[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 20 (Monday, January 31, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4993-4995]
[FR Doc No: 2022-01827]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2021-0040; Notice 1]

Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Receipt of Petitions for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petitions.

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

SUMMARY: Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (TMNA) on behalf of Toyota
Motor Corporation (TMC) (collectively referred to as ``Toyota'') has
determined that certain replacement seat belt assemblies manufactured
by Marutaka, Tokai Rika Japan, Autoliv, NSK, Joyson Safety Systems
Acquisition, TRQSS, Key Safety Restraint Systems, Inc., Tokai Rika
Czech, BMW Group Headquarters, Subaru Corporation, and Mazda North
America Operations, and sold to Toyota dealerships as replacement
equipment do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies. Toyota filed three
noncompliance reports, two dated April 20, 2021, and the other dated
May 4, 2021. Toyota subsequently submitted two petitions to NHTSA both
dated May 14, 2021, for a decision that the subject noncompliances are
inconsequential as they relate to motor vehicle safety. This notice
announces receipt of Toyota's petitions.

DATES: Send comments on or before March 2, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written data,
views, and arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the
docket and notice number cited in the title of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver comments by hand to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590. The Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m.
except for Federal holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Comments may also be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that 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 petitions are granted or denied, notice of the decisions
will also be published in the Federal Register pursuant to the
authority indicated at the end of this notice.
    All comments, background documentation, and supporting materials
submitted to the docket may be viewed by anyone at the address and
times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the docket. The docket ID number for this petition is shown
in the heading of this notice.
    DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement is available for review in a
Federal Register notice published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jack Chern, Office of Vehicle Safety
Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Toyota has determined that certain replacement seat belt assemblies
manufactured by Marutaka, Tokai Rika Japan, Autoliv, NSK, Joyson Safety
Systems Acquisition, TRQSS, Key Safety Restraint Systems, Inc., Tokai
Rika Czech, BMW Group Headquarters, Subaru Corporation, and Mazda North
America Operations, and sold to Toyota dealerships as replacement
equipment do not fully comply with the requirements of paragraph
S4.1(k) and (l) of FMVSS No. 209, Seat Belt Assemblies (49 CFR
571.209). Toyota filed three noncompliance reports, two dated April 20,
2021, and the other dated May 4, 2021, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. Toyota
subsequently submitted two petitions to NHTSA both dated May 14, 2021,
for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49
U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for
Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of Toyota's petitions 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. Equipment Involved

    Potentially involved seat belt assemblies are as follows:
    1. Approximately 33,000 replacement seat belt assemblies
manufactured by Marutaka and Tokai Rika Japan between November 1, 1995,
and February 28, 2021;
    2. approximately 1,400,000 replacement seat belt assemblies
manufactured by Marutaka, Tokai Rika Japan, Autoliv, NSK, Joyson Safety
Systems Acquisition, TRQSS, Key Safety Restraint Systems, Inc., and
Tokai Rika Czech between October 1, 1994, and February 28, 2021; and
    3. approximately 6,160 replacement seat belt assemblies
manufactured by BMW Group Headquarters, Subaru Corporation, Mazda North
America Operations between March 1, 2012, and April 30, 2021.

III. Noncompliance

    Toyota explains that the noncompliance involves replacement seat
belt assemblies manufactured by Marutaka, Tokai Rika Japan, Autoliv,
NSK, Joyson Safety Systems

Acquisition, TRQSS, Key Safety Restraint Systems, Inc., Tokai Rika
Czech, BMW Group Headquarters, Subaru Corporation, and Mazda North
America Operations, and sourced to Toyota dealerships for use or
subsequent resale to dealership customers as replacement equipment do
not fully comply with all applicable requirements specified in
paragraph S4.1(k) and (l) of FMVSS No. 209.
    Specifically, the items of noncompliant equipment involved are:
    (1) Certain replacement seat belt assemblies, manufactured by
Marutaka and Tokai Rika Japan, were packaged with an instruction sheet
that was missing the following required statement: ``This seat belt
assembly is for use only in [insert specific seating position(s), e.g.,
``front right''] in [insert specific vehicle make(s) and model(s)],''
or packaged with an instruction sheet that specified the wrong seating
position;
    (2) certain replacement seat belt assemblies, manufactured by
Marutaka, Tokai Rika Japan, Autoliv, NSK, Joyson Safety Systems
Acquisition, TRQSS, Key Safety Restraint Systems, Inc., and Tokai Rika
Czech, were packaged with an instruction sheet that was missing the
aforementioned seating position(s) statement; and
    (3) certain replacement seat belt assemblies, manufactured by BMW
Group Headquarters, Subaru Corporation, and Mazda North America
Operations, were packaged with an instruction sheet that was also
missing the required seating position(s) statement, or packaged without
the required usage and maintenance instructions.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraphs S4.1(k) and (l) of FMVSS No. 209 include the
requirements relevant to this petition. Paragraph S4.1(k) requires that
a seat belt assembly, other than a seat belt assembly installed in a
motor vehicle by an automobile manufacturer, shall be accompanied by an
instruction sheet providing sufficient information for installing the
assembly in a motor vehicle. If the assembly is for use only in
specifically stated motor vehicles, the assembly shall either be
permanently and legibly marked or labeled with the following statement,
or the instruction sheet shall include the following statement:
    This seat belt assembly is for use only in [insert specific seating
position(s), e.g., ``front right''] in [insert specific vehicle make(s)
and model(s)].
    Paragraph S4.1(l) requires that a seat belt assembly or retractor
shall be accompanied by written instructions for the proper use of the
assembly, stressing particularly the importance of wearing the assembly
snugly and properly located on the body, and on the maintenance of the
assembly and periodic inspection of all components.

