of spare fuel cell cartridges in passenger and crew member
checked baggage.

DATES: March 30, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Stevens, Transportation
Specialist (Regulations), Standards and Rulemaking Division, Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or, via
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Shawn Wolsey, Senior Attorney, Office
of the Chief Counsel, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,<PHONE_NUMBER> or, via email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    In 2009, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) voted
and reissued its Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of
Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO Technical Instructions), which lifted the
previous restriction of spare fuel cell cartridges for all but Division
4.3 chemistries from passenger and crew member checked baggage. In
response, on August 24, 2010, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) to harmonize U.S. Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR
parts 171-180) with updated international standards. These changes
included updates to packaging, labeling, and testing requirements to
increase harmony with the international rules and promote the flow of
goods (75 FR 52070, HM-215K, 8/24/2010). PHMSA stated its goal was ``.
. . to harmonize without diminishing the level of safety currently
provided by the HMR and without imposing undue burdens on the regulated
public'' and that we ``. . . evaluate[d] each amendment on its own
merit.'' [75 FR 52071]
    Ultimately, PHMSA did not adopt every provision of every set of the
international regulations. In the final rule published January 19, 2011
[76 FR 3308], PHMSA revised the 49 CFR 175.10 passenger exceptions to
allow passengers and crew members to place certain spare fuel cell
cartridges containing a flammable liquid (Class 3) or corrosive
material (Class 8) in checked baggage. PHMSA stated, ``fuel cell
cartridges themselves are subject to much more stringent construction,
testing, and packaging requirements than for similar articles (e.g.,
aerosols).'' However, PHMSA limited the scope of spare fuel cell
cartridge chemistries allowed in checked baggage by excluding fuel cell
cartridges containing Division 2.1 (flammable gas) and Division 4.3
(dangerous when wet) material. In the interest of safety, PHMSA elected
to continue the longstanding limitations in the HMR for Division 2.1
(flammable gas) on passenger-carrying aircraft and thus maintained the
existing prohibition on the transport of spare fuel cells containing
Division 2.1 (flammable gas) in checked baggage. PHMSA and the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) explained their expressed concern ``due
to the questionable integrity of [fuel cells] when packed in a
passenger's checked baggage'' [76 FR 3337].
    As a result of PHMSA's rulemaking, Lilliputian filed an
administrative appeal in accordance with 49 CFR 106.110. It requested
PHMSA to revise 49 CFR 175.10(a)(19) to align with the ICAO Technical
Instructions and allow spare fuel cell cartridges containing Division
2.1 (flammable gas) to be carried in checked baggage. PHMSA granted the
administrative appeal by providing Lilliputian and the public
additional opportunity for comment in a May 25, 2012 NPRM [77 FR
31274]. The subsequent final rule issued on January 7, 2013 [78 FR
1101] denied the placement of spare Division 2.1 fuel cell cartridges
in checked baggage but continued to allow two spare Division 2.1 fuel
cell cartridges in carry-on baggage.
    Lilliputian filed a Petition for Review of the Final Order in the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on
March 8, 2013. In a January 31, 2014, (731 F.3d 1309) decision, the
Court remanded the rule and ordered PHMSA to ``provide further
explanation for the prohibition on airline passengers and crew carrying
flammable-gas fuel cell cartridges in their checked baggage, including
its response to Lilliputian's comments.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 741 F.3d 1314.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Justification for Denial of the Administrative Appeal

    When PHMSA decides whether to allow an item on a passenger-carrying
aircraft, the Department only tolerates extraordinarily low levels of
risk. For example, when failure of a component in an airplane could
interfere with continued flight and safe landing, the risk of failure
must be less than one billion to one.\2\ This low level of tolerance
for risk makes sense because, due to the high volume of air transport,
even a very improbable event may eventually occur, and with
catastrophic results. Additionally, PHMSA is required by 49 U.S.C.
5108(b) to pursue the ``highest degree of safety in pipeline
transportation and hazardous materials transportation.'' \3\ Under 49
U.S.C. 5103(b), PHMSA is authorized to issue regulations for the safe
and secure transportation of hazardous materials in commerce, including
transportation by air.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC25.1309-1A.pdf.
    \3\ PHMSA's Administrator is charged with carrying out all
duties and powers vested in the Secretary of Transportation under
chapter 51 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code, which governs the
transportation of hazardous materials. 49 U.S.C. 108(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The risks presented by flammable gas on airplanes are clear.
Flammable gases will burn if mixed with an appropriate amount of air,
and an ignition source is present, and confined burning of a flammable
gas can lead to detonation. As a result, PHMSA remains concerned with
the hazards posed by flammable gases (such as the butane contained in
some fuel cells) contributing to a fire in the cargo compartment of a
passenger-carrying aircraft. This concern is particularly relevant to
carriage in checked baggage, where damage to the fuel cell cartridge
and the release of a flammable gas may occur if the baggage is
mishandled.
    PHMSA denied Lilliputian's appeal due to the uncertainty of the
safety risks posed when combining (1) the uncertainty of how the
baggage handling would affect the durability and stability

