[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 91 (Friday, May 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22183-22186]
[FR Doc No: 2017-09650]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0138; Notice 1]

Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Receipt of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (JLR)on behalf of Jaguar
Land Rover Limited, has determined that certain model year (MY) 2016-
2017 Land Rover Range Rover and Range Rover Sport motor vehicles do not
fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
208, Occupant Crash Protection, and FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt
Assemblies. JLR filed a noncompliance report dated December 2, 2016.
JLR also petitioned NHTSA on December 23, 2016, for a decision that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle
safety.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is June 12, 2017.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC (JLR), has
determined that certain model year (MY) 2016-2017 Land Rover Range
Rover and Range Rover Sport motor vehicles do not fully comply with
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, Occupant Crash
Protection, and FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. JLR filed a
noncompliance report dated December 2, 2016, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. JLR also
petitioned NHTSA on December 23, 2016, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d)
and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, for an exemption from the
notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the
basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor
vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of JLR's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Vehicles Involved: Approximately 16,502 MY 2016-2017 Land Rover
Range Rover and MY 2016-2017 Land Rover Range Rover Sport motor
vehicles, manufactured between May 3, 2016, and October 14, 2016, are
potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: JLR explains that the noncompliance involves
the Emergency Locking Retractor (ELR) in the safety belt assembly of
the vehicle's front left seat. These ELR's are equipped with a vehicle-
sensitive locking mechanism and a webbing-sensitive locking mechanism.
The noncompliance specifically involves the vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism, which does not lock as designed when subjected to the
requirements of paragraph
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.3 of FMVSS No. 209 states in pertinent
part:

    S4.3 Requirements for hardware . . .
    (j) Emergency-locking retractor . . .
    (2) For seat belt assemblies manufactured on or after February
22, 2007 and for manufacturers opting for early compliance. An
emergency-locking retractor of a Type 1 or Type 2 seat belt
assembly, when tested in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph S5.2(j)(2) . . .
    (ii) Shall lock before the webbing payout exceeds the maximum
limit of 25 mm when the retractor is subjected to an acceleration of
0.7 g under the applicable test conditions of S5.2(j)(2)(iii)(A) or
(B). The retractor is determined to be locked when the webbing belt
load tension is at least 35 N.

    Paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> of FMVSS No. 208 states in pertinent part:

    S<IP_ADDRESS> A Type 1 lap belt or the lap belt portion of any Type 2
seat belt assembly installed at any forward-facing outboard
designated seating position of a vehicle with a gross vehicle weight
rating of 10,000 pounds or less to comply with a requirement of this
standard, except walk-in van-type vehicles and school buses, and
except in rear seating positions in law enforcement vehicles, shall
meet the requirements of S7.1 by means of an emergency locking
retractor that conforms to stand No. 209 (49 CFR 571.209) . . .
    V. Summary of JLR's Petition: JLR described the subject
noncompliance and stated its belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, JLR submitted the following reasoning:
    (a) ELR Is Voluntarily Equipped with a Webbing Sensitive Locking
Mechanism: The driver's ELR safety belt assembly also contains a
voluntary webbing-sensitive locking mechanism which provides crash
restraint performance comparable to the performance provided by an
FMVSS No. 209 compliant vehicle sensitive mechanism. A description of
the tests that were performed and the results that were obtained which
support this petition are contained in the petition.
    The webbing sensitive locking mechanism is designed to lock at
approximately 1.4-2.0g. The webbing-sensitive locking mechanism was
designed to meet the requirements of other non-U.S. markets.
    (b) Testing and Analyses: Tests and analyses were conducted to
determine the effect of a non-compliant vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism ELR on safety belt restraint (retractor locking) performance
and any commensurate increase in injury risk in a crash.
    Even though the ELRs in affected vehicles contain a vehicle-
sensitive locking mechanism which slightly exceeds the FMVSS No. 209
Section 4.3(j)(2)(ii) requirement, for purposes of evaluation, and to
demonstrate a ``worst-case scenario'', testing was conducted without
reliance on vehicle-sensitive ELR operation.
    1. Sled (Crash) Tests To Assess Safety Belt Restraint (Retractor
Locking) Performance: Sled (crash) tests were conducted with an ELR
containing an FMVSS No. 209 compliant vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism and an ELR in which the vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism
was disabled to simulate a ``worst-case scenario'', but contained a
webbing-sensitive locking mechanism.
    The belt geometry is representative of the Land Rover Range Rover
and Range Rover Sport Installation.
    The testing focused upon low severity crashes, because as NHTSA had
discussed in their ruling on the GM petition,\1\ ``. . . a webbing-
sensitive ELR mechanism will lock up more quickly in a severe frontal
crash than in a low-to-moderate severity frontal crash.'' A low-
severity crash represents a ``worst-case scenario'' for an ELR equipped
with a non-compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism. In addition,
the testing was conducted using a Hybrid III 5th% dummy in order to
provide a slow increase in belt loads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 69 FR 1987@1900.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three acceleration pulses with a low increase in deceleration and a
low deceleration level were selected from all pulses pertaining to the
affected vehicles. The selected pulses have an impact velocity of 15
km/h, and 40 km/h respectively. The 15 km/h and 32 km/h pulses
represent a full frontal crash, while the 40 km/h pulse represents an
Offset Deformable Barrier (ODB) crash. The 15 km/h pulse is a ``no
fire'' pulse to simulate a crash without safety belt pre-tensioning.
    A total of six tests were conducted, with two tests being conducted
at each pulse level. Webbing payout and dummy chest forward
displacement were measured.
    The results indicate that there is no significant difference in
restraint performance (webbing payout, dummy chest forward
displacement) between an ELR equipped with an FMVSS No. 209 compliant
vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism and one that is not equipped with
such a mechanism. The webbing-sensitive locking mechanism within the
ELR provides comparable performance to that of an FMVSS No. 209
compliant ELR containing a vehicle sensitive locking mechanism.
    Therefore, in a crash, the webbing-sensitive locking mechanism
provides equivalent protection for the driver to that which would be
provided by an FMVSS No. 209-compliant vehicle sensitive locking
mechanism. It should be emphasized that the vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism contained in the ELR of the affected vehicles slightly
exceeds the FMVSS No. 209 Section 4.3(j)(2)(ii) requirement, whereas
testing was conducted with a disabled vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism to simulate a ``worst-case scenario''.
    It should also be noted that any performance differences, such as a
slight decrease in dummy chest forward displacement from an ELR without
a vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism, are within the normal test to
test variation and are attributed to test tolerances.
    2. Body-In White (BIW) Sled (Crash) Tests To Assess Injury Risk:
Body-In-White (BIW) sled (crash) tests were conducted with an ELR
containing an FMVSS No. 209 Section 4.3(i)2(ii)-compliant vehicle-
sensitive locking mechanism. Further testing was conducted without
reliance on vehicle-sensitive ELR operation for comparative performance
purposes (to simulate a ``worst-case scenario''), but contained a
webbing-sensitive locking mechanism.
    Tests were conducted with a Hybrid III 50th% dummy and a 56 km/h
pulse representing a full-frontal FMVSS No. 208 requirement. The pulse
was selected from an actual pulse of one of the affected vehicles.
    3. Sled (BIW Crash) Test Pulse (L405--Range Rover): The dummy was
positioned to simulate pre-crash braking for both test conditions,
i.e., the test using the compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism
ELR, and the test using the non-compliant vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism ELR. Pre-crash braking positioning was included to simulate
critical real-world crash conditions, as pre-crash braking occurs in a
significant percentage of crashes. Pre-crash braking would position the
dummy (in both tests) closer to the steering wheel prior to impact.
Additionally, pre-crash braking would assess any effect of additional
forward movement resulting from an ELR in which the vehicle-sensitive
locking mechanism was disabled (to simulate a ``worst-case scenario'').
    For the test with the FMVSS No. 209-compliant vehicle-sensitive
ELR, the dummy's H-point was 40mm more forward, and the dummy's Chest
CG was 70mm more forward, than it otherwise would be in a test which
did not simulate pre-crash braking. For the test with the FMVSS No. 209
non-compliant vehicle-sensitive ELR, the dummy's H-point was 60mm more
forward, and the dummy's Chest CG was 90mm more forward than it
otherwise would be in a test which did not simulate pre-crash braking.
Therefore, for the dummy in which the non-compliant vehicle-sensitive
ELR was utilized, it was positioned approximately 20mm more forward as
compared to the dummy in the test in which the compliant vehicle-
sensitive ELR was utilized.
    The value of 20mm was obtained from conducting simulations
representing pre-crash braking involving a deceleration over 1.5s
peaking at approximately 1.0g for 1.0sec duration. Simulations were
conducted because