V. Summary of Toyota's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section, ``V.
Summary of Toyota's Petition,'' are the views and arguments provided by
Toyota. They have not been evaluated by the Agency and do not reflect
the views of the Agency. Toyota described the subject noncompliance and
stated their belief that the noncompliance is inconsequential as it
relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, Toyota submitted the following
reasoning:
    1. The subject seat belt assemblies were sold only by Toyota
dealerships. Due to the dealerships' replacement parts ordering system
and the parts packaging, improper replacement seat belt assembly
selection would not likely occur.
    Toyota states that it is unlikely that the subject replacement seat
belt assemblies would be selected for an incorrect model and seating
position as a result of this issue. The subject assemblies were only
sold by Toyota dealerships. The parts ordering system clearly indicates
the part and enables identification of the appropriate model vehicle
and seating position for which the assembly is intended to be
installed. When selecting a replacement part, the dealerships can
search by Vehicle Identification Number, part number, and vehicle
model. They can also see a diagram of the part location via the
Electronic Parts Catalog. In addition, the part can be identified by
the label on the packaging and the old part can be compared to the new
part. The label on the packaging in which the replacement seat belt is
packaged specifies the part number and part description.
    Toyota says that because of the Toyota dealerships' robust part
ordering system and the additional label on the packaging, it is
unlikely that an incorrect seat belt would be provided or used as a
replacement part. The missing instruction sheet, missing seating
position, or incorrect seat position on the instruction sheet has no
effect on a dealership's ability to provide the correct replacement
part ordered or on the installer's ability to correctly identify the
appropriate replacement part.
    2. The improper installation of the seat belt assembly is unlikely.
Dealership technicians and third-party installers can access Toyota's
electronic repair manual and other aftermarket manuals and the subject
assemblies themselves have characteristics that discourage incorrect
installation.
    Toyota contends that it is unlikely that an improper installation
of a replacement seat belt would occur as a result of a missing
instruction sheet or an instruction sheet that does not indicate the
specific seating position information.
    First, after identifying that the part does not have an
installation instruction sheet, does not specify the specific seating
position, or specifies the wrong seating position for which the part
was purchased, the installer could return the part to the dealer,
request the installation instruction from the dealer, or consult other
sources of installation instructions that are readily available.
Technicians at Toyota dealerships have access to Toyota's electronic
repair manual. Third-party installers have access to various
aftermarket repair manuals and can obtain access to Toyota's electronic
repair manual. The installer can also request a copy of the
installation instructions from Toyota, and the instructions would be
provided free of charge.
    Second, the subject assemblies themselves have characteristics that
discourage incorrect installation. These characteristics include the
appearance being visually different, an inability to connect the wire
harness, the warning indicator becoming illuminated, or the seat belt
being unable to buckle. Because the subject seat belts are not
universal type seat belts, they are intended to be used to replace
specific seat belts in specific seating positions. It is unlikely that
these replacement assemblies would be installed incorrectly.
    Third, the torque value for structurally mounting the seat belt
assemblies is a standard value and is correct regardless of which
instruction sheet is used (42Nm). Because these torque values are
common, even if the technician uses the torque values from the
incorrect installation instruction sheet, the torque value will still
be correct.
    For these reasons, Toyota believes it is unlikely that the subject
seat belt assemblies would be improperly installed.
    Toyota notes that the investigation leading to the submission of
the part 573 reports subject of this petition was prompted by a report
from a dealer technician who found a seat belt assembly with an
incorrect instruction sheet. While records covering the entire scope of
the seat belt assemblies

involved are not available, Toyota believes this to be the only report
of an instruction sheet concern. This further tends to confirm that
improper installation of a seat belt assembly is unlikely as a result
of the missing installation information, and dealer technicians or
third-party installers are able to easily obtain the installation
information, if needed, from the other sources noted above free of
charge.
    3. The replacement seat belt assemblies are intended to replace the
original equipment seat belts. The owner's manual for each vehicle
contains the seat belt usage and maintenance instructions.
    Toyota states that it is unlikely that improper use or maintenance
of a replacement seat belt would occur because of the missing usage and
maintenance instructions. The affected seat belt assemblies are
designed to replace the originally equipped seat belts in specific
Toyota vehicles. All of the vehicle models for which these replacement
seat assemblies were designed were originally equipped with an owner's
manual that contains usage and maintenance instructions for these seat
belt assemblies. Thus, the vehicle owner has access to the usage and
maintenance instructions and would not need to refer to the instruction
sheet for this information. In addition, the seat belts packaged with
sheets that are only missing the specific seating position information
have the correct usage and maintenance instructions.
    4. The seat belts comply with all other requirements of FMVSS No.
209.
    Toyota says the lack of information on the instruction sheets has
no bearing on the materials or performance of the replacement seat belt
assembly itself. Thus, the assemblies continue to meet the other
performance requirements specified in FMVSS No. 209. There is no impact
to performance, functionality, or occupant safety.
    5. In similar situations, NHTSA has granted petitions for
inconsequential noncompliance relating to the subject requirement of
FMVSS No. 209.
    Toyota states that NHTSA has previously granted at least seven
similar inconsequentiality petitions for noncompliances that it
contends are similar to the subject noncompliance. These include: FCA
US LLC (84 FR 20948, May 3, 2019); Mitsubishi Motors North America,
Inc., (77 FR 24762, April 25, 2012); Bentley Motors, Inc. (76 FR 58343,
September 20, 2011); Hyundai Motor Company (74 FR 9125, March 2, 2009);
Ford Motor Company, (73 FR 11462, March 3, 2008); Mazda North American
Operations (73 FR 11464, March 3, 2008); and Subaru of America, Inc.
(65 FR 67471, November 9, 2000).
    In these cases, Toyota argues, NHTSA determined that the
noncompliance was inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for reasons
that included the following: (1) The dealer ordering system would make
it unlikely that an inappropriate seat belt assembly would be sold for
a specific seating position; (2) installers would be able to locate
installation instructions from other sources; (3) the usage and
maintenance instructions are available in the vehicles owner's manual;
and (4) the seat belts are intended to be replacement parts for
original equipment designed for specific seating positions. These
reasons also apply to the subject Toyota replacement seat belt
assemblies.
    Toyota's complete petition and all supporting documents are
available by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)
website at https://www.regulations.gov and by following the online
search instructions to locate the docket number as listed in the title
of this notice.
    Toyota concluded that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety and that its petition to be
exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required
by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by
49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the equipment that Toyota no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve equipment
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant replacement seat belt assemblies under
their control after Toyota notified them that the subject noncompliance
existed.

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

Otto G. Matheke, III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2022-01827 Filed 1-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 217 (Monday, November 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63025-63026]
[FR Doc No: 2021-24788]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0078; FRL-9169-01-OCSPP]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Revisions to
an Existing Collection, Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), this
document announces that EPA is planning to submit the following
Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB): ``Toxic Chemical Release Reporting (Revision)'' and
identified by ICR No. 2613.04 and OMB Control No. 2070-0212. This ICR
is a revision to an existing ICR that is scheduled to expire on March
31, 2024. The existing ICR is being revised ahead of schedule to
include potential reporting requirements that may result from EPA's use
of other authority under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act (EPCRA) that is not specifically covered by the existing ICR.
Before submitting the ICR to OMB for review and approval under the PRA,
EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the proposed
information collection that is summarized in this document. The ICR and
accompanying material are available in the docket for public review and
comment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 14, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2020-0078, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal
at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) is by appointment only. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Griffin (7410M), Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-1463; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What information is EPA particularly interested in?