of these products, (2) the possible over-sight of hazmat communication
and packaging requirements because the regulations do not apply to
passengers, and (3) the limitations of aircraft's fire suppression
systems. PHMSA was particularly concerned by the allowance for
passengers to transport flammable-gas fuel cells because passengers
``are not trained to recognize potential hazards'' and ``are unlikely
to be aware of the safety implications'' of improper packaging or
handling. Considering those factors combined with the limitations of
the aircraft's suppression system, (fire suppression systems ``do not
prevent fires'' and are not ``designed to completely extinguish
fires'') the safety risks were too great to authorize this exemption.
PHMSA further explained that the authorization of any additional
flammable gas on an airplane, in addition to the gases contained in the
toiletry and medicinal items already allowed, would need to take into
account ``the cumulative risk of the new authorization combined with
existing authorizations.'' [78 FR 1104] PHMSA expressed willingness,
however, to consider allowing certain fuel cells models on a case-by-
case basis. For example, portable oxygen concentrators may be allowed
at some point in the future, when experience and testing prove that
safe designs exist.
    Because of the risks presented by flammable gases, a number of
safety requirements apply to shipments of flammable gas on passenger-
carrying aircraft. PHMSA believes there is sufficient basis for its
decision because, as previously stated, in the area of aviation safety,
there is a very low tolerance for risk. In its decision, PHMSA
considered the known risks of flammable gases, coupled with the
uncertainties relating to the safety of new fuel cell technology, added
to the already high volume of air travel and the catastrophic
consequences of any failure.

Cumulative Risk

    PHMSA's approach to aviation safety is not to permit items merely
because they are similar to items already permitted. The authorization
of any additional flammable gas on an aircraft, in addition to the
toiletry and medicinal items already allowed, needs to take into
account the cumulative risk of the new authorization combined with
existing authorizations. A limited exception has existed since 1972 for
small quantities of such gases in personal medicinal and toiletry
items, such as the butane used as a propellant in a small aerosol can
or a butane-powered curling iron (49 CFR 175.10(a)(1)(i). However, most
Division 2.1 (flammable gas) substances and articles are forbidden from
transportation as cargo aboard passenger-carrying aircraft, and thus
prohibiting the carriage of spare fuel cell cartridges containing
flammable gas in checked baggage is consistent with the agency's
longstanding position with regard to flammable gases.

Checked Baggage

    The exceptions in 49 CFR 175.10 have not been expanded to permit
additional flammable gases in checked baggage. As previously noted,
allowing transportation of flammable gas in airline passengers' checked
baggage would be inconsistent with the exceptions in 49 CFR 175.10.
Airline passengers do not comply with the important packaging,
labeling, and hazard communication requirements when they put items in
their checked baggage, and they may not even be aware of such
requirements. Without hazard communication and other notifications to
handlers that the passenger's baggage contains flammable gas, checked
baggage could be mishandled, damaging the integrity of an improperly
packaged container of flammable gas. Negligent packing and excessive
handling increases the potential that a container of flammable gas in
checked baggage could rupture, creating conditions for an explosion. 76
FR 3337.
    Beginning in 2009, the ICAO began considering whether to change its
regulations to allow transport of fuel cells in checked baggage. Prior
to that time, fuel cells had been allowed only in carry-on baggage or
on one's person, in order to mitigate the risk of the fuel cell
cartridge inadvertently coming into contact with an ignition source.\4\
Although members of the ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel were generally
supportive of permitting most fuel cells containing flammable liquids
in checked baggage, ``many were wary of permitting fuel cartridges
containing substances of other classes.'' In particular, ``[s]ome felt
further consideration was needed with respect to fuel cell cartridges
containing flammable gases.'' Some participants suggested that changes
not be adopted to allow these new technologies until ``experience based
on a longer timeframe could be demonstrated.'' \5\ In the end, ICAO
included in its Technical Instructions a provision to allow two spare
fuel cell cartridges containing flammable gas in checked baggage. It
should be noted that the ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel does not operate
solely on a consensus basis and that some delegates, including the U.S.
Panel Member, were not in agreement with this decision. The U.S. Panel
member spoke against the adoption of this provision when the amendment
was discussed and agreed to by majority vote during the Dangerous Goods
Panel's 22nd meeting (held in Montreal, Canada from October 5-16,
2009).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ With regard to the allowance of fuel cell cartridges in
carry-on baggage or on one's person, the risk is mitigated because
the fuel cells are contained in a supervised environment. Thus, a
flight attendant would be able to extinguish any fires that might
occur in a carry-on bag in the event of a fuel cell cartridge
inadvertently coming into contact with an ignition source.
    \5\ http://www.icao.int/safety/DangerousGoods/DGP%2022%20Working%20Papers/DGP.22.WP.100.en.pdf at 2.9.4.
    \6\ http://www.icao.int/safety/DangerousGoods/DGP%2022%20Working%20Papers/DGP.22.WP.100.en.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAA Technical Report