the Hybrid III dummy does not have adequate biofidelity in low-severity
acceleration conditions such as pre-crash braking. The simulations
utilized the Active THUMS model which has been well-correlated to
actual driving/braking tests involving human volunteers. The additional
forward movement of 20mm for the dummy in which the non-functioning
vehicle-sensitive ELR was utilized was consistent across all dummy body
regions (i.e., head, chest, and pelvis).
    The restraint system was equipped with a dual-stage driver airbag
and safety belt pre-tensioners.
    The results indicated that while there were only minor differences
in recorded values between the two tests, the calculated injury values
were well within the Injury Assessment Reference Values IARVs for each
test outcome for both an ELR equipped with an FMVSS No. 209-compliant
vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism and an ELR equipped with a non-
compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism.
    (c) Rollover Tests To Assess Safety Belt Restraint (Retractor
Locking) Performance:
    1. Quasi-static Rollover Tests--FMVSS No. 209 Paragraph
4.3(j)(2)(i)(D) requires that the retractor lock at an angular rotation
greater than 45-degrees. When tested, JLR has evidence of a part which
did not perform to this standard.
    Rollover tests were conducted with an ELR containing an FMVSS No.
209-compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism and an ELR in which
the vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism was disabled (to simulate a
``worst-case scenario'').
    To simulate a rollover condition, quasi-static testing was
conducted with an FMVSS No. 301 test device with a World-SID dummy
being placed in the driver's seat of the vehicle mounted on the test
device. Testing was conducted with an angular rotation range of 50 degrees around the vehicle's longitudinal axis according to
SAE 760. An angular range of 50 degrees was used based on
analysis of the affected vehicles during different vehicle level roll-
over events and two key observations: (1) The time at which the seat
belt retractors were subject to >1g lateral acceleration (an
acceleration at which the affected ELRs had typically locked via the CS
sensor, particularly with additional tilt angle applied) and, (2) the
timing of the triggering of belt pretensioners in such a roll-over
event, leading to locking of the seat belt ELR via the WS sensor
(assuming the CS sensor had not locked earlier in the event). Test
video of the D-loop (upper attachment point) and any dummy head
movement was recorded.
    For the tests in which the vehicle was rotated to the right,
approximately 5mm additional webbing pay-out at the upper seat belt
anchorage was observed between the vehicle-sensitive compliant and non-
compliant ELRs up to a roll angle of 50 degrees. A difference in dummy
head movement of approximately 10mm (in the lateral (y-direction)) was
observed for the tests conducted with the vehicle-sensitive non-
compliant ELR.
    For the tests in which the vehicle was rotated to the left, the
video did not depict any difference in dummy head movement between the
vehicle-sensitive compliant and non-compliant ELRs. Also, no belt
payout was visible at the D-loop.
    2. Dynamic Rollover Tests: In addition to the quasi-static rollover
tests, available data from actual dynamic rollover tests of the
affected vehicles was analyzed to understand the dynamics in such
scenarios and the effect of the vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism in
the ELR.
    The dynamic rollover tests were based upon real-world rollover
conditions. An initial acceleration must occur to induce a rollover and
tests were selected based on the minimum dynamic scenarios that would
result in rollover. The lateral deceleration of the seat belt
retractors in the rollover events was analyzed to determine the
expected ELR vehicle-sensitive sensor locking time based on the
evidence that a non-compliant ELR would lock by a lateral acceleration
of approximately 1.0g and that the tilt lock function would lock at
<0.7g with an additional tilt lock angle of 18 degrees. As the rollover
sensing system fitted to the affected vehicles is configured to trigger
the seat belt retractor pretensioners, the rollover sensor trigger
times were also established for the rollover scenarios analyzed to
determine the point at which the seat belt retractor pretensioner would
activate and thereby achieve ELR belt locking.
    From tests conducted with vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism non-
compliant ELRs, the locking mechanism locks at approximately 1.0g of
lateral acceleration. Additional testing on the same non-compliant ELRs
has confirmed that the vehicle-sensitive locking of such an ELR would
lock below an applied acceleration of 0.7g in all directions when
tilted to an angle of up to 18[deg] around the vehicle's longitudinal
axis. Therefore, the results of the dynamic rollover tests indicate
that the impact-inducing rollovers result in lateral decelerations in
which the ELR will lock before a rotation of 18 degrees is reached.
Further analysis of rollover sensor trigger times has demonstrated that
the pretensioners would trigger before a rollover angle of 45 degrees.
    This analysis confirms that locking will occur before a rotation
angle of 45 degrees is reached, as required by FMVSS 209.
    3. Cork-Screw Rollover Simulation Analysis: For the ``cork-screw''
rollover event additional analysis of the occupant kinematics was made
to establish whether a non-compliant vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism of the ELR would have affected any forward motion of an
occupant prior to ELR lock as previously determined.
    An LS-Dyna computer simulation was made to replicate the ``cork-
screw'' rollover event previously analyzed such that the occupant
positioning could be determined without the influence of a locking seat
belt ELR. To simulate a ``worst case scenario'' locking of the seat
belt ELR was completely removed from the CAE model. The analysis was
made on the ``far side'' occupant (i.e. the occupant sat on the
opposite side of the vehicle from that which impacts the test ramp) as
any lateral motion of this occupant is assumed to be inboard, away from
the seat belt upper anchorage. The model was set up with a normally
extracting/retracting seat belt to measure any webbing pay-out due to
dummy kinematics prior to seat belt ELR lock.
    Like the physical test, the simulation showed a small level of
initial occupant forward head motion on initial vehicle-to-ramp contact
and the occupant returned to a normal seating position prior to the
vehicle leaving the ramp or the seat belt ELR locking during this
dynamic event as previously determined. No webbing payout of the seat
belt was observed in the simulation, leading to the conclusion that a
seat belt with non-compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism would
not affect the occupant kinematics in such a rollover scenario.
    (d) Summary of Test Results: The FMVSS 209 Section 4.3(j)(2)(i) &
(ii) non-compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism within the ELRs
of affected vehicles shows no significant performance difference when
compared to a compliant vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism. This
finding is obtained from conducting a number of laboratory tests
representing FMVSS 209 and 208 requirements, as well as other real-
world crash conditions. The tests represent a variety of conditions
such as crashes with, and without, pre-crash braking, and also other
conditions, such as rollovers.