    Pursuant to PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A), 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), EPA
specifically solicits comments and information to enable it to:
    1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency,
including whether the information will have practical utility.
    2. Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimates of the burden of
the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used.
    3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected.
    4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those
who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

II. What information collection activity or ICR does this action apply
to?

    Title: Toxic Chemical Release Reporting (Revision).
    ICR number: 2316.04.
    OMB control number: 2070-0212.
    ICR status: The existing ICR is currently scheduled to expire on
March 31, 2024. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is
not required to respond to, a collection of information, unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers
for EPA's regulations in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are
listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by publication in the
Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related
collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB
control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR
part 9.
    Abstract: Pursuant to section 313 of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq., certain
facilities that manufacture, process, or otherwise use specified toxic
chemicals in amounts above reporting threshold levels as provided in 40
CFR 372.25 must submit annually to EPA reporting forms to the Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI). The revisions to this ICR covers the
information collection activities associated with the submission of
information to TRI pursuant to EPCRA section 313(b)(2), 42 U.S.C.
11023. Under EPCRA section 313(b)(2), the EPA Administrator has the
authority to extend TRI reporting requirements to specific facilities
that manufacture, process, or otherwise use a TRI-listed toxic
chemical, but who are not covered by TRI reporting requirements as
described at 40 CFR 372. The Administrator may determine a specific
facility warrants TRI reporting on the basis of a chemical's toxicity,
the facility's proximity to other facilities that release the chemical
or to population centers, the facility's history of releases of the
chemical, or other factors that the Administrator deems appropriate.
This ICR revision includes discussion of EPA's discretionary authority
under EPCRA section

313(b)(2) and outreach to potential stakeholders.
    Burden statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is 3,615,128 hours. EPA
estimates that it will take submitters 35.7 hours to submit a Form R
for one chemical and 21.96 hours to submit a Form A for one chemical.
Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    The ICR, which is available in the docket along with other related
materials, provides a detailed explanation of the collection activities
and the burden estimate that is only briefly summarized here:
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Regulations at 40 CFR part 372,
subpart B, require facilities that meet all the following criteria to
report: The facility has 10 or more full-time employee equivalents
(i.e., a total of 20,000 hours worked per year or greater; see 40 CFR
372.3); the facility is included in a North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) Code listed at 40 CFR 372.23 or under
Executive Order 13148, Federal facilities regardless of their industry
classification; and the facility manufactures (defined to include
importing), processes, or otherwise uses any EPCRA section 313 (TRI)
chemical in quantities greater than the established thresholds for the
specific chemical in the course of a calendar year. Additionally, EPA
may exercise its discretionary authority under EPCRA section 313(b)(2)
to extend TRI reporting obligations to a facility, even if the facility
does not meet the criteria for full-time employees or NAICS codes.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory, 40 CFR 372.
    Estimated total number of potential respondents: 76,534.
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Estimated total annual burden hours: 3,615,128 hours (per year).
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Estimated total annual costs: $200,205,764 (per year), includes $0
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.

III. Are there changes in the estimates from the last approval?

    This ICR revision reflects an increase of 3 burden hours per
facility in non-reporting burden from the ICR currently approved by OMB
and this ICR. This increase reflects the review of the notification and
preparation of responses stakeholders may engage in upon receipt of the
Agency's notification of its potential application of the discretionary
authority under EPCRA section 313(b)(2) to specific facilities. This
increase is categorized as a program change.

IV. What is the next step in the process for this ICR?

    EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as
appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for
review and approval pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. EPA will issue another
Federal Register document pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to
announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to submit
additional comments to OMB. If you have any questions about this ICR or
the approval process, please contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

    Dated: October 27, 2021.
Michal Freedhoff,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2021-24788 Filed 11-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 29, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73386-73388]
[FR Doc No: 2022-25983]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0186]

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Rosco Vision,
Inc.; Application for an Exemption

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; grant of exemption.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
announces its decision to grant a limited 5-year exemption to Rosco
Vision, Inc. (Rosco) to allow motor carriers to operate commercial
motor vehicles (CMVs) with the company's CV (Commercial Vehicle)
Digital Camera Monitor System (CMS) (CV Digital CMS) installed as an
alternative to the two rear-vision mirrors required by the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). The Agency has determined
that granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
equivalent to or greater than the level of safety provided by the
regulation.

DATES: This exemption is applicable December 4, 2022 and ending
December 4, 2027.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jos[eacute] R. Cestero, Vehicle and
Roadside Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle
Safety, MC-PSV, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
[email protected].
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments submitted in response to the notice requesting public comments
on the exemption application, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or
visit Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting
Docket Operations. The on-line Federal document management system is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. The docket number is
listed at the beginning of this notice.

I. Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the FMCSRs. FMCSA must publish a
notice of each exemption request in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the public an opportunity to
inspect the information relevant to the application, including any
safety analyses that have been conducted. The Agency must also provide
an opportunity for public comment on the request.
    The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted
and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a
level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period (up to 5
years) and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

II. Rosco's Application for Exemption

    Rosco applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.80(a) to allow its
CV Digital CMS to be installed as an alternative to the two rear-vision
mirrors required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) on CMVs. A copy of the application is included in the docket
referenced at the beginning of this notice.
    Section 393.80(a) of the FMCSRs requires that each bus, truck, and
truck-tractor be equipped with two rear-vision mirrors, one at each
side. The mirrors must be positioned to reflect to the driver a view of
the highway to the rear and the area along both sides of the CMV.
Section 393.80(a) cross-references the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's (NHTSA) standards for mirrors on motor vehicles (49
CFR 571.111, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard [FMVSS] No. 111,
``Rear Visibility''). Paragraph S7.1 of FMVSS No. 111 provides
requirements for mirrors on multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks
with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 4,536 kg and
less than 11,340 kg and each bus, other than a school bus, with a GVWR
of more than 4,536 kg. Paragraph S8.1 provides requirements for mirrors
on multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a GVWR of 11,340 kg
or more.
    The CV Digital CMS consists of three cameras, each with a specific
field of view (FOV), firmly mounted to the top of the vehicle's
external A-pillar location, enclosed in an aerodynamic package that
provides environmental protection for the cameras. Each camera presents
a clear image to the driver by means of an internal monitor firmly
mounted to the left and right A-pillar of the CMV, i.e., the structural
member between the windshield and door of the cab. The installation of
the monitors on the A-pillars creates no additional visual obstruction,
while eliminating the substantial blind spots created by conventional
mirrors. Rosco states that its CV Digital CMS meets and/or exceeds the
visibility requirements provided in FMVSS No. 111 based on the
following factors:
     The CMS provides the driver with an enhanced FOV when
compared to conventional mirrors.
     The interior viewing monitors feature an ambient light
sensor which will allow the system to dynamically adjust the screen
brightness to the optimal level based on the amount of ambient light.
This prevents driver eye strain when viewing the monitors at night.

     The camera assemblies have an automatically activated
heating system to ensure there is no buildup of ice or moisture on the
lens that could potentially obstruct the cameras' function.
     The internal monitors are located such that the system's
ergonomics reduce upper-body range of motion, thereby reducing driver
fatigue.
    Rosco believes that mounting the system as described would maintain
a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of
safety achieved without the exemption.