    In Lilliputian's comments posted to the docket of the August 24,
2010 NPRM (PHMSA-2009-0126-2027), they posed five recommendations for
conducting a proper risk analysis:
     Any analysis should begin with the risk of ignition or
sparking.
     The analysis should examine the risk of catching fire as a
result of an external fire.
     The analysis should examine whether a fuel cell fire, once
ignited, can be effectively extinguished in a timely manner.
     The analysis should look to any experience involving
similar materials.
     The analysis should evaluate whether the volume of the
material is relevant in terms of the risk and managing that risk.
    We believe that the Preliminary Investigation of the Fire Hazard
Inherent in Micro Fuel Cell Cartridges (Final Report) \7\ prepared by
the FAA Technical Center did address these recommendations posed by
Lilliputian. The report examined the fire risk presented by fuel cells,
including cells powered by flammable solids, liquids, and gas,
including a test that exposed single, small fuel cells of various types
to a low-intensity flame in a controlled environment. Only a few
varieties of fuel cells were tested, because the technology was still
developing; however, one of the fuel cells tested was a butane fuel
cell manufactured by Lilliputian. The test results showed that, of the
fuel types tested, ``[b]utane produced the most vigorous fire.'' The
plastic cartridge used by Lilliputian was breached only 45 seconds
after exposure

to flame and the ``butane ignition was rapid, almost explosive'' \8\
(emphasis added). It produced an approximately 1,000-degree Fahrenheit
flame, by far the hottest flame produced by any of the materials in the
study. While some of the other fuel cell fires were ``easily
extinguished using Halon 1211,'' a fire suppression system commonly
used in an aircraft, the butane fire burned so rapidly that the fire
suppression system did not activate until after all the butane fuel had
been consumed by the fire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Document PHMSA-2009-0126-2366 in this docket.
    \8\ See Document PHMSA-2009-0126-2366 in this docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A Halon 1211 system is not designed to detect fires. The pilot must
first see that there is an alert from the fire detection system. Once
that happens, the pilot will engage the Halon 1211 system, which will
attempt to suppress, but not extinguish, the fire. While airplanes are
equipped with fire detection systems, such as Halon 1211, there are no
systems on board to detect a gas leak. Thus, if a fuel cell cartridge
placed in checked baggage is damaged and allows butane gas to leak into
the cargo compartment, there is no way for the pilot to be aware of
this. The accumulation of the butane gas, if exposed to a spark, would
then cause an explosion and would lead to a catastrophic failure of the
airplane.
    The FAA Technical Center tests were designed to determine the
flammability characteristics of fuel cell cartridges. The tests were
conducted on single cartridges exposed to a controlled fire. The tests
did not take into account the interaction of one or more cartridges and
any adjacent combustible material (i.e., clothing, electronic devices,
etc.) or the effect of fuel cell cartridges in propagating a fire. We
do know from the test results that butane produced the most vigorous
fire, the cartridge provided the least amount of protection from an
external fire and, once penetrated, the liquid butane burned rapidly
and filled the test chamber with fire. The butane fire also registered
the highest temperature (1000 degrees Fahrenheit) and heat flux
measurements of all tests conducted. The plastic cartridge used by
Lilliputian was breached only 45 seconds after exposure to flame, and
the butane ignition was rapid, almost explosive. Thus, the test results
from the Final Report support our concern that the inherent hazards of
compressed flammable gases, as demonstrated by exposure to a fire
involving a fuel cell cartridge containing an estimated volume of only
50 cc or less of butane, would pose an unacceptable risk in air
transportation.
    As PHMSA stated in the preamble to the January 19, 2011 final rule,
Federal hazmat law (49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) and policy encourages the
harmonization of domestic and international standards for hazardous
materials transportation to the extent practicable, but the law also
permits PHMSA to depart from international standards in order to
promote public safety. When considering the adoption of international
standards under the HMR, PHMSA reviews and evaluates each amendment on
its own merit, on the basis of its overall impact on transportation
safety, and on the economic implications associated with its adoption.
Our goal is to harmonize without diminishing the level of safety and
without imposing undue burdens on the regulated public. In this
instance, we believe that restricting the carriage of flammable gas
fuel cell cartridges to be a necessary variation to the ICAO Technical
Instructions that enhances the safety of aircraft passengers without
imposing an unreasonable regulatory burden. Under Federal hazmat law,
we are tasked with balancing the needs of public safety with economic
burdens when considering harmonization with international standards.
Consequently, because we elected not to revise the HMR to align with
the ICAO Technical Instructions, we believe we did strike a balance by
continuing to permit flammable gas fuel cell cartridges in carry-on
baggage.

