[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 24, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11156-11158]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03581]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 35 / Wednesday, February 24, 2021 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0028; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-01516-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus SAS Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Airbus SAS Model A319-171N airplanes, Model A320-271N, -272N,
and -273N airplanes, and Model A321-271N, -272N, -271NX, and -272NX
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report indicating that
during a full scale fatigue test of the forward engine mounts,
premature wear was identified on the forward engine mount shackle
assemblies; in addition, during bearing replacement, the bearing lock
washer was found broken. This proposed AD would require replacing any
forward engine mount shackle assemblies having a certain part number
with a serviceable part, and re-identifying the engine mount, or
replacing any forward engine mount assemblies having a certain part
number, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)
AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 12,
2021.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For material that will be incorporated by reference (IBR) in this
AD, contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available in
the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0028.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
0028; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for Docket Operations is listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-0028; Project Identifier
MCAI-2020-01516-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received about this proposed AD.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines,
WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically
designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this
rulemaking.

Background

    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2020-0250, dated November 11, 2020
(EASA AD 2020-0250) (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition
for all Airbus SAS Model A319-171N airplanes, Model A320-271N, -272N,
and -273N airplanes, and Model A321-

271N, -272N, -271NX, and -272NX airplanes.
    This proposed AD was prompted by a report indicating that during a
full scale fatigue test of the forward engine mounts, premature wear
was identified on the forward engine mount shackle assemblies; in
addition, during bearing replacement, the bearing lock washer was found
broken. The FAA is proposing this AD to address premature wear and
broken bearing lock washers at the forward engine mounts, which could
lead to overload of the forward engine mount beams and engine mount
failure, with consequent in-flight engine detachment, and possibly
result in reduced controllability of the airplane. See the MCAI for
additional background information.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2020-0250 describes procedures for replacing any forward
engine mount shackle assemblies having part number D7121513500xxx
(`xxx' can be any numerical value) with a serviceable part, and re-
identifying the engine mount, or replacing any forward engine mount
assemblies having part number D7121506500xxx (`xxx' can be any
numerical value) and fitted with an affected engine mount shackle
assembly. This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA
evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe
condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other
products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in EASA AD 2020-0250 described previously, as incorporated by
reference, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the
regulatory text of this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a
process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information
for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has
since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation
authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2020-0250
will be incorporated by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed
AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2020-0250 in its
entirety, through that incorporation, except for any differences
identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular
section in the EASA AD does not mean that operators need comply only
with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to
``all required actions and compliance times,'' compliance with this AD
requirement is not limited to the section titled ``Required Action(s)
and Compliance Time(s)'' in the EASA AD. Service information specified
in EASA AD 2020-0250 that is required for compliance with EASA AD 2020-
0250 will be available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0028 after the FAA
final rule is published.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 70 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Labor cost                      Parts cost            Cost per product      Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 work-hours x $85 per hour = $425...  Up to $75,360..........  Up to $75,785..........  Up to $5,304,950.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this
proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost
impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty
coverage for affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included
all known costs in the cost estimate.

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.
    The FAA is 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

    The FAA 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) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Airbus SAS: Docket No. FAA-2021-0028; Project Identifier MCAI-2020-
01516-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) action by April 12, 2021.

(b) Affected Airworthiness Directives (ADs)

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Airbus SAS Model A319-171N airplanes,
Model A320-271N, -272N, and -273N airplanes, and Model A321-271N, -
272N, -271NX, and -272NX airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report indicating that during a full
scale fatigue test of the forward engine mounts, premature wear was
identified on the forward engine mount shackle assemblies; in
addition, during bearing replacement, the bearing lock washer was
found broken. The FAA is issuing this AD to address premature wear
and broken bearing lock washers at the forward engine mounts, which
could lead to overload of the forward engine mount beams and engine
mount failure, with consequent in-flight engine detachment, and
possibly result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2020-0250, dated November 11, 2020 (EASA AD 2020-0250).

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2020-0250

    (1) Where EASA AD 2020-0250 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2020-0250 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, has
the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight
Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to
the Large Aircraft Section, International Validation Branch, send it
to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(2) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, Large Aircraft
Section, International Validation Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Airbus
SAS's EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the
DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Required for Compliance (RC): Except as required by
paragraph (i)(2) of this AD, if any service information contains
procedures or tests that are identified as RC, those procedures and
tests must be done to comply with this AD; any procedures or tests
that are not identified as RC are recommended. Those procedures and
tests that are not identified as RC may be deviated from using
accepted methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or
inspection program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided
the procedures and tests identified as RC can be done and the
airplane can be put back in an airworthy condition. Any
substitutions or changes to procedures or tests identified as RC
require approval of an AMOC.