III. Summary of Comments

    FMCSA published a notice of the application in the Federal Register
on December 21, 2021, requesting public comment (86 FR 72305). The
Agency received comments from four individuals who generally opposed
granting the application and one comment in support of the application
subject to conditions.
    One commenter who opposed the exemption generally discourages the
use of cameras to replace mirrors. Three other commenters suggested
that the cameras be used in conjunction with standard rearview mirrors,
rather than replacing them, due to concerns that an unsafe operating
condition would exist in the event of a camera failure. And one
commentor suggested that any CMS installed in the United States comply
with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) R46 rev
06--Devices for Indirect Vision (UNECE R46).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See https://unece.org/un-regulations-addenda-1958-agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the Agency received 4 comments opposing this exemption,
FMCSA has received numerous positive comments in support of other,
similar camera-based mirror system exemptions, such as in Stoneridge,
Inc. ``MirrorEye Camera Monitor System'' (84 FR 5557, February 21,
2019), Vision Systems North America ``SmartVision System'' (85 FR 2486,
January 15, 2020), and Robert Bosch, LLC and Mekra Lang North America,
LLC (Bosch) ``Digital Mirror System'' (85 FR 58106, September 17,
2020). Seventeen motor carriers, associations and individuals supported
the Stoneridge application specifically noting the following benefits:
(1) superior total field-of-view around a CMV, including reduction/
elimination of blind spots (2) increased visibility when driving at
night and during inclement weather, (3) enhanced vehicle
maneuverability in backing, turning, and lane changes through use of
trailer scanning, (4) and reduced driver fatigue.
    Vision Systems North America's application was supported by 5 motor
carriers, associations, and individuals. These commenters specifically
noted the following benefits of the camera-based mirror system
proposed; (1) improved field-of-view around a CMV, including reduction/
elimination glare and blind spots (2) increased visibility when driving
at night and during inclement weather, and (3) reduced driver fatigue.
    The American Bus Association (ABA) commented in support of the
Bosch Digital Mirror System. The ABA noted that the Bosch system
provided the following visibility benefits; (1) anti-glare, (2)
improved visibility at night and during adverse weather conditions, and
(3) elimination of blind spots by providing a broader field of vision
around the vehicle.
    In addition to the positive comments received relating to other CMS
systems, the Agency has not received any reports of accidents or other
safety concerns relating to the previously granted CMS exemption
applications.

IV. FMCSA Decision Granting Exemption

    FMCSA evaluated Rosco's application for exemption and the comments
received. For the reasons discussed below, FMCSA is granting the
exemption to allow motor carriers to install and operate CMVs with the
CV Digital CMS as an alternative to the two rear-vision mirrors
required by the FMCSRs. FMCSA believes that the CV Digital CMS is
likely to achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the
level of safety provided by the regulation.

A. Equivalent Level of Safety Analysis

    FMCSA section 393.80 cross references FMVSS No. 111 which requires
CMVs with a GVWR of 11,340 kg (25,000 pounds) or more to be equipped
with a rearview mirror size of unit magnification of no less than 323
cm\2\ (50 in\2\) on each side of the vehicle. In its comments to a 2019
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking on rear visibility, the Engine Manufacturers
Association \2\ (EMA) noted that CMV manufacturers are equipping CMVs
with mirrors that are more than twice the minimum size required for
each side of the vehicle, as well as adding convex mirrors to provide
the driver a still greater FOV. The manufacturers install these larger,
less aerodynamic mirrors to provide the driver the enhanced visibility
that is crucial to the safe operation of a large truck. Similarly, CMS
like Rosco's CV Digital CMS are capable of providing an enhanced FOV
that exceeds FMVSS No. 111 and the current rear-vision mirrors
installed on CMVs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) comments to NHTSA
ANPRM Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rear Visibility
(84 FR 54533, October 10, 2019), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/NHTSA-2018-0021-0493.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FMCSA notes that CMS systems are authorized for use in a number of
European countries as a legal alternative to the traditional rear-
vision mirrors under the requirements of United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe (UNECE) R46 which specifies minimum safety,
ergonomic, and performance requirements for CMS in place of mandatory
inside and outside rearview mirrors for road vehicles. This regulation
references ISO (International Organization for Standardization)
standard 16505 Rev 2019 which addresses CMS definitions and required
performance for use in road vehicles. The specifications for CMS
systems in ISO 16505 exceed the FOV requirements in FMVSS No. 111.
Rosco stated that although the CV Digital CMS is designed to meet UNECE
R46, it has not yet applied for certification of its system in
countries that require UNECE R46 certification because it does not
intend to offer its devices for sale in those countries.
    FMCSA has reviewed the Rosco CV Digital CMS submission and has
determined that the Rosco system exceeds both the FOV required by FMVSS
No. 111 and rear-vision mirrors currently installed by manufacturers.
    FMCSA acknowledges the concerns of four individual commenters
regarding potential system failure of the CV Digital CMS. FMCSA notes
that the CV Digital CMS is designed with redundancy in the event of
camera failure such that if one of the cameras within the camera
assembly were to fail, the system automatically adjusts the view of the
interior monitor for that side to a full screen view of the remaining
working camera.
    In the event of camera or monitor failure, the CMV would not be
subject to an out-of-service order because it is not a critical
inspection item under CVSA's out-of-service-criteria \3\ (OOSC),

in the same way conventional mirrors are not out of service if cracked
or damaged while in operation. Instead, the CMV would be subject to the
requirements of 49 CFR 396.11 which would require a driver to complete
a driver vehicle inspection report at the end of the workday and
require the motor carrier to correct any identified safety defects
before permitting or requiring a driver to operate the CMV again.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The CVSA OOSC states that any motor vehicle which by reason
of its mechanical condition or loading that would be likely to cause
an accident or breakdown is considered ``Out-of-Service.''
Violations, other than Out-of-Service conditions, detected during
the inspection process will not preclude the completion of the
current trip or dispatch. However, such violations must be corrected
or repaired prior to redispatch. See https://www.cvsa.org/inspections/out-of-service-criteria/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, under 49 CFR 392.7(a), CMV drivers must satisfy
themselves that a vehicle is in safe condition before operating the
vehicle. This obligation would include ensuring that both rear-vision
mirrors (or in this case, all components of the CV Digital CMS
including all external cameras and both internal monitors) are in good
working order. CMVs are also subject to the periodic inspection
requirements under 49 CFR 396.17 which would include an inspection of
the CV Digital CMS. To further ensure that the CV Digital CMS system is
properly maintained, the terms and conditions of the exemption specify
that motor carriers and drivers operating CMVs under this exemption
must inspect the CV Digital CMS before operation of the CMV.
    FMCSA believes that the CV Digital CMS is likely to achieve a level
of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of safety than
standard rear-view mirrors because it provides a greater FOV, it
eliminates the blind spots on both sides of the vehicle, provides a
monitor with low light sensitivity feature, and includes a camera
heating system, all of which exceed the current requirements of 49 CFR
393.80. The FMCSRs impose several operational controls that will help
ensure that the CV Digital CMS is functioning properly. Before driving
a vehicle, a driver must be satisfied that the vehicle is in safe
operating condition, and that any system failures reported have been
corrected prior to vehicle re-dispatch. Additionally, the driver must
complete a driver vehicle inspection report at the completion of the
workday, noting any system defects or failures that occurred during
operation of the vehicle.