Disparate Treatment of Aerosols and Butane-Powered Articles

    The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also was
concerned that PHMSA did not provide a reasoned explanation and
substantial evidence for the disparate treatment of fuel cell
cartridges as opposed to other products, particularly medicinal and
toiletry items that contain flammable gases (i.e. aerosols).

Aerosols

    In order to determine if a hazardous material is permitted in
checked baggage, PHMSA must take into account the cumulative risk of
any new authorizations combined with any existing authorizations. Under
certain conditions, 49 CFR 175.10 permits the carriage of aerosols in
checked baggage on a passenger-carrying aircraft. This limited
exception has existed since 1972 for aerosol containers in small
quantities in personal medicinal and toiletry items. Such items include
hair spray, deodorant, and certain medicinal products.
    To comply with the ban on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that became
effective January 1, 1994, \9\ the aerosol industry changed the type of
propellant used in their products. Unfortunately, this new type of
propellant is flammable and, because of its widespread use, there was
concern of a risk-risk tradeoff (ozone layer damage versus cargo
compartment safety on passenger-carrying aircraft). PHMSA and FAA were
concerned that static electricity inherent in cargo compartments could
ignite a leaking flammable aerosol container in passenger baggage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ http://www.epa.gov/ozone/snap/aerosol/qa.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on its concerns, PHMSA reviewed incident reports in the
Hazardous Materials Identification System (HMIS) database and specific
incidents that occurred during baggage handling provided by the FAA.
Accordingly, PHMSA and FAA agreed to work together in certain areas to
improve the safe transportation of flammable aerosols by adopting
regulatory and non-regulatory solutions. For example, each agency
agreed to: (1) Actively participate in the ICAO Dangerous Goods Panel
that reviews the items that passengers are permitted to carry in the
cabin and in checked baggage; (2) partner with the Consumer Specialty
Products Association to enhance the design of aerosol products; and (3)
amend the HMR to require or clarify that any release of hazmat in
passenger baggage must be reported. Further, in a final rule published
on December 20, 2004, PHMSA amended the HMR by requiring that release
devices on aerosols be protected by a cap or other suitable means to
prevent the inadvertent release of contents when placed in passenger or
crew member baggage. [69 FR 76179; (HM-215G)] Because of the prevalence
of aerosols in everyday travel, these adopted safety measures were
deemed sufficient while not being overly burdensome to the traveling
public. However, PHMSA continues to monitor this issue very closely and
will respond to any negative trends accordingly.
    While PHMSA and FAA adopted safety measures to address the risks
associated with permitting aerosols in checked baggage, the amount of
butane in a fuel cartridge (200 mL) is approximately twice as much as
the amount utilized in a typical 16 ounce aerosol can. Given the amount
of electronic devices that passengers typically travel with, the
cumulative volume of butane from fuel cell cartridges that passengers
could bring aboard an aircraft is a concern. As a result, PHMSA has
determined there is too much risk in allowing fuel cell

cartridges in checked baggage in addition to the currently authorized
flammable aerosols when stowed in inaccessible cargo compartments on
passenger-carrying aircraft.

Butane-Powered Curling Iron Articles

    As previously stated, 49 CFR 175.10 prescribes certain conditional
exceptions to the HMR for passengers, crewmembers, and air operators
for hazardous materials contained in their carry-on (including on one's
person) and checked baggage. In paragraph (a)(6), hair curlers (curling
irons), containing a hydrocarbon gas such as butane, are excepted from
the requirements of the HMR in checked baggage. Flammable gas refills
for such curlers are not permitted in carry-on or checked baggage.
(emphasis added).
    In an NPRM published January 23, 2015 (80 FR 3836; [HM-218H]),
PHMSA is considering prohibiting butane-powered curling iron articles
in checked baggage. We believe the risk posed by flammable gases in an
inaccessible compartment on a passenger-carrying aircraft is clear.
Flammable gases will burn if mixed with an appropriate amount of air
and confined burning of a flammable gas can lead to detonation. As a
result, we remain concerned with the flammability hazard posed by
butane and other flammable gases and the ability of such gases to
propagate or contribute to a fire in the cargo compartment of an
aircraft. This concern is particularly relevant to carriage in checked
baggage, where damage to the curling iron and the subsequent release of
a flammable gas may occur if the baggage is mishandled or the article
itself is compromised.