    Notably, although all tests were conducted without reliance on a
functioning ELR vehicle sensitive locking mechanism, affected vehicles
do contain a functionally operable vehicle-sensitive locking mechanism
which may slightly exceed the FMVSS 209 Paragraph 4.3(j)(2)(i) & (ii)
requirements. Therefore, as installed in vehicles, the seat belt would
likely perform better than the non-functioning units utilized for
testing and analysis that form the basis for this petition.
    (e) Owner Contacts to Jaguar Land Rover Customer Relations: Jaguar
Land Rover Customer Relations has not received any contacts from
vehicle owners regarding this issue.
    (f) Accidents/Injuries: Jaguar Land Rover is not aware of any
accidents or injuries that have occurred as a result of this issue.
    (g) Prior NHTSA Rulings re Manufacturer Petitions: NHTSA has
previously granted a petition from General Motors (GM) on a very
similar issue. [69 FR 19897, Docket No. NHTSA-2002-12366, Apr 14,
2004]. GM provided test results and analyses indicating that while
there existed a non-functional vehicle sensitive locking mechanism
within the safety belt assembly ELR, the webbing sensitive locking
mechanism provided comparable restraint performance to that of a fully
functional vehicle sensitive locking mechanism.
    In Jaguar Land Rover's case, the vehicle-sensitive locking
mechanism is functional, but may slightly exceed the FMVSS 209 Sections
4.3(j)(2)(i) & (ii) requirements, and, also contains a webbing
sensitive locking mechanism which provides comparable performance to
that of a vehicle sensitive mechanism.
    (h) Vehicle Production: Vehicle production has been corrected to
fully conform to FMVSS 209 Sections 4.3(j)(2)(i) & (ii).
    JLR concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    To view JLR's petition, test data and analyses in its entirety you
can visit https://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets and by using the docket ID
number for this petition shown in the heading of this notice.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that JLR no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant vehicles under their control after JLR
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017-09650 Filed 5-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 164 (Tuesday, August 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51577-51579]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21013]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0042]

Navigation Safety Advisory Council

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Federal Advisory Committee Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Navigation Safety Advisory Council will meet in Arlington,
Virginia to discuss matters relating to maritime collisions, rammings,
and groundings, Inland Rules of the Road, International Rules of the
Road, navigation regulations and equipment, routing measures, marine
information, diving safety, and aids to navigation systems. These
meetings will be open to the public.

DATES: The Navigation Safety Advisory Council will meet on Wednesday,
September 9, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and on Thursday, September
10, 2015, from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Please note these meetings may close
early if the Council has completed its business.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn Arlington at
Ballston, 4610 Fairfax Drive, Arlington VA 22203. https://www.holidayinn.com/hotels/us/en/arlington/wasfx/hoteldetail/directions.
    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the meeting, contact
Mr. Burt Lahn listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section
below as soon as possible.
    To facilitate public participation, we are inviting public comment
on the

issues to be considered by the Council as listed in the ``Agenda''
section below. Any written material submitted by the public will be
distributed to the Council and become part of the public record.
Written comments must be submitted no later than September 2, 2015 if
you want Council members to be able to review your comments before the
meeting. Comments must be identified by the docket number, USCG-2015-
0042 and submitted using one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments (preferred method to
avoid delays in processing).
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Department of Homeland Security'' and the docket number for this
action, USCG 2015-0042. Comments received will be posted without
alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided. You may review a Privacy Act notice regarding our
public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the Federal Register
(73 FR 3316).
    Docket: For access to the docket to read documents or comments
related to this notice, go to http://www.regulations.gov insert USCG-
2015-0042 in the Search box, press Enter, and then click on the item
you wish to view.
    A public comment period will be held during the meeting on
September 9, 2015, from 5 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and on September 10, 2015,
prior to the close of the meeting. Public presentations may also be
given. Speakers are requested to limit their presentation and comments
to 10 minutes. Please note that the public comment period may end
before the time indicated, following the last call for comments. To
register as a speaker, contact Mr. Burt Lahn listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about these
meetings, please contact Mr. George Detweiler, the Navigation Safety
Advisory Council Alternate Designated Federal Officer, Commandant (CG-
NAV-2), U.S. Coast Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Stop
7418, Washington, DC 20593, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Mr. Burt Lahn, Navigation Safety
Advisory Council meeting coordinator, at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, and Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or 1-800-647-
5527.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, Title 5 United States Code, Appendix.
    The Navigation Safety Advisory Council is an advisory committee
authorized in 33 United States Code 2073 and chartered under the
provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Navigation Safety
Advisory Council provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary,
through the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, on matters relating to
prevention of maritime collisions, rammings, and groundings, Inland and
International Rules of the Road, navigation regulations and equipment,
routing measures, marine information, diving safety, and aids to
navigation systems.
    A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at https://homeport.uscg.mil/mycg/portal/ep/channelView.do?channelId=-18422&channelPage=%2Fep%2Fchannel%2Fdefault.jsp&pageTypeId=13489&BV_SessionID=@@@@1079277902.1438955092@@@@&BV_EngineID=ccceadgglkmjhddcfngcfkmdfhfdfgl.0 by September 2, 2015. Alternatively, you may contact Mr. Burt
Lahn as noted in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

Agenda

    The Navigation Safety Advisory Council will meet to review, discuss
and formulate recommendations on the following topics.

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

    (1) Electronic Chart Systems. The Coast Guard has received periodic
inquiries from the U.S. marine industry about the use of electronic
charts on non-SOLAS commercial vessels. Navigation Safety Advisory
Council will be asked to provide views on the use of electronic charts
and associated equipment on domestic commercial vessels;
    (2) Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study. The Atlantic Coast Port
Access Route Study was initiated to study the navigational users and
industrial development off the Atlantic Coast. The Coast Guard will
provide an update on the results of this ongoing effort including
Marine Planning Guidelines developed in conjunction with the Atlantic
Coast Port Access Route Study;
    (3) The Coast Guard's Future of Navigation initiative leverages
technology in order to optimize the mix of electronic and visual aids
to navigation. The Coast Guard will provide information on this
project. This will include a presentation on the Seacoast Waterways
Analysis and Management Study; and
    (4) Vessel Traffic Services. The Coast Guard will provide an update
of the Vessel Traffic Service program and information concerning the
National Transportation Safety Board Vessel Traffic Services Safety
Study.
    Following the above presentations, the Designated Federal Officer
will form a subcommittee to continue discussions on the task statement:
Navigation Safety Advisory Council Task 15-01--Unmanned Maritime
Systems Best Practices.
    The Designated Federal Officer will form subcommittees to discuss
and provide recommendations on the following new task statements as
appropriate:
    (1) Navigation Safety Advisory Council Task 15-03--Marine Planning
Guidelines. The Council will be asked to review the Marine Planning
Guidelines and provide comments and recommendations; and
    (2) Navigation Safety Advisory Council Task 15-04--Discontinuance
of an Aid to Navigation. The Coast Guard will review its existing
discontinuance of an aid to navigation process and present its new
draft process for review and comment by the Council.
    (3) Navigation Safety Advisory Council Task 15-05--Electronic Chart
Systems. The Council will be asked to review the Electronic Chart
Systems carriage requirements and a draft Coast Guard policy concerning
their use of ECS in lieu of paper charts.
    Public comments or questions will be taken during the meeting as
the Council discusses each issue and prior to the Council formulating
recommendations on each issue. There will also be a public comment
period at the end of the meeting.