B. Duration of Exemption

    The Agency grants the exemption for a 5-year period, beginning
December 4, 2022 and ending December 4, 2027 unless rescinded earlier
by FMCSA. During the exemption period, motor carriers operating CMVs
may install and utilize the Rosco CV Digital CMS in lieu of the two
rear-vision mirrors required by section 393.80 of the FMCSRs.

C. Conditions of Exemption

    1. This exemption is limited to the Rosco CV Digital CMS installed
on CMVs and does not apply to any other camera-based mirror replacement
system/technology.
    2. Drivers operating CMVs under this exemption must inspect the CV
Digital CMS each time before operating the CMV and ensure that it is in
proper working order.
    3. Drivers operating CMVs under this exemption must inspect the
equipment at the end of each day and note any defects in the equipment.
The motor carrier must repair any defects noted by the driver before it
operates the CMV.
    4. The motor carrier must, in addition to existing periodic
inspections required by 49 CFR 396.17, periodically inspect the CV
Digital CMS.
    5. Interested parties possessing information that would demonstrate
that motor carriers operating CMVs utilizing the Rosco CV Digital CMS
installed as an alternative to two rear-vision mirrors are not
achieving the requisite statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA by email at [email protected]. The Agency will evaluate any
such information and, if safety is being compromised or if the
continuation of the exemption is not consistent with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315(b), will take immediate steps to revoke the exemption.

D. Preemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31313(d), as implemented by 49 CFR
381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that
conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a
person operating under the exemption. States may, but are not required
to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in intrastate
commerce.

E. Termination

    FMCSA does not believe the motor carrier, the drivers, and CMVs
covered by the exemption will experience any deterioration of their
safety record. However, should this occur, FMCSA will take all steps
necessary to protect the public interest, including revocation of the
exemption without prior notice. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1)
motor carriers and/or CMVs fail to comply with the terms and conditions
of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of
safety than maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of
the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of
49 U.S.C. 31136(e) or 31315(b).

Robin Hutcheson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2022-25983 Filed 11-28-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 9 (Thursday, January 14, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1881-1882]
[FR Doc No: 2016-00574]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0864; FRL-9941-29-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Texas; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport for the 2008 Lead
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submission from the State of Texas for the 2008 Lead (Pb) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The submittal addresses how the
existing SIP provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement
of the 2008 Pb NAAQS (infrastructure SIP or i-SIP). This i-SIP ensures
that the State's SIP is adequate to meet the state's responsibilities
under the CAA, including the four CAA requirements for interstate
transport of Pb emissions.

DATES: This final rule is effective on February 16, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2011-0864. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracie Donaldson,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in our
October 15, 2015, proposal (80 FR 62003). In that document, we proposed
that the Texas i-SIP submittal for the 2008 Pb NAAQS met the
requirements for an i-SIP, including the requirements for interstate
transport of Pb emissions. This action is being taken under section 110
of the Act. We did not receive any comments regarding our proposed
approval.

II. Final Action

    We are approving the September 8, 2011 and October 13, 2011,
submissions from Texas, which address the requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(1) and (2) as applicable to the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Specifically, we
are approving these infrastructure elements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C),
(D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). We are also approving
the Texas demonstration that it meets the four statutory requirements
for interstate transport of Pb emissions.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 14, 2016. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposed of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead (Pb), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 5, 2016.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart SS--Texas

0
2. In Sec.  52.2270, the second table in paragraph (e) titled ``EPA
Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the
Texas SIP'' is amended by adding the entry ``Infrastructure and
Interstate Transport for the 2008 Pb NAAQS'' at the end of the table to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.2270  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

              EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applicable
                                  geographic or        State submittal/
     Name of SIP provision        nonattainment         effective date      EPA approval date       Comments
                                       area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Infrastructure and Interstate   Statewide........     9/8/2011, 10/13/2011  1/14/2016 [Insert  .................
 Transport for the 2008 Pb                                                   Federal Register
 NAAQS.                                                                      citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-00574 Filed 1-13-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 43)]
[Notices]
[Page 10300-10301]
[DOCID:fr05mr10-106]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2010-0074]

South Texas Area Maritime Security (STAMS) Committee; Vacancies

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Solicitation for membership.

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

SUMMARY: This notice requests individuals interested in serving on the
South Texas Area Maritime Security (STAMS) Committee to submit their
application for membership to the Captain of the Port, Corpus Christi,
Texas.

DATES: Requests for membership should reach the Corpus Christi Captain
of the Port on or before April 15, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Requests for membership should be submitted to the Captain
of the Port at the following address: Commander, USCG Sector Corpus
Christi, 8930 Ocean Drive, Hangar 41, Corpus Christi, Texas 78419.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about submitting an
application or about the STAMSC in general, contact Mr. John Zarbock at
361-888-3162 (X501).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority

    Section 102 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of
2002 (Pub. L. 107-295) added section 70112 to Title 46 of the U.S.
Code, and authorized the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast
Guard is operating to establish Area Maritime Security Advisory
Committees for any port area of the United States. (See 33 U.S.C. 1226;
46 U.S.C.; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.01; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1). The MTSA includes a provision exempting these
Area Maritime Security (AMS) Committees from the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-436, 86 Stat. 470 (5 U.S.C. App.
2). The AMSCs shall assist the Captain of the Port in the review,
update, and exercising of the AMS Plan for their area of
responsibility. Such matters may include, but are not limited to:
Identifying critical port infrastructure and operations; Identifying
risks

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

STAMS Committee Membership

    Members of the AMSC should have at least 5 years of experience
related to maritime or port security operations. The South Texas AMSC
has fourteen members, made up of at least one individual from the
Corpus Christi, Rio Grande Valley, Port of Port Lavaca-Point Comfort
and Victoria Barge Canal, Port Security Working Groups (PSWG). We are
seeking to fill two vacancies with this solicitation. Applicants may be
required to pass an appropriate security background check prior to
appointment to the committee. Members' term of office will be for 5
years; however, a member is eligible to serve an additional term of
office. Members will not receive any salary or other compensation for
their service on the AMSC. In support of the USCG policy on gender and
ethnic diversity, we encourage qualified women and members of minority
groups to apply.

Request for Applications

    Those seeking membership are not required to submit formal
applications to the local Captain of the Port; however, because we do
have an obligation to ensure that a specific number of members have the
prerequisite maritime security experience, we encourage the submission
of r[eacute]sum[eacute]s highlighting experience in the maritime and
security industries.