Conclusion

    Because of the risks posed by flammable gas, a number of safety
requirements apply to cargo shipments of flammable gas on passenger-
carrying aircraft. As previously stated, most Division 2.1 (flammable
gas) substances and articles are generally forbidden from
transportation as cargo aboard passenger-carrying aircraft, and PHMSA's
proposal to prohibit the carriage of butane-powered curling irons in
checked baggage is consistent with this provision. In the area of
aviation safety, where the high volume of travel and the catastrophic
consequences of failure lead to a very low tolerance for risk, we
firmly believe the known risks of flammable gas are sufficient basis
for our decision.
    We remain concerned with the flammability hazard posed by butane
and other flammable gases and the ability of such gases to propagate or
contribute to a fire in an inaccessible cargo compartment of a
passenger-carrying aircraft. Moreover, in light of the well-established
risks related to flammable gas and the long-standing prohibition of
most flammable gas on passenger-carrying aircraft, PHMSA will continue
to prohibit fuel cell cartridges that contain a class 2.1 flammable gas
from being placed in checked baggage.

 Magdy El-Sibaie,
Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.
[FR Doc. 2015-07109 Filed 3-27-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


	SIP SUBMITTAL COMPLETENESS CRITERIA CHECKLIST

	(in accordance with 40 CFR Part 51 - App. V)

SIP Submitted by:	West Virginia Department of Environment Quality

Date Submitted: 	June 1, 2006

Subject:		NOx and SO2 emissions trading programs to mitigate transport and comply with the requirements of the Clean Air Interstate Rule

Completeness Review

Completed by: 	Marilyn Powers

Date Completed: 	June 29, 2006

Administrative Materials													    Acceptable

	EPA REQUIREMENT

	STATE SUBMITTAL

(X)

1. A formal letter of submittal from the Governor or his designee, requesting EPA approval of the plan or revision thereof.

1.  Letter dated June 1, 2006 from Stephanie R. Timmermeyer, West Virginia Cabinet Secretary, to Donald Welsh, Regional Administrator.

  X

2. Evidence that the State has adopted the plan in the State code or body of regulations; or issued the permit, order, consent agreement in final form.  That evidence shall include the date of adoption or final issuance as well as the effective date of the plan, if different from the adoption/issuance date.

2.  The State has submitted evidence that the regulations were adopted and approved in final form on March 11, 2006, with an effective date of May 1, 2006.

  X

3. Evidence that the State has the necessary legal authority under State law to adopt and implement the plan.

3.  The regulations were issued pursuant to West Virginia Code 22-5-4

  X

4. A copy of actual regulation, or document submitted for approval and incorporation by reference into the plan, including indication of the changes made to the existing approved plan, where applicable.  The submittal shall be a copy of the official State regulation/document signed, stamped, dated by the appropriate State official indicating that it is fully enforceable by the State.  The effective date of the regulation/document shall, whenever possible, be indicated in the document itself.

4.  A copy of the new regulations as approved by the State Official, with accompanying signed and stamped, and dated documentation that the regulation was adopted, and having an effective date of May 1, 2006

  X

5. Evidence that the State followed all of the procedural requirements of the State's laws and constitution in conducting and completing the adoption/issuance of the plan.

5.  Submittal of June 1, 2006, provided documentation that all State procedures were followed in adoption of the regulations.

  X

6. Evidence that public notice was given of the proposed change consistent with procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication of such notice.

6.  Notice of public hearing and public comment period was published on June 17, 2005 in the West Virginia Register (Vol. XXII, Issue 24 page 1052) and a major newspaper.

  X

7. Certification that public hearings were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable.

7.  Certified Transcript of Public Hearing and documentation that proper State procedures were followed was provided in the June 1, 2006 submittal.

  X

8. Compilation of public comments and the State's response thereto.

8.  Compilation of public comments and WVDEP’s responses thereto was provided in the June 1, 2006 submittal.

  X

Technical Materials													   Acceptable

	EPA REQUIREMENT

	STATE SUBMITTAL

(X)

1. Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the plan.	1.  The submittal identifies NOx and SO2 emissions that are precursors of particulate matter (PM) and 8-hourr ozone.