Thursday, September 10, 2015

    (1) Subcommittee discussions continued from Wednesday, September 9,
2015;
    (2) Subcommittee reports presented to the Council;
    (3) New Business;

    a. Summary of Navigation Safety Advisory Council action items.
    b. Schedule next meeting date--Spring, 2016.
    c. Council discussions and acceptance of new tasks.
    A public comment period will be held after the discussion of new
tasks. Speakers' comments are limited to 10 minutes each. Public
comments or questions will be taken at the discretion of the Designated
Federal Officer during the discussion and recommendations, and new
business portion of the meeting.

    Dated: August 20, 2015.
G.C. Rasicot,
Director, Marine Transportation Systems, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2015-21013 Filed 8-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: January 22, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 14)]
[Notices]
[Page 3772-3773]
[DOCID:fr22ja10-94]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61359; File No. SR-FINRA-2009-082]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Order Approving a Proposed Rule Change Relating To
Reporting of Trade Cancellations to FINRA

January 14, 2010.
    On November 24, 2009, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority,
Inc. (``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to: (1) Amend FINRA trade reporting rules to
permit members to report trade cancellations after 5:15 p.m. Eastern
Time on the trade date to the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility
(``FINRA/Nasdaq TRF'') and the OTC Reporting Facility (``ORF''); \3\
and (2) make certain conforming changes to the rules relating to the
submission of trade cancellations to the Alternative Display Facility
(``ADF'').\4\ Notice of the proposed rule change was published for
comment in the Federal Register on December 10, 2009.\5\ The Commission
received no comments on the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ This change will allow members to submit reports of trade
cancellations on the trade date until the close of the facilities at
8 p.m. Previously, FINRA rules prohibited members from reporting
trade cancellations after 5:15 p.m. on the trade date for these two
reporting facilities.
    \4\ Among other changes, the proposed amendments to Rule
6282(j)(2) provide that if a normal market hours trade is cancelled
during market hours on trade date, the cancellation must be reported
within 90 seconds.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61105 (December 3,
2009), 74 FR 65578.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
association.\6\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 15A(b)(6) of
the Act,\7\ which requires, among other things, that FINRA's rules be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in

general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments are identical to the current rules relating
to the FINRA/NYSE Trade Reporting Facility (``FINRA/NYSE TRF'') and
would make FINRA rules governing the submission of trade cancellations
consistent across the ``FINRA Facilities.'' \8\ The Commission believes
such consistency should enhance market transparency and eliminate
systematically imposed delays in the reporting of trade cancellations
to the FINRA/Nasdaq TRF and ORF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The ADF, FINRA/Nasdaq TRF, FINRA/NYSE TRF and ORF are
collectively referred to herein as the ``FINRA Facilities.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (SR-FINRA-2009-082), be and hereby is
approved.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-1143 Filed 1-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: November 13, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 218)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 66116-66119]
[DOCID:fr13no06-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[EPA-R06-RCRA-2006-0914; FRL-8241-3]

Louisiana: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste
Management Program Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Immediate final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Louisiana has applied to the EPA for final authorization of
the changes to its hazardous waste program under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA has determined that these
changes satisfy all requirements needed to qualify for final
authorization, and is authorizing the State's changes through this
immediate final action. The EPA is publishing this rule to authorize
the changes without a prior proposal because we believe this action is
not controversial and do not expect comments that oppose it. Unless we
receive written comments which oppose this authorization during the
comment period, the decision to authorize Louisiana's changes to its
hazardous waste program will take effect. If we receive comments that
oppose this action, we will publish a document in the Federal Register
withdrawing this rule before it takes effect, and a separate document
in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register will serve as a
proposal to authorize the changes.

DATES: This final authorization will become effective on January 12,
2007 unless the EPA receives adverse written comment by December 13,
2006. If the EPA receives such comment, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of this immediate final rule in the Federal Register and
inform the public that this authorization will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow

the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail: Alima Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization
Coordinator, State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD-O), Multimedia
Planning and Permitting Division, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    4. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to Alima
Patterson, Region 6, Regional Authorization Coordinator, State/Tribal
Oversight Section (6PD-O), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division,
EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Instructions: Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected through regulations.gov, or e-mail. The Federal
regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means
the 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 the EPA without going through 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, the 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. You can view and
copy Louisiana's application and associated publicly available
materials from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday at the
following locations: Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, 602
N. Fifth Street, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884-2178, phone number (225)
219-3559 and EPA, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733,
phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>. Interested persons wanting to examine
these documents should make an appointment with the office at least two
weeks in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alima Patterson, Region 6 Regional
Authorization Coordinator, State/Tribal Oversight Section (6PD-O),
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>), EPA
Region, 1145 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, and E-mail address
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why Are Revisions to State Programs Necessary?

    States which have received final authorization from the EPA under
RCRA section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must maintain a hazardous
waste program that is equivalent to, consistent with, and no less
stringent than the Federal program. As the Federal program changes,
States must change their programs and ask the EPA to authorize the
changes. Changes to State programs may be necessary when Federal or
State statutory or regulatory authority is modified or when certain
other changes occur. Most commonly, States must change their programs
because of changes to the EPA's regulations in 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, 273, and 279.

B. What Decisions Have We Made in This Rule?

    We conclude that Louisiana's application to revise its authorized
program meets all of the statutory and regulatory requirements
established by RCRA. Therefore, we grant Louisiana final authorization
to operate its hazardous waste program with the changes described in
the authorization application. Louisiana has responsibility for
permitting treatment, storage, and disposal facilities within its
borders (except in Indian Country) and for carrying out the aspects of
the RCRA program described in its revised program application, subject
to the limitations of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA). New Federal requirements and prohibitions imposed by Federal
regulations that the EPA promulgates under the authority of HSWA take
effect in authorized States before they are authorized for the
requirements. Thus, the EPA will implement those requirements and
prohibitions in Louisiana including issuing permits, until the State is
granted authorization to do so.