    Dated: February 19, 2010.
R.J. Paulison,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Federal Maritime Security Coordinator,
Corpus Christi.
[FR Doc. 2010-4649 Filed 3-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4683-4684]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1473]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0988; FRL-8856-2]

Pesticide Experimental Use Permit; Receipt of Application;
Comment Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's receipt of an application 29964-
EUP-RR from Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. requesting an
experimental use permit (EUP) for combined and single trait corn
containing one or more of the following plant-incorporated protectants
(PIPs): (1) [Bt11] Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab delta-endotoxin and
the genetic material (via elements of vector pZO1502) necessary for its
production in corn (SYN-BT[Oslash]11-1), (2) [DAS-59122-7] Bacillus
thuringiensis Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 proteins and the genetic material
necessary for their production (PHP17662 T-DNA) in event DAS59122-7
corn (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
Unique Identifier: DAS-59122-7), (3) [MIR162] Bacillus thuringiensis
Vip3Aa20 and the genetic material necessary for its production (vector
pNOV1300) in event MIR162 maize (SYN-IR162-4), (4) [MIR604] Modified
Cry3A protein and the genetic material necessary for its production
(via elements of pZM26) in corn (SYN-IR604-8), (5) [TC1507] Bacillus
thuringiensis Cry1F protein and the genetic material (plasmid insert
PHI8999A) necessary for its production in corn event DAS-
[Oslash]15[Oslash]7-1, and (6) [MON810] Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab
delta-endotoxin and the genetic material necessary for its production
(Vestor PV-ZMCT01) in event MON 810 corn (OECD Unique Identifier: MON-
[Oslash][Oslash]81[Oslash]-6). The focus of the EUP are the three
breeding stacks: (1) MIR604 x 1507 x 59122 x MON 810, (2) MIR604 x
59122 x MON810, and (3) MIR604 x 1507. The Agency has determined that
the permit may be of regional and national significance. Therefore, in
accordance with 40 CFR 172.11(a), the Agency is soliciting comments on
this application.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 25, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0988, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket Facility's normal hours of operation (8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays).
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. The Docket Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2010-0988. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov,
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac
Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The hours of
operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket Facility telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Mendelsohn, Biopesticides and
Pollution Prevention Division (7511P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to those persons interested in agricultural
biotechnology or those who

are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) or the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other
entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to
describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to
a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the
pesticide(s) discussed in this document, compared to the general
population.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    Under section 5 of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136c, EPA can allow
manufacturers to field test pesticides under development. Manufacturers
are required to obtain an EUP before testing new pesticides or new uses
of pesticides if they conduct experimental field tests on 10 acres or
more of land or one acre or more of water.
    Pursuant to 40 CFR 172.11(a), the Agency has determined that the
following EUP application may be of regional and national significance,
and therefore is seeking public comment on the EUP application:
    Submitter: Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., (29964-EUP-RR).
    Pesticide Chemicals: (1) [TC1507] Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1F
protein and the genetic material (plasmid insert PHI8999A) necessary
for its production in corn event DAS-[Oslash]15[Oslash]7-1, (2) [DAS-
59122-7] Bacillus thuringiensis Cry34Ab1 and Cry35Ab1 proteins and the
genetic material necessary for their production (PHP17662 T-DNA) in
event DAS59122-7 corn (OECD Unique Identifier: DAS-59122-7), (3)
[MON810] Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab delta-endotoxin and the genetic
material necessary for its production (Vestor PV-ZMCT01) in event MON
810 corn (OECD Unique Identifier: MON-[Oslash][Oslash]81[Oslash]-6)],
and (4) [MIR604] Modified Cry3A protein and the genetic material
necessary for its production (via elements of pZM26) in corn (SYN-
IR604-8).
    Summary of Request: This application is for use on 3,336 acres
between February 2011 and June 2012. Two protocols will be conducted,
including: Insect resistance management and efficacy/expression. States
and Commonwealth involved include: Arkansas, California, Colorado,
Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan,
Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, South Dakota,
Tennessee, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin.
    A copy of the application and any information submitted is
available for public review in the docket established for this EUP
application as described under ADDRESSES.
    Following the review of the application and any comments and data
received in response to this solicitation, EPA will decide whether to
issue or deny the EUP request, and if issued, the conditions under
which it is to be conducted. Any issuance of an EUP will be announced
in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Experimental use permits.

    Dated: January 12, 2011.
Keith A. Matthews,
Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-1473 Filed 1-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


 [Federal Register: October 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 204)] [ Notices]                [Page 54838-54839] [DOCID:fr23oc09-64]

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

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2009-0001]

  Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB

Review; Comment Request; 1660-0095

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice; 30-day notice and request for comments; revision of a

currently approved information collection; OMB No. 1660-0095; No Form.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has submitted

the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management

and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission describes the

nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,

the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by

respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection

instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 23, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information

collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office

of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk

Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or

copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Office

of Records Management, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA 20598-

3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mail address FEMA-

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: National Flood Insurance Program Claims Appeal Process.

    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved

information collection.

    OMB Number: 1660-0095.

    Form Titles and Numbers: No Forms.

    Abstract: Section 205 of The Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood

Insurance Reform Act of 2004, Public Law 108-264, 42 U.S.C. 4011 note,

requires that FEMA establish an appeals process to allow respondents to

request a review of an unsatisfactory decision on flood claims.

Respondents will submit an appeal request and FEMA will use this

information to make a decision on if the unsatisfactory decision made

on a flood claim should be modified.

    Affected Public: Individuals or households; Business or other for

profit.

    Estimated Number of Respondents: 900.

    Frequency of Response: Once.

    Estimated Average Hour Burden per Respondent: 2 Hours.

    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1800 Hours.

    Estimated Cost: There is no annual reporting and recordkeeping cost

associated with this collection.

    Corrections: The 60-day notice for the collection of information

entitled Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Application and Reporting,

which published on January 30, 2007 at 72 FR 4287, listed the incorrect

OMB Number. It should have listed 1660-0076 instead of 1660-0095.

    The 60-day notice for the collection of information entitled

National Flood Insurance Program Claims Appeal Process, which published

on July 22, 2009 at 74 FR 36241 listed an incorrect citation. This 30-

day notice corrects the citation. The 60-day notice abstract also

incorrectly cited the title of the Act. It

should have listed the Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance

Reform Act of 2004 instead of The Bunning-Blumenauer Flood Insurance

Act of 2004.

Daisy Mitchell,

Acting Director, Records Management Division, Office of Management,

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.