  X

2. Identification of the locations of affected sources including the EPA attainment/nonattainment designation of the locations and the status of the attainment plan for the affected area(s).	2.  The submittal applies statewide and affects electric generataing units > 25 MW and certain cogeneration units..  These regulations address West Virginia’s obligations to reduce its transported emissions that contribute to downwind States’ PM and Ozone nonattainment problems.

  X

3. Quantification of the changes in plan allowable emissions from the affected sources; estimates of changes in current actual emissions from affected sources or, where appropriate, quantification of changes in actual emissions from affected sources through calculations of the differences between certain baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipated as a result of the revision.	3.  Not applicable.

4. The State's demonstration that the national ambient air quality standards, prevention of significant deterioration increments, reasonable further progress demonstration, and visibility, as applicable, are protected if the plan is approved and implemented. 	4.  Not applicable..

5. Modeling information required to support the proposed revision, including input data, output data, models used,  ambient monitoring data used, meteorological data used, justification for use of offsite data (where used), modes of models used, assumptions, and other information relevant to the determination of adequacy of the modeling analysis.	5.  Not applicable.

6. Evidence, where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology.	6.  Not applicable.

7. Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, work practice standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements, where necessary, to ensure emission levels.	7.  The regulations include the State’s overall budget, individual unit allocations, trading program protocols, and monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance requirements to ensure the regional cap is maintained.

  X

8. Compliance/enforcement strategies, including how compliance will be determined in practice.	8   The regulations have requirements for continuous emissions monitoring in accordance with 40 CFR Part 75.  In each trading program, compliance is determined yearly by reconciliation of actual control period emissions against allowances held by each source.

  X

9. Special economic and technological justifications required by any applicable EPA policies. (If a policy is not appropriate, explain why.) 9.  No special justifications are required.

10. A Section 107 request must be accompanied by a maintenance plan demonstrating maintenance to the relevant NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation.	10.  Not applicable because this is not a section 107 request.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6133-6134]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2759]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2011-1169]

Sector Upper Mississippi River Area Maritime Security Committee;
Vacancies

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Solicitation for membership.

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

SUMMARY: This notice requests individuals interested in serving on the
Sector Upper Mississippi River Area Maritime Security Committee (AMSC)
to submit their application for membership, to the Captain of the Port,
Sector Upper Mississippi River.

DATES: Requests for membership should reach the Sector Upper
Mississippi Captain of the Port on or before March 8, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Requests for membership should be submitted to the Captain
of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River, AMSC Executive
Administrator, 1222 Spruce Street, Room 7.103, St. Louis, MO 63103-2846
or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about submitting an
application or about the AMSC in general, contact Port Security
Specialist Mr. Todd Epperson at<PHONE_NUMBER> or Mr. Jared Angelle at
(314) 269-2593.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority

    Section 102 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of
2002 (Pub. L. 107-295) added section 70112 to Title 46 of the U.S.
Code, and authorized the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast
Guard is operating to establish Area Maritime Security Advisory
Committees for any port area of the United States. (See 33 U.S.C. 1226;
46 U.S.C.; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.01; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1). The MTSA includes a provision exempting these
AMSCs from the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-
463, 86 Stat. 770 (5 U.S.C. App.2).

Sector Upper Mississippi River AMSC Purpose

    The AMSCs shall assist the Captain of the Port in the review,
update, and exercising of the Area Maritime Security (AMS) Plan for
their area of responsibility. Such matters may include, but are not
limited to: identifying critical port infrastructure and operations;
identifying risks

(threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences); determining mitigation
strategies and implementation methods; developing strategies to
facilitate the recovery of the Maritime Transportation Security (MTS)
after a Transportation Security Incident; developing and describing the
process to continually evaluate overall port security by considering
consequences and vulnerabilities, how they may change over time, and
what additional mitigation strategies can be applied; and providing
advice to, and assisting the Captain of the Port in developing and
maintaining the AMS Plan.

AMSC Composition

    The composition of an AMSC, to include the Sector Upper Mississippi
River AMSC, is controlled by 33 CFR 103.305. Accordingly, members may
be selected from the Federal, Territorial, or Tribal government; the
State government and political subdivisions of the State; local public
safety, crisis management, and emergency response agencies; law
enforcement and security organizations; maritime industry, including
labor; other port stakeholders having a special competence in maritime
security; and port stakeholders affected by security practices and
policies. Also, members of the AMSC should have at least 5 years of
experience related to maritime or port security operations.