C. What Is the Effect of Today's Authorization Decision?

    The effect of this decision is that a facility in Louisiana subject
to RCRA will now have to comply with the authorized State requirements
instead of the equivalent Federal requirements in order to comply with
RCRA. Louisiana has enforcement responsibilities under its State
hazardous waste program for violations of such program, but the EPA
retains its authority under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and 7003,
which include, among others, authority to:
     Do inspections, and require monitoring, tests, analyses,
or reports;
     Enforce RCRA requirements and suspend or revoke permits
and
     Take enforcement actions regardless of whether the State
has taken its own actions.
    This action does not impose additional requirements on the
regulated community because the regulations for which Louisiana is
being authorized by today's action are already effective under State
law, and are not changed by today's action.

D. Why Wasn't There a Proposed Rule Before Today's Rule?

    The EPA did not publish a proposal before today's rule because we
view this as a routine program change and do not expect comments that
oppose this approval. We are providing an opportunity for public
comment now. In addition to this rule, in the proposed rules section of
today's Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that
proposes to authorize the State program changes.

E. What Happens If the EPA Receives Comments That Oppose This Action?

    If the EPA receives comments that oppose this authorization, we
will withdraw this rule by publishing a document in the Federal
Register before the rule becomes effective. The EPA will base any
further decision on the authorization of the State program changes on
the proposal mentioned in the previous paragraph. We will then address
all public comments in a later final rule. You may not have another
opportunity to comment. If you want to comment on this authorization,
you must do so at this time. If we receive comments that oppose only
the authorization of a particular change to the State hazardous waste
program, we will withdraw only that part of this rule, but the
authorization of the program changes that the comments do not oppose
will become effective on the date specified above. The Federal Register
withdrawal document will specify which part of the authorization will
become effective, and which part is being withdrawn.

F. For What Has Louisiana Previously Been Authorized?

    The State of Louisiana initially received final authorization on
February 7, 1985, (50 FR 3348), to implement its base Hazardous Waste
Management Program. We granted authorization for changes to their
program on November 28, 1989 (54 FR 48889) effective January 29, 1990;
August 26, 1991 (56 FR 41958) effective August 26, 1991; November 7,
1994 (59 FR 55368) effective January 23, 1995; December 23, 1994 (59 FR
66200) effective March 8, 1995; there were technical corrections made
on January 23, 1995 (60 FR 4380), effective January 23, 1995; and
another technical correction was made on April 11, 1995 (60 FR 18360)
effective April 11, 1995; October 17, 1995 (60 FR 53704) effective
January 2, 1996; March 28, 1996 (61 FR 13777) effective June 11, 1996;
December 29, 1997 (62 FR 67572) effective March 16, 1998; October 23,
1998 (63 FR 56830) effective December 22, 1998; August 25, 1999 (64 FR
46302) effective October 25, 1999; September 2, 1999 (64 FR 48099)
effective November 1, 1999; February 28, 2000 (65 FR 10411) effective
April 28, 2000; January 2, 2001 (66 FR 23) effective March 5, 2001;
December 9, 2003 (68 FR 68526) effective February 9, 2004 and June 10,
2005 (70 FR 33852) effective August 9, 2005. On February 3, 2006,
Louisiana applied for approval of its program revisions for RCRA
Cluster XIV. In this application, Louisiana is seeking approval of RCRA
Cluster XIV in accordance with 40 CFR 271.21(b)(3).
    Since 1979, through the Environmental Affairs Act, Act 449 enabling
the Office of Environmental Affairs within the Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources, as well as, the Environmental Control Commission
conducted an effective program designed to regulate those who generate,
transport, treat, store, dispose or recycle hazardous waste. During the
1983 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature, Act 97 was adopted,
which amended and reenacted La. R. S. 30:1051 et seq. as the
Environmental Quality Act, renaming the Environmental Quality (LDEQ),
including provisions for new offices within this new Department of
Environmental Quality. Act 97 also transferred the duties and
responsibilities previously delegated to the Department of Natural
Resources, Office of Environmental Affairs, to the new Department. The
LDEQ has lead agency jurisdictional authority for administering the
Resource Recovery and Conservation Act (RCRA) Subtitle C program in
Louisiana. Also, the LDEQ is designated to facilitate communication
between the EPA and the State. During the 1999 Regular Session of
Louisiana Legislature, Act 303 revised the La. R. S. 30:2011 et. seq.
allowing LDEQ to reengineer the Department to perform more efficiently
and to meet its strategic goals.
    It is the intention of the State, through this application, to
demonstrate its equivalence and consistency with the Federal statutory
tests, which are outlined in the United States Environmental Protection
Agency regulatory requirements under 40 CFR part 271, Subpart A, for
final authorization. The submittal of this application is in keeping
with the spirit and intent of RCRA, which provides equivalent States
the opportunity to apply for final authorization to operate all aspects
of their hazardous waste management programs in lieu of the Federal
government. The Louisiana Environmental Quality Act authorizes the
State's program, Subtitle II of Title 30 of the Louisiana Revised
Statutes. The State program is equivalent to the Federal program as
outlined in the revision Checklist 203 and 205. The State has
determined it will not promulgate the Performance Track Program (PTP).
The State has its own environmental leadership program that

parallels the Federal PTP. The State is also requesting concurrence of
other state-initiated rules that may be more stringent than the RCRA
rules or indirectly affect the State hazardous waste program.

State Initiated Changes

    The State has made amendments to the provisions listed in the table
which follows. These amendments clarify the State's regulations and
make the State's regulations more internally consistent. The State's
laws and regulations, as amended by these provisions, provide authority
which remains equivalent to and no less stringent than the Federal laws
and regulations. These State initiated changes are submitted under the
requirements of 40 CFR 271.21(a).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            State citation                        Federal citation                  Rule (effective date)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAC 33:v.105..........................  261.22.............................  November 20, 2004.
LAC 33:I. 4501, 4503, 4701-4707, 4711,  No Analog..........................  July 20, 2005.
 4717, 4719, 4901, 5103, 5301, 5303,
 5311, 5315, 5701, 5901-5915.
LAC 33:I.2501-2505....................  No Analog..........................  August 20, 2005.
LAC 33:I.4501 and 4719................  No Analog..........................  March 20, 2003.
LAC 33:I.101, 103, 105, 107, 109......  No Analog..........................  October 20, 2003.
LAC 33:I.2303-2309....................  No Analog..........................  May 20, 2003.
LAC 33:I Chapter 5....................  No Analog..........................  April 20, 2004.
LAC 33:I.705..........................  No Analog..........................  March 20, 2004.
LAC 33:33:I. 3903, 3915, 3917, 3919,    No Analog..........................  August 20, 2004.
 3923, 3931, 6919, 6923; III.1105,
 1513, 2103, 2115, 2303, 2307, 2719,
 5107, 5151; V.1109, 1913, 2271, 2805,
 2909, 4101, 4107, 4211, 4241, 5309,
 VI.201; VII.315, 711, 713, 715; IX.,
 503, 2701; XI707, 713, 715; XV.341,
 485, 486, 492, 712, and 2051.
LAC 33:I.1901, 1903, 1907, 1909, 1911;  No Analog..........................  October 20, 2005.
 III.505, 517, 521; V.321, 4303;
 VII.517, IX.2701, 2901, 2903 and 2905.
LAC 33:III, 2799, 2805; XI.1305; and    No Analog..........................  December 20, 2004
 XV.487, 712 and 1013.
LAC 33:I.601, 603, 605, 607, and 609..  No Analog..........................  June 20, 2005.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. What Changes Are We Authorizing With Today's Action?