[FR Doc. E9-25451 Filed 10-22-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-52-P


[Federal Register: April 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 64)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 17084-17085]
[DOCID:fr05ap10-22]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0308; Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-17-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH (TAE)
Model TAE 125-01 Reciprocating Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory
continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation
authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as: Service has shown that the small outlet of the blow-by
oil separators, part number 02-7250-18100R1; 02-7250-18100R2; 02-7250-
18100R3; 02-7250-18100R4; 02-7250-18300R1; 02-7250-18300R2; 02-7250-
18300R3; 02-7250-18300R4; or 02-7250-18300R5, may cause a blow-by gas
pressure increase inside the crankcase of the engine in excess of the
oil seal design pressure limits. Leaking engine oil may adversely
affect the gearbox clutch or the engine lubrication system. This
condition, if not corrected, could lead to in-flight cases of engine
power loss or ultimately, shutdown. We are proposing this AD to prevent
loss of engine power or uncommanded engine shutdown during flight due
to excessive crankcase blow-by gas pressure.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by May 20, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Contact Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH, Platanenstrasse 14 D-09350,
Lichtenstein, Germany, telephone: +49-37204-696-0; fax: +49-37204-696-
55; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for the service information
identified in this proposed AD.

Examining the AD Docket

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0308;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-17-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact
with FAA personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search
function of the Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any
of our dockets, including, if provided, the name of the individual who
sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65
FR 19477-78).

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
2010-0020, dated February 8, 2010 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    Service has shown that the small outlet of the blow-by
separators, part number 02-7250-18100R1; 02-7250-18100R2; 02-7250-
18100R3; 02-7250-18100R4; 02-7250-18300R1; 02-7250-18300R2; 02-7250-
18300R3; 02-7250-18300R4; or 02-7250-18300R5, may cause a blow-by
gas pressure increase inside the crankcase of the engine in excess
of the oil seal design pressure limits. Leaking engine oil may
adversely affect the gearbox clutch or the engine lubrication
system. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to in-flight
cases of engine power loss or ultimately, shutdown.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    TAE has issued Service Bulletin No. TM TAE 125-0019, Revision 1,
dated March 5, 2009. The actions described in this service information
are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of Germany
and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our
bilateral agreement with Germany, EASA has notified us of the unsafe
condition described in the MCAI. We are proposing this AD because we
evaluated all information provided by EASA and determined the unsafe
condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of
the same type design. This proposed AD would require removing from
service certain part number blow-by oil separators, within the next 110
flight hours after the effective date of the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD
would affect about 250 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it would take about 1.5 work-hours per engine to
comply with this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-
hour. Required parts would cost about $1,500 per engine. Based on these
figures, we

estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $406,875.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH: Docket No. FAA-2010-0308;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NE-17-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by May 20, 2010.

Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs)

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH (TAE)
model TAE 125-01 reciprocating engines with any of the following
part number blow-by oil separators installed:

                            Table 1--Part Numbers of Affected Blow-By Oil Separators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
02-7250-18100R1                            02-7250-18100R2               02-7250-18100R3.
02-7250-18100R4                            02-7250-18300R1               02-7250-18300R2.
02-7250-18300R3                            02-7250-18300R4               02-7250-18300R5.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These engines are installed in, but not limited to, Diamond
Aircraft Industries Model DA 40, Piper PA-28-161 (Supplemental Type
Certificate (STC) No. SA03303AT), and Cessna 172 (STC No. SA01303WI)
airplanes.

Reason

    (d) Service has shown that the small outlet of the blow-by oil
separators, part number 02-7250-18100R1; 02-7250-18100R2; 02-7250-
18100R3; 02-7250-18100R4; 02-7250-18300R1; 02-7250-18300R2; 02-7250-
18300R3; 02-7250-18300R4; or 02-7250-18300R5, may cause a blow-by
gas pressure increase inside the crankcase of the engine in excess
of the oil seal design pressure limits. Leaking engine oil may
adversely affect the gearbox clutch or the engine lubrication
system. This condition, if not corrected, could lead to in-flight
cases of engine power loss or ultimately, shutdown. This AD results
from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by
an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an
unsafe condition on an aviation product. We are issuing this AD to
prevent loss of engine power or uncommanded engine shutdown during
flight due to excessive crankcase blow-by gas pressure.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, do the following actions.
    (1) Remove the blow-by oil separators listed by part number in
Table 1 of this AD within the next 110 flight hours after the
effective date of this AD.
    (2) Use the Measures section of TAE Service Bulletin No. TM TAE
125-0019, Revision 1, dated March 5, 2009, to do the removal from
service.

FAA AD Differences

    (f) None.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (g) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2010-0020, dated
February 8, 2010, and TAE Service Bulletin No. TM TAE 125-0019,
Revision 1, dated March 5, 2009, for related information. Contact
Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH, Platanenstrasse 14 D-09350,
Lichtenstein, Germany, telephone: +49-37204-696-0; fax: +49-37204-
696-55; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for a copy of this
service information.
    (i) Contact Tara Chaidez, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for more information about this AD.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on March 30, 2010.
Peter A. White,
Assistant Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-7590 Filed 4-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


UNITEDSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 111 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 2029 Ms. Sandra Handonycead Abatement Coordinator Lead Poisoning Prevention Division DC Environmental Health Administration 825 North Capitol Street Washington, DC 20002 SENT VIA FAX Dew Ms. Handon,

Region III received, on May 14,1999, a letter fiom the District, dated March 15,1999, which stated that the following was transmitted with the District s March 15 letter:

1. Time line schedule [ for the implementation of the District s Lead Program]; 2. Individual certification forms; and 3. Third party exam vendor contract.

Individual certification forms were included with the March 15 letter so this information item, requested in EPA s letter dated February 16, 1999, is considered completed. However, additional information still is requested in order to set forth, for Region III consideration in review of the District s application for State Lead Program Authorization, the phasing of the District s Lead Training and Certification Program.

Specifically, please provide a schedule which delineates dates by when the following activities are expected to occur:

 Provision to EPA of a copy of the signed contract to implement a third party exam ( the document included with the March 15 letter appears to be a Statement of Work to attach to a request for proposals); business confidential idormation may be redacted;

 A third party exam will be available for inspectors, risk assessors, and supervisors seeking certification in the District;

 Provision to EPA of a sample copy of identificationcards for certified individuals performing lead based paint ( LBP) activities in the District;

 A database that tracks certifications of individuals licensed to perform LBP activities in the District will be operating ( the revised completion date listed in the chart that was enclosed entitled   State Lead 4041402 Grant,  lists 5/ 31/ 99 as the date; this or whatever date is correct for this milestone should be included in the District s response);

CustomerService Hokline: 1 800 438 2474   A database that tracks conduct of training audits in the District will be operating; ( the revised completion date listed in the chart that was enclosed entitled   State Lead 404/ 402 Grant  lists 5/ 31/ 99 as the date; this or whatever date is correct for this milestone should be included @_ theDistrict s response);

 A database that tracks conduct of abatements in the Distrist will be operating; ( the revised completion date listed in the chart that was enclosed entitled   State Lead 404/ 402 Grant  lists 9/ 30/ 99 as the date; this or whatever date is correct should be included in the District s response); and  Provision to EPA of sample copies of permit application forms ( the revised completion date listed in the chart that wasenclosed entitled   State Lead Enforcement Grant  lists 8/ 301/ 99 as the date; thisor whatever date is correct should be included in the District s response).