(j) Related Information

    (1) For information about EASA AD 2020-0250, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
8999 000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu. You
may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this material at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This material may be
found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2021-0028.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Sanjay Ralhan,
Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, International Validation
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued on February 4, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-03581 Filed 2-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76235-76238]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29776]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0674; FRL-9920-61-Region 4]

Approval of Implementation Plans and Designation of Areas;
Alabama; Redesignation of the Alabama Portion of the Chattanooga, 1997
p.m.2.5 Nonattainment Area to Attainment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On April 23, 2013, the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (ADEM), submitted a request to redesignate the Alabama
portion of the Chattanooga, TN-GA-AL fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the
``Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area'' or ``Area'') to attainment for the 1997
Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
and to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a
maintenance plan for the Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL
Area. The Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area is comprised
of a portion of Jackson County in Alabama. EPA is approving the
redesignation request and the related SIP revision, including the plan
for maintaining attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 standard
for the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. EPA is also approving the on-road
motor vehicle insignificance determination for direct PM2.5
and nitrogen oxides (NOx) for the Alabama portion of the Chattanooga
TN-GA-AL Area. On September 14, 2012, and November 13, 2014, Georgia
and Tennessee (respectively) submitted requests to redesignate the
Georgia and Tennessee portions of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. EPA
will be taking separate action on the requests from Georgia and
Tennessee.

DATES: This rule is effective December 22, 2014.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2014-0674. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joydeb Majumder, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Joydeb Majumder may be
reached by phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
I. What is the Background for the Actions?

    On April 23, 2013, ADEM submitted a request to redesignate the
Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL nonattainment area to
attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and to approve,
as a revision to the Alabama SIP, a maintenance plan for the Area.\1\
On November 12, 2014, EPA proposed to redesignate the Alabama portion
of Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, and to approve, as a revision to the Alabama
SIP, the State's 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance plan
and the on-road motor vehicle insignificance determination for direct
PM2.5 and NOx for the Alabama portion of Chattanooga TN-GA-
AL Area included in that maintenance plan.\2\ See 79 FR 67137. EPA also
proposed to determine that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area is continuing
to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and that attainment
can be maintained through 2025. EPA received no adverse comments on the
November 12, 2014, proposed rulemaking. EPA notes that it inadvertently
referred to the Area as the ``Chattanooga, TN-GA Area'' in the November
12, 2014, proposed rulemaking. In today's final rulemaking, EPA is
clarifying this Area should have been referred to as the ``Chattanooga,
TN-GA-AL Area'' to account for a correction for the name of this Area
that was published in the Federal Register on May 5, 2014, at 79 FR
25508.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA designated the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area as
nonattainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS on January
5, 2005 (70 FR 944) as supplemented on April 14, 2005 (70 FR 19844).
    \2\ On February 8, 2012, EPA approved, under section 172(c)(3)
of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), Alabama's 2002 base-year
emissions inventory for the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area as part of the
SIP revision submitted by ADEM to provide for attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS in the Area. See 77 FR 6467.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its November 12, 2014, proposed action, EPA stated that the
adequacy public comment period on the motor vehicle insignificance
determination (as contained in Alabama's April 23, 2013, submittal)
began on September 22, 2014, and closed on October 22, 2014. No
comments were received during this public comment period, and
therefore, EPA deems the insignificance determination adequate for the
purposes of transportation conformity.
    As stated in EPA's November 12, 2014, proposal notice, the 3-year
design value of 12.9 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) for the
Area for 2007-2009 meets the PM2.5 Annual NAAQS of 15.0
[mu]g/m\3\. EPA has reviewed the most recent ambient monitoring data,
which confirms that the Area continues to attain the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS beyond the 3-year attainment period of 2007-
2009.

II. What are the Actions EPA is Taking?

    In today's rulemaking, EPA is approving Alabama's redesignation
request to change the legal designation of the portion of the Jackson
County in Alabama within the Area from nonattainment to attainment for
the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and as a revision to the
Alabama SIP, the State's 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance
plan and the on-road motor vehicle insignificance determination for the
Alabama portion of the Area included in that maintenance plan. The
maintenance plan is designed to demonstrate that the Chattanooga TN-GA-
AL Area will continue to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
through 2025. EPA's approval of the redesignation request is based on
EPA's determination that the Alabama portion of Chattanooga TN-GA-AL
Area meets the criteria for redesignation set forth in the CAA,
including EPA's determination that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area has
attained and continues to attain the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
and that attainment can be maintained through 2025. EPA's analyses of
Alabama's redesignation request and maintenance plan are described in
detail in the November 12, 2014, proposed rule. See 79 FR 67137.
Through this final action, EPA is finding the on-road motor vehicle
insignificance determination for the Alabama portion of the Area
(included in that maintenance plan) adequate for transportation
conformity purposes.
    EPA is now taking final action as described above. Additional
background for today's action is set forth in EPA's November 12, 2014,
proposal and is summarized below.
    EPA has reviewed the most recent ambient monitoring data, which
indicate that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area continues to attain the
1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS beyond the submitted 3-year
attainment period of

2007-2009. As stated in EPA's November 12, 2014, proposal notice, the
3-year design value of 12.9 [mu]g/m\3\ for the Area for 2007-2009 meets
the NAAQS of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\. Quality assured and certified data in
EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) for 2013 provide a 3-year design value
of 10.5 [mu]g/m\3\ for the Area for 2011-2013. Furthermore, preliminary
monitoring data for 2014 indicate that the Area is continuing to attain
the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2014 preliminary data are
available in AQS although the data are not yet quality assured and
certified.