    On February 3, 2006, Louisiana submitted a final complete program
revision application, seeking authorization of their changes in
accordance with 40 CFR 271.21. We now make an immediate final decision,
subject to receipt of written comments that oppose this action, that
Louisiana's hazardous waste program revision satisfies all of the
requirements necessary to qualify for Final authorization. Therefore,
we grant the State of Louisiana Final authorization for the following
changes: The State of Louisiana's program revisions consist of
regulations which specifically govern RCRA Cluster XIV as documented
below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Description of Federal requirement      Federal Register date and
    (include checklist , if      page (and/or RCRA statutory          Analogous State authority
                relevant)                          authority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Recycled Used Oil Management           68 FR 44659-44665, July 30,  Louisiana Revised Statutes (LRS) 30:
 Standards; Clarification. (Checklist      2003.                        Section 2001 et seq., with specific
 203).                                                                  cites of 2174, 2175, and 2180 effective
                                                                        December 31, 2004; Supplement effective
                                                                        January through March 2005; Louisiana
                                                                        Hazardous Waste Regulations (LHWR)
                                                                        Sections 108.J, 4003 intro, 4003.I,
                                                                        effective October 20, 2005; 4085.B,
                                                                        4085.B, and 4085.B.1-4, effective
                                                                        December 31, 2004; Supplement effective
                                                                        January through March 2005.
2. NESHAP: Surface Coating of             69 FR 22601-22662, April     LRS: 30: 2001 et seq. with specific cites
 Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks.        26, 2004.                    of 2174, 2180, effective December 31,
 (Checklist 205).                                                       2004; Supplement effective January
                                                                        through March 2005; LHWR Sections
                                                                        1717.F, 1717.G, 4561 and 4561.F,
                                                                        effective October 20, 2005.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Where Are the Revised State Rules Different From the Federal Rules?

    The State's hazardous regulations for Checklists 203 and 205 are
consistent, equivalent and no less stringent than the Federal
regulations. The provisions that are more stringent are (1) Petitions
to Exclude a Waste Produced at a Particular Facility: Hazardous Waste
Delisting General Provisions: LAC 33:v.105 LAC 33:I.4501, 4503, 4701-
4707, 4711, 4717, 4719, 4901, 5103, 5301 November 20, 2004. Petitioners
will be required to use an independent laboratory and an independent
data validator; (2) Facility Name and Ownership/Operator changes: LAC
33:I.1901, 1903, 1907, 1909, 1911; III.505, 517, 521; V.321,4303;
VII.517, IX.2701, 2901, 2903 and 2905, October 20, 2005, adds more
requirements by providing a unified procedure for all media that will
result in cleaner notification procedures for the regulated community;
(3) Penalty Determination Methodology: LAC 33:I.705, March 20, 2004
added standardized requirements to how LDEQ calculates penalties
regarding facilities with environmental violations; and (4) LAC 33:I.
Chapter 5: Confidential Information and Records adds more
clarifications to procedures for submission of information and records
that met the criteria for confidentiality under LAC 30:2030 Louisiana
Public Records Act. However, the following provisions of the State's
initiated changes are broader in scope: (1) LAC 33:III, 2799, 2805;
XI.1305; and XV.487, 712 and 1013, regarding Social Security numbers,
(2) and, LAC 33:I.601, 603, 605, 607, and 609 relating to Security-
Sensitive information, (3) LAC 33:I.4501, 4503, 4701-4707, 4711, 4717,
4719, 4901, 5103, 5301, 5303, 5311, 5315, 5701, 5901-5915: Laboratory
Accreditation, (4) LAC 33:I2501-2505: Beneficial Environmental Project,
(5) LAC 33:I.4501 and 4719: Commercial Laboratories Pending
Accreditation, (6) LAC 33:I.101, 103, 105, 107 and 109: Public
Notification of Contamination, (7) LAC 33:33:I. 3903, 3915, 3917, 3919,

3923, 3931, 6919, 6923; III.1105, 1513, 2103, 2115, 2303, 2307, 2719,
5107, 5151; V.1109, 1913, 2271, 2805, 2909, 4101, 4107, 4211, 4241,
5309, VI.201; VII.315, 711, 713, 715; IX.503, 2701; XI.707, 713, 715;
XV.341, 485, 486, 492, 712, and 2051, (8) LAC 33:I.601, 603, 605, 607
and 609: Security-Sensitive Information, and (9) LAC 33:III.2799, 2805;
XI.1305; XV.487, 712 and 1013: Social Security Number Confidentiality
are considered to be broader in scope. Therefore, EPA cannot enforce
broader in scope provisions and they are not part of the authorized
regulations in this document.

I. Who Handles Permits After the Authorization Takes Effect?

    Louisiana will issue permits for all the provisions for which it is
authorized and will administer the permits it issues. The EPA will
continue to administer any RCRA hazardous waste permits or portions of
permits which we issued prior to the effective date of this
authorization. We will not issue any more new permits or new portions
of permits for the provisions listed in the Table in this document
after the effective date of this authorization. The EPA will continue
to implement and issue permits for HSWA requirements for which
Louisiana is not yet authorized.

J. How Does Today's Action Affect Indian Country in Louisiana?

    Louisiana is not authorized to carry out its Hazardous Waste
Program in Indian Country within the State. This authority remains with
EPA. Therefore, this action has no effect in Indian Country.

K. What Is Codification and Is the EPA Codifying Louisiana's Hazardous
Waste Program as Authorized in This Rule?

    Codification is the process of placing the State's statutes and
regulations that comprise the State's authorized hazardous waste
program into the CFR. We do this by referencing the authorized State
rules in 40 CFR part 272. We reserve the amendment of 40 CFR part 272,
subpart T for this authorization of Louisiana's program changes until a
later date. In this authorization application the EPA is not codifying
the rules documented in this Federal Register notice.

M. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action
from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993), and therefore this action is not subject to review by OMB. This
action authorizes State requirements for the purpose of RCRA 3006 and
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.
Accordingly, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action
authorizes preexisting requirements under State law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by State law, it
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). For the same reason, this action also does
not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Tribal
governments, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000). This action will not have substantial direct effects
on the States, on the relationship between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely authorizes State
requirements as part of the State RCRA hazardous waste program without
altering the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established by RCRA. This action also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is
not economically significant and it does not make decisions based on
environmental health or safety risks. This rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
    Under RCRA 3006(b), the EPA grants a State's application for
authorization as long as the State meets the criteria required by RCRA.
It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for the EPA, when it
reviews a State authorization application, to require the use of any
particular voluntary consensus standard in place of another standard
that otherwise satisfies the requirements of RCRA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996),
in issuing this rule, the EPA has taken the necessary steps to
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,
and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. The EPA has
complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by
examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the
``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk
and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the Executive
Order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this document
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 in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This
action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This
action will be effective January 12, 2007.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information, Hazardous materials transportation,
Hazardous waste, Indians--lands, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority: This action is issued under the authority of sections
2002(a), 3006, and 7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as
amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).