Please include this informationwith the District s response to EPA s May 3, 1999 letter, asthese items are requested in items 5 and 6 of that letter. By all means, feel fiee to call me at 215 814 2084 to discuss thisor any questions related to authorization of the District s Lead Program. Thankyou.

Sincerely,

Gerallyn Valls Region 111Lead Program Coordinator 3WC33 cc. Paul Cestone ( 7404) DanGallo ( 3WC33)

2


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES Date: July 14, 2006 Chemical: Propiconazole PC Code: 122101 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Terrestrial Plant Runoff Risk Assessment for Propiconazole on Turf Using PRZM FROM: Kevin Costello, Acting Team Leader, RB3 Special Review and Reregistration Division THROUGH: Michael Goodis, Branch Chief, RB3 Special Review and Reregistration Division TO: James Lin, Environmental Engineer James Hetrick, Senior Scientist Environmental Risk Branch 1 Environmental Fate and Effects Divsion The screening level terrestrial plant risk assessment for propiconazole suggests the potential for a risk of adverse effects on seedling emergence from runoff and drift to adjacent fields. The RQs for terrestrial dicot plants exceed the acute LOC for terrestrial plants in semi aquatic areas at the maximum application rate for turf ( RQ= 2.1  2.5). The RQs for listed terrestrial dicots in semi aquatic areas exceed the LOC for use on grasses grown for seed, rice, wild rice, peanut, and turf use.

However, there is some uncertainty in this finding of risk due to assumptions included in the TERR PLANT model used to derive the RQs. TERR PLANT assumes a default amount of runoff ( 2 % for propiconazole) from each of ten acres to non target plants in an adjacent acre based on the solubility of the pesticide. The Agency is currently developing a plant exposure model which, among other things, will use PRZM to estimate the amount of pesticide in runoff based on the persistence and mobility of the chemical, and soil and weather data in specific crop scenarios. Although this refined exposure model is not yet available, the transport of propiconazole in runoff from use on turf was estimated by PRZM as part of the aquatic risk assessment, and can be used to further characterize the potential for risk to terrestrial dicots. The TERR PLANT model assumed an EEC of 0.36 lb ai/ A from a single application of 1.78 lb ai/ A on turf. The transport of propiconazole from the peak runoff event for each of 30 years simulated by PRZM ranged from 0.009 lb ai/ A to 0.245 lb ai/ A. These EECs, which reflect 4 applications of propiconazole at 1.78 lb ai/ A, would result in acute RQs ranging from 0.05 to 1.4 if used in the risk assessment. Peak storm events simulated by PRZM would result in RQs at or above the LOC of 1.0 in 7 of the 30 years simulated, indicating a potential risk to plants adjacent to treated fields under certain conditions if the maximum rate and number of applications are applied.

Method Runoff flux was evaluated using the output file PPZPATuE. ZPM created by PRZM for application of propiconazole in the Pennsylvania turf scenario. This PRZM output file provides a cumulative accounting of the flux of propiconazole in runoff and adsorbed to sediments. Since the erosion flux was two orders of magnitude less than runoff flux, it was not included in this assessment.

The daily runoff flux was scanned to identify the day on which a storm event transported the greatest amount of propiconazole to the edge of the field each year. The amount of propiconazole transported that day was determined by subtracting the cumulative runoff flux from the previous day from the runoff flux from the day of the storm event. The maximum daily flux event for each of the 30 years is shown below in Table 1. The PRZM output file generates runoff flux values in g/ cm2 x 10E 5. For comparison to the assumed runoff flux of 0.36 lb ai/ A in the TERR PLANT model, the maximum annual runoff flux is shown in lb ai/ A in the column to the right.

Results Risk quotients in the table below were calculated by dividing the exposure in lb ai/ A by the toxicity endpoint for propiconazole; i. e. the application rate that caused an adverse effect on seedling emergence in 25% of test plants for the most sensitive species tested ( 0.18 lb ai/ A for cabbage). Table 1 below shows that the level of concern ( LOC) of 1.0 is exceeded for 7 of the 30 years simulated. RQs for five of those years range from 1.01 to 1.08, and the two highest RQs are 1.19 and 1.36. RQs from the other 23 years, which do not exceed the LOC, range from 0.05 to 0.99.

Table 1. Runoff flux simulated by PRZM ( PA Turf) and corresponding RQs Year Runoff flux Runoff flux RQ Date of storm event g/ cm 2 x 10E  5 lb ai/ A 1961 0.021 0.1875 1.04 15 May 1962 0.009 0.080357 0.45 15 Jun 1963 0.0077 0.06875 0.38 12 Sep 1964 0.0011 0.009821 0.05 30 Apr 1965 0.001 0.008929 0.05 22 Aug 1966 0.0023 0.020536 0.11 21 Sep 1967 0.0218 0.194643 1.08 18 Jun 1968 0.007 0.0625 0.34 30 May 1969 0.0216 0.192857 1.07 28 Jul 1970 0.0045 0.040179 0.22 20 Jul 1971 0.0117 0.104464 0.58 1 Aug 1972 0.02 0.178571 0.99 22 Jun 1973 0.0275 0.245536 1.36 24 Jun 1974 0.0064 0.057143 0.32 17 Aug 1975 0.0027 0.024107 0.13 5 Jun 1976 0.024 0.214286 1.19 8 Aug 1977 0.0018 0.016071 0.09 19 Jul 1978 0.0097 0.086607 0.48 7 Aug 1979 0.0059 0.052679 0.29 6 Sep 1980 0.0012 0.010714 0.06 25 Oct 1981 0.0026 0.023214 0.13 11 May 1982 0.0212 0.189286 1.05 8 Aug 1983 0.0039 0.034821 0.19 20 Jun 1984 0.0204 0.182143 1.01 29 May 1985 0.0171 0.152679 0.85 26 Jul 1986 0.0038 0.033929 0.19 16 Apr 1987 0.0168 0.15 0.83 9 Aug 1988 0.0172 0.153571 0.85 19 May 1989 0.0025 0.022321 0.12 20 Sep 1990 0.017 0.151786 0.84 6 Aug The final column in the table reports the date on which the greatest simulated daily runoff flux event occurred in each year. The range of dates illustrates that the storm event which causes the greatest amount of pesticide flux from the field can occur any time in the growing season. This is important because the adverse effect reflected in the RQs, seedling emergence, will not occur if exposed plants have already germinated and grown from seed. As shown in the Table 1, the runoff events for three of the seven years for which RQs exceed the LOC occurred on July 28 or later.