Sector Upper Mississippi River AMSC Vacancies

    The Sector Upper Mississippi River AMSC is comprised of individuals
who represent federal, state, local, and industry stakeholders from
port regions in the Upper Midwest (St. Paul/Minneapolis), St. Louis,
and Kansas City. We are seeking to fill up to three positions with this
solicitation.

Request for Applications

    Those seeking membership are not required to submit formal
applications to the local Captain of the Port, however, because we do
have an obligation to ensure that a specific number of members have the
prerequisite maritime security experience, we encourage the submission
of r[eacute]sum[eacute]s highlighting experience in the maritime and
security industries. Applicants will be required to pass an appropriate
security background check prior to appointment to the committee.
Members' term of office will be for 5 years, however, a member is
eligible to serve an additional term of office. Members will not
receive any salary or other compensation for their service on the AMSC.
    In support of the policy of the Coast Guard on gender and ethnic
diversity, we encourage qualified men and women and members of all
racial and ethnic groups to apply.

    Dated: January 27, 2012.
S.C. Teschendorf,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Federal Maritime Security
Coordinator, Sector Upper Mississippi River.
[FR Doc. 2012-2759 Filed 2-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


NACEPT COUNCIL MEETING JULY 18  19, 2002 WASHINGTON, DC NACEPT SUPERFUND SUBCOMMITTEE PRESENTATION BY LOIS GARTNER, DFO JULY 18, 2002 SUBCOMMITTEE PURPOSE: PROVIDE ADVICE TO EPA ON KEY SUPERFUND ISSUES  ROLE OF NPL  ADDRESSING MEGA SITES  PERFORMANCE MEASURES SUBCOMMITTEE FIRST MEETING: JUNE 17  19, 2002 ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA TOPICS COVERED ° EPA'S CHARGE ° OPERATING PROCEDURES ° MEMBERS' EXPECTATIONS ° STRUCTURE AND WORK PLANNING OUTCOMES ° RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE ADMINISTRATIVE NOT LEGISLATIVE ° SUBCOMMITTEE SHOULD ASSUME NO CHANGES IN SUPERFUND FUNDING LEVELS ° EPA CHARGE IS FOUNDATION FOR DYNAMIC WORK PLAN ° THREE WORKGROUPS FORMED WORKGROUPS ° FACT FINDING  INFORMATION COLLECTION AND ASSESSMENT ° WORK PLAN REFINEMENT ° MEASURING PERFORMANCE NACEPT COUNCIL INPUT ° Very supportive of work of the Subcommittee and process of addressing the tasks.

° Charles Jones County Commissioner Douglas County Kansas Extremely important for Superfund program to take credit for voluntary cleanup initiatives.

In Kansas few NPL sites but a large number of voluntary cleanup sites due to the Superfund laws. ° Joe Boren AIG Environmental Expressed grave concerns that if the Subcommittee did not consider funding options, the work of the Subcommittee would not result in solutions to the Superfund situation.

He felt the fund as is would be insufficient to fund the cleanup of orphan mega sites.

Quoted 93 mega sites of which 33 are orphan sites. Fund is projected to be out of money by 2003.

Thus resources are inadequate to completely address orphan mega sites. ° Dorothy Bowers Chairperson NACEPT Council Responded to concerns of the Subcommittee that NACEPT Council would make changes to Subcommittee recommendations.

Council never changed recommendations.

Questions concerning recommendations have been forwarded to Subcommittee to be addressed.

A close working relationship between the Subcommittee and Council throughout the life of the Subcommittee will facilitate addressing questions, issues and concerns as the work of the Subcommittee progresses.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 67 (Friday, April 6, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20700]
[FR Doc No: C1-2012-7008]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0292; Directorate Identifier 2011-NM-056-AD;
Amendment 39-16991; AD 2012-06-10]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

Correction

    In rule document 2012-7008 appearing on pages 19071-19074 in the
issue of March 30, 2012, make the following correction:

Sec.  39.13  [Corrected]

0
On page 19073, in Sec.  39.13, beginning in the second column, in the
28th line from the bottom, remove the duplicate section ``(g)
Inspection and Corrective Action in Fuel Tank Areas'' which ends in the
third column, in the 24th line from the top.

[FR Doc. C1-2012-7008 Filed 4-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 66730]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23369]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0489]

Commercial Driver's License Standards: Application for Exemption;
State of Idaho, Idaho Transportation Department (ITD)

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; denial of application for
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that it has denied an application for
exemption from the requirement that third-party commercial driver's
license (CDL) testers maintain a bond in an amount determined by the
State that employs them. The bond is intended to be sufficient to pay
for re-testing drivers in the event that the third party or its
examiners is involved in fraudulent activities related to CDL skills
testing. The Division of Motor Vehicles, Idaho Transportation
Department (ITD) submitted the application for exemption. FMCSA
published ITD's application, reviewed the public comments received, and
denied the application because available information did not allow the
Agency to conclude that the proposed exemption would achieve a level of
safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety that
would be obtained absent the exemption.