    Dated: September 26, 2006.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
 [FR Doc. E6-19089 Filed 11-9-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23581-23586]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09000]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-5592; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-040-AD;
Amendment 39-18488; AD 2016-08-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for The
Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9 airplanes powered by General
Electric (GE) GEnx-1B engines. This AD requires revising the airplane
flight manual (AFM) to provide the flight crew a revised fan ice
removal procedure and a new associated mandatory flight crew briefing
to reduce the likelihood of engine damage due to fan ice shedding. This
AD also removes certain dispatch relief. For airplanes with certain
engines, this AD also requires reworking or replacing at least one
engine. This AD was prompted by a recent engine fan blade rub event
that caused an in-flight non-restartable power loss. We are issuing
this AD to prevent susceptibility to heavy fan blade rubs, which could
result in engine damage and a possible in-flight non-restartable power
loss of one or both engines.

DATES: This AD is effective May 9, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 9, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain other publication listed in this AD as of March
18, 2016 (81 FR 14704, March 18, 2016).
    We must receive comments on this AD by June 6, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way,
Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2016-5592.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
5592; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and

other information. The street address for the Docket Office (phone:
800-647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available
in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue Lucier, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6438; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On March 14, 2016, we issued AD 2016-06-08, Amendment 39-18439 (81
FR 14704, March 18, 2016) (``AD 2016-06-08''), for Boeing Model 787-8
and 787-9 airplanes powered by GE GEnx engines. AD 2016-06-08 was
prompted by a report of a significant fan rub event involving a GEnx-1B
Performance Improvement Program (PIP) 2 engine, apparently caused by
partial fan ice shedding and a resulting fan imbalance that in turn
caused substantial damage to the engine and an in-flight non-
restartable power loss. GEnx-1B PIP1 engines have model designators
GEnx-1B( )/P1. GEnx-1B PIP2 engines have model designators GEnx-1B( )/
P2.
    We continue to investigate this issue with Boeing and GE; however,
the engine damage appears to be a result of susceptibility to heavy fan
blade rubs common to the GEnx-1B PIP2 engine. The other engine on the
event airplane was an older design GEnx-1B PIP1 configuration that
incurred expected wear and minor damage during the icing event and
continued to operate normally. The event occurred in icing conditions
at an altitude of 20,000 feet.
    The urgency of this issue stems from the safety concern over
continued safe flight and landing for airplanes that are powered by two
GEnx-1B PIP2 engines operating in a similar environment to the event
airplane. In this case both GEnx-1B PIP2 engines may be similarly
damaged and unable to be restarted in flight. The potential for common
cause failure of both engines in flight is an urgent safety issue.
    AD 2016-06-08 requires revising the airplane flight manual (AFM) to
provide the flight crew a new fan ice removal procedure to reduce the
likelihood of engine damage due to fan ice shedding. AD 2016-06-08 also
requires, for certain airplanes, reworking the fan stator module
assembly on GEnx-1B PIP2 engines.
    Susceptibility to heavy fan blade rubs, if not corrected, could
result in engine damage and a possible in-flight non-restartable power
loss of one or both engines. We are issuing this AD to correct the
unsafe condition on these products.
    The preamble to AD 2016-06-08 explains that we regard the
requirements ``interim action'' and were considering further
rulemaking. We now have determined that further rulemaking is indeed
necessary, and this AD follows from that determination.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed GE GEnx-1B Service Bulletins 72-0309 R00, dated March
11, 2016; and 72-0314 R00, dated April 1, 2016. The service information
describes procedures for reworking the fan stator module assembly on
GEnx-1B PIP2 engines. This service information is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires revising the AFM to provide the flight crew a
revised fan ice removal procedure and a new associated mandatory flight
crew briefing to reduce the likelihood of engine damage due to fan ice
shedding. This AD also removes certain dispatch relief. For an airplane
with two GEnx-1B PIP2 engines having specified model and part numbers,
this AD also requires reworking or replacing at least one engine.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD interim action. This action addresses rework of
a single engine on any airplane that has two GEnx-1B PIP2 engines
having certain model and part numbers. We may consider issuing further
rulemaking to require rework of the remainder of the GEnx-1B PIP2
engines in this fleet.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because
susceptibility to heavy fan blade rubs could result in engine damage
and a possible in-flight non-restartable power loss of one or both
engines. Therefore, we find that notice and opportunity for prior
public comment are impracticable and that good cause exists for making
this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Explanation of Compliance Times

    The FAA has evaluated the safety risk associated with this
condition and has determined that in the interest of safety it is
necessary to mandate three actions:
     Revise the Boeing Model 787 AFM to provide the flight crew
a revised fan ice removal procedure and a new daily flight crew
briefing on the existing engine ice shed procedure. The compliance time
is 7 days.
     Removes certain dispatch relief, effective within 7 days.
     Rework or replacement of at least one engine, for
airplanes with two GEnx-1B PIP2 engines. The compliance time is about
150 calendar days after issuance of this AD. Boeing and the engine
manufacturer, GE, have developed a maintenance plan to support this
compliance schedule.
    The FAA has determined that allowing for notice and public comment
through a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) prior to mandating these
actions is neither practicable nor in the public interest.
    Recognizing the urgency of this safety issue, this AD represents a
compressed schedule to rework a large number of airplanes located
around the world. Both specialized tooling and trained personnel are
required on-site to perform the rework at various maintenance
facilities around the world. To complete the work, 29 airlines will
need to reallocate 176 airplanes from revenue service to maintenance in
order to conduct the (on-wing) rework. The FAA has determined that 150
days is the minimum time to rework one engine per airplane on the
entire fleet.
    Issuing an NPRM would require time to allow for public comment, and
time for the FAA to consider and respond to those comments. As a
result, the time allowed for the operators to perform the engine rework
would be significantly reduced from 150 days, owing to the time that
elapsed during the notice and comment period.
    As a result, the considerable reduction in allowable compliance
time would require operators to perform the rework significantly out of
sequence with the maintenance schedule plan. In some cases, airplanes
could be grounded. Thus, the reduced compliance time could
substantially disrupt certain operators. The FAA

considers that this is neither practicable nor in the public interest.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public
comment. However, we invite you to send any written data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include the docket number FAA-2016-5592 and
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-040-AD at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 43 airplanes of U.S. registry. We
estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
             Action                         Labor cost              Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFM revisions...................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour =                $0             $85          $3,655
                                   $85.
Rework..........................  40 work-hours x $85 per hour =               0           3,400         146,200
                                   $3,400.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2016-08-12 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-18488; Docket No. FAA-
2016-5592; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-040-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 9, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 2016-06-08, Amendment 39-18439 (81 FR 14704,
March 18, 2016) (``AD 2016-06-08'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 787-8 and 787-9
airplanes, certificated in any category, powered by General Electric
(GE) GEnx-1B engines.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 72, engines.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a recent engine fan blade rub event that
caused an in-flight non-restartable power loss. We are issuing this
AD to prevent susceptibility to heavy fan blade rubs, which could
result in engine damage and a possible in-flight non-restartable
power loss of one or both engines.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Airplane Flight Manual (AFM) Revision: Certificate Limitations