DATES: FMCSA denied the application for exemption by letter dated
August 8, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver
and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle
Safety Standards, FMCSA; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

ITD Application for Exemption

    The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) is responsible for State
transportation infrastructure and oversees the disbursement of Federal,
State, and grant funding for Idaho transportation programs.
    The ITD applied for an exemption from the regulations in 49 CFR
383.75(a)(8)(v) that require third party testers to initiate and
maintain a bond in an amount determined by the State to be sufficient
to pay for re-testing drivers in the event that the third party or one
or more of its examiners is involved in fraudulent activities related
to conducting skills testing of CDL applicants. The ITD requested the
exemption because the regulation creates a financial hardship for
testing examiners who must be bonded but conduct only a few tests
monthly. ITD said that the State has had no instances of fraud in its
third-party testing organizations.

Public Comments

    On March 9, 2016, FMCSA published in the Federal Register notice of
the ITD application and requested public comment (81 FR 12443). The
Agency received three comments, all of which opposed the exemption. One
commenter objected to all exemptions in general. The Commercial Vehicle
Training Association stated that exempting Idaho from the bond
requirement is unnecessary because the State has the authority to
determine what the amount of these bonds should be. Therefore, if Idaho
determines that the current bond requirement is too high, it can simply
reduce the requisite amount. The Surety and Fidelity Association of
America listed various reasons why a surety bond has value to the State
and is in the public interest.
    No commenters supported the ITD exemption request.

FMCSA Decision

    The Agency's decision is based upon the information provided by the
applicants, and its review of comments received in response to the
Federal Register notice. The Agency concluded that the ITD application
failed to demonstrate how by eliminating the requirement for third
party testers to initiate and maintain a bond would achieve a level of
safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved
by the current regulation. The Agency believes the regulation provides
the proper balance, protecting the public interest while imposing only
minimal costs on small third-party testers. The bond requirement is a
business standard that not only provides a higher degree of assurance
that the CDL tests performed meet FMCSA and State requirements, but
that the tests are also performed by qualified individuals as agents of
the State. ITD did not provide any data, studies or research supporting
its request, or explain why a reduced bond amount would not achieve the
same result as an exemption. Therefore, the Agency cannot determine
that ITD's proposed exemption would meet the statutory requirement to
maintain the required levels of safety. Accordingly, FMCSA denied ITD's
application for exemption by letter dated August 8, 2016.

    Issued on: September 14, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
 Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-23369 Filed 9-27-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: December 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 235)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 69175-69176]
[DOCID:fr07de07-18]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011; FRL-8503-3]
RIN 2060-AN72

Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Data Availability (NODA).

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

SUMMARY: EPA is issuing this NODA in support of the proposed rule
published on May 14, 2007, entitled Standards of Performance for
Petroleum Refineries. EPA received a number of comments on the proposed
rule and is in the process of evaluating those comments. During the
review of recently received comments, we determined that data and
analyses were inadvertently left out of the docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-
0011.
    This NODA notifies the public that we have added data and analyses
to the docket and provides an additional comment period for the
proposed rule. Comments on all aspects of this proposal are welcome.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 7, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2007-0011, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: EPA Docket Center (2822T), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2007-0011, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please
include a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your
comments on information collection provisions to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments
to: EPA Docket Center (2822T), EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments on the NODA to Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0011. 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 information
that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 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. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information may not be publicly available, e.g., 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 either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA

Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the EPA Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To expedite review of your comments by Agency staff, you are
encouraged to send a separate copy of your comments, in addition to the
copy you submit to the official docket, to Mr. Robert B. Lucas,
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Robert B. Lucas, U.S. EPA, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs
Division, Coatings and Chemicals Group (E143-01), Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Submitting CBI. Do not submit information
that you consider to be CBI electronically through http://www.regulations.gov

or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the
following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer
(C404-02), U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-
0011. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to
be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA,
mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
    If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming
CBI, please consult the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket,
an electronic copy of the proposed rule published on May 14, 2007, is
available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). A
copy of the proposed rule is posted on the TTN's policy and guidance
page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg.
 The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various

areas of air pollution control.

List of Subjects for 40 CFR Part 60

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, New source
performance standards, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: November 30, 2007.
Jennifer E.N. Edmonds,
Acting Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
[FR Doc. E7-23824 Filed 12-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P