    Within 7 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
Certificate Limitations chapter of the applicable Boeing 787 AFM to
include the statement provided in figure 1 to paragraph (g) of this
AD. This may be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM.
Once accomplished, the AFM revision required by this paragraph
terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD 2016-06-08, and
the AFM revision required by paragraph (g) of AD 2016-06-08 must be
removed from the AFM.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP16.036

(h) AFM Revision: Operating Procedures

    Within 7 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
Operating Procedures chapter of the Boeing 787 AFM to include the
statement provided in figure 2 to paragraph (h) of this AD. This may
be done by inserting a copy of this AD into the AFM. Once
accomplished, the AFM revision required by this AD terminates the
requirements of paragraph (h) of AD 2016-06-08, and the AFM revision
required by paragraph (h) of AD 2016-06-08 must be removed from the
AFM.
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR22AP16.037

BILLING CODE 4910-13-C

(i) Removal of Certain Dispatch Relief

    As of 7 days after the effective date of this AD:
Notwithstanding the provisions of the operator's minimum equipment
list (MEL), dispatch of an airplane is prohibited unless the
equipment specified in paragraph (i)(1) and (i)(2) is operational.
    (1) At least one Engine Anti-Ice (EAI) Indication.
    (2) At least one Ice Detector.

(j) Engine Rework or Replacement

    For an airplane powered by two engines having any model number
GEnx-1B64/P2, -1B67/P2, -1B70/P2, -1B70C/P2, -1B70/75/P2, or -1B74/
75/P2, and any GEnx engine

assembly part number 2447M10G01 or 2447M10G02: Before October 1,
2016, do the actions specified by paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this
AD.
    (1) Rework at least one engine in accordance with paragraph 3.B.
or 3.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions of GE GEnx-1B Service
Bulletin 72-0309 R00, dated March 11, 2016; or paragraph 3.B. or
3.C. of the Accomplishment Instructions of GE GEnx-1B Service
Bulletin 72-0314 R00, dated April 1, 2016. Although GE GEnx Service
Bulletins GEnx-1B 72-0314 R00, dated April 1, 2016; and GEnx-1B 72-
0309 R00, dated March 11, 2016; specify submitting certain tip
clearance measurements to GE, no report is required by this AD.
    (2) Remove at least one engine and replace with an engine that
is eligible for installation that is not identified in the
introductory text to paragraph (j) of this AD.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO, to make those findings. To be approved, the
repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must
meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.

(l) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Sue Lucier,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Branch, ANM-140S, FAA, Seattle ACO,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(m) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
May 9, 2016.
    (i) GE GEnx-1B Service Bulletin 72-0314 R00, dated April 1,
2016.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) The following service information was approved for IBR on
March 18, 2016 (81 FR 14704, March 18, 2016).
    (i) GE GEnx-1B Service Bulletin 72-0309 R00, dated March 11,
2016.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (5) For service information identified in this AD, contact
General Electric Company, GE Aviation, Room 285, 1 Neumann Way,
Cincinnati, OH 45215; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (6) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (7) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 7, 2016.
Ann C. Mollica,
Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 12, 2016.
Victor Wicklund,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-09000 Filed 4-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 137 (Monday, July 18, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42055-42056]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18004]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 300

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002; FRL-9440-4]

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan;
National Priorities List

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On May 24, 2011, EPA published a Notice of Intent for Partial
Deletion (76 FR 30081) and a direct final rule of Partial Deletion (76
FR 30027) for the remaining portions of Operable Unit 9 (OU9), the
Residential Populated Areas, of the California Gulch Superfund Site
(Site), located in Lake County, Colorado, from the National Priorities
List. The EPA is withdrawing the Final Rule of Partial Deletion due to
adverse comments that were received during the public comment period.
After consideration of the comments received, if appropriate, EPA will
publish a Notice of Partial Deletion in the Federal Register based on
the parallel Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion and place a copy of
the final partial deletion package, including a

Responsiveness Summary, if prepared, in the Site repositories.

DATES:  Effective Date: This withdrawal of the direct final action is
effective as of July 18, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Information Repositories: Comprehensive information on the
Site, as well as the comments that we received during the comment
period, are available in docket EPA-HQ-SFUND-1983-0002, accessed
through the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
docket index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statue. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in
hard copy at:

U.S. EPA Region 8, Superfund Records Center, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, CO 80202.<PHONE_NUMBER> or toll free<PHONE_NUMBER>; Viewing
hours: 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays;
and
Lake County Public Library, 1115 Harrison Avenue, Leadville, CO 80461.
(719) 486-0569: Viewing hours: Monday and Wednesday 10 a.m. to 8 p.m.;
Tuesday and Thursday 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Friday and Saturday 1 p.m. to 5
p.m.;
and
Timberline Campus Library of Colorado Mountain College, 901 U.S.
Highway 24 South, Leadville, CO 80461.<PHONE_NUMBER>; Viewing hours:
Monday to Thursday 8 a.m. to 9 p.m.; Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.; Saturday
12 p.m. to 5 p.m.; and Sunday 12 p.m. to 8 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Linda Kiefer, Remedial Project
Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode EPR-
SR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Chemicals,
Hazardous Waste, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water
pollution control, Water Supply.

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; E.O.
12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR
2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

    Dated: July 12, 2011.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

PART 300--NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
CONTINGENCY PLAN

    Accordingly, the amendment to Table 1of Appendix B to CFR Part 300
to revise the entry ``California Gulch'', ``Leadville, CO'' is
withdrawn as of July 18, 2011.

[FR Doc. 2011-18004 Filed 7-15-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9843-9844]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04160]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 11841-027]

Ketchikan Public Utilities; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Application to amend license.
    b. Project No.: 11841-027.
    c. Date Filed: March 18 and 30, 2015, as supplemented on June 17
and December 16, 2015.
    d. Applicant: Ketchikan Public Utilities.
    e. Name of Project: Whitman Lake Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The project is located on Whitman Creek in Ketchikan
Gateway Borough, approximately four miles east of the City of
Ketchikan, Alaska.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Jennifer Holstrom, PE, Senior Project
Engineer, Ketchikan Public Utilities, 1065 Fair Street, Ketchikan, AK
99901,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Mr. Christopher Chaney,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests,
and recommendations is 30 days from the date of issuance of this
notice. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please
file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using
the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, please send a paper copy to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Please include the project number (P-11841-027)
on any comments, motions to intervene, protests, or recommendations
filed.
    k. Description of Request: The applicant requests approval of
revised Exhibits A, F, and G to rectify discrepancies between the
facilities and the project boundary authorized in the license and the
as-built project configuration and boundary. The changes incorporated
into the revised exhibits include: (1) The location, size, and
configuration of the Achilles Diversion Dam, and the alignments of the
associated access road and pipeline; (2) the lengths, sizes,
undergrounding, and alignments of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 penstocks; (3)
the sizes of the valve house and head tank; (4) the location and size
of the powerhouse; (5) the location of the switchyard; (6) the length,
alignment, and undergrounding of the transmission line; (7) the length
of the tailrace; and (8) the incorporation of the Whitman Creek Gaging
Station into the project boundary.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number

excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
call 1-866-208- 3676 or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading,
the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of the license amendment.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.

    Dated: February 22, 2016.
Nathanial J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-04160 Filed 2-25-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P