III. Why is EPA taking these actions?

    EPA has determined that the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area has attained
the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and has also determined that all
other criteria for the redesignation of the Alabama portion of
Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area from nonattainment to attainment of the 1997
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS have been met. See CAA section
107(d)(3)(E). One of those requirements is that the Alabama portion of
Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area has an approved plan demonstrating
maintenance of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS over the ten-year
period following redesignation. EPA has determined that attainment can
be maintained through 2025 and is taking final action to approve the
maintenance plan for the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area as meeting the
requirements of sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. The detailed
rationale for EPA's findings and actions is set forth in the November
12, 2014, proposed rulemaking. See 79 FR 67137.

IV. What are the effects of these actions?

    Approval of the redesignation request changes the legal designation
of the portion of the Jackson County in Alabama within the Area from
nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA is modifying the regulatory table in 40 CFR 81.301 to reflect a
designation of attainment for this portion of Jackson County. EPA is
also approving, as a revision to the Alabama SIP, the State's plan for
maintaining the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the Chattanooga
TN-GA-AL Area. The maintenance plan includes the on-road motor vehicle
insignificance determination for direct PM2.5 and NOx for
the Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area and contingency
measures to remedy possible future violations of the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.

V. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve the redesignation and change
the legal designation of a portion of Jackson County in Alabama from
nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
Through this action, EPA is also approving into the Alabama SIP the
1997Annual PM2.5 maintenance plan for the Alabama portion of
the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area, which includes an on-road motor vehicle
insignificance finding for direct PM2.5 and NOx for the
Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area. Finally, EPA is
finding the insignificance determination contained in Alabama's April
23, 2013, SIP revision adequate for the purposes of transportation
conformity.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds that there is good
cause for this action to become effective immediately upon publication.
This is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the
nature of a redesignation to attainment, which relieves the Area from
certain CAA requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The
immediate effective date for this action is authorized under both 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become
effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule grants or
recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction, and section
553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after
publication as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found
and published with the rule. The purpose of the 30-day waiting period
prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable
time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes
effect. Today's rule, however, does not create any new regulatory
requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare
before the rule takes effect. Rather, today's rule relieves the Area of
various requirements for the Alabama portion of the Chattanooga TN-GA-
AL Area. For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3) for this action to become effective on the date of
publication of this action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of geographical area
and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources
beyond those required by state law. A redesignation to attainment does
not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but rather results in
the application of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that
have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, 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, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For these reasons, these actions:
     Are 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);
     do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     are 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.);
     do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     are not significant regulatory action subject to Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     are 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 CAA; and,
     do 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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 20, 2015. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and Particulate matter.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks.

    Dated: December 9, 2014.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52-APPROVAL & PROMULGATION OF PLANS

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

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

Subpart B--Alabama

0
2. Section 52.50(e) is amended by adding an entry for ``1997 Annual
PM2.5 Maintenance Plan for the Alabama portion of
Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.50  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Alabama Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable           State
    Name of non-regulatory SIP        geographic or     submittal date/  EPA approval date       Explanation
            provision               nonattainment area  effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
1997 Annual PM2.5 Maintenance      Portion of Jackson         04/23/13  12/22/14 [Insert
 Plan for the Alabama portion of    County in the                        citation of
 the Chattanooga TN-GA-AL Area.     Chattanooga TN-GA-                   publication].
                                    AL Area.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--DESIGNATION FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. In Sec.  81.301, the table entitled ``Alabama--1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS'' is amended under ``Chattanooga, TN-GA:'' by
revising the entry for ``Jackson County (part)'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.301  Alabama.

* * * * *

                                                            Alabama--1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
                                                                 [Primary and secondary]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Designation \a\                                         Classification
             Designated area             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Date \1\                      Type                      Date \2\                      Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Chattanooga, TN-GA-AL:..................
    Jackson County (part)...............     12/22/14  Attainment...............................
    The area described by US Census 2000
     block group identifier 01-071-9503-
     1

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ This date is July 2, 2014, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-29776 Filed 12-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 68 (Thursday, April 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19106-19107]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08215]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent to Rule on Request to Release Airport Property
at the Former Stapleton International Airport, Denver, Colorado

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the
release of land at the former Stapleton International Airport (SIA)
under the provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation
Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21), now 49 U.S.C.
47107(h)(2).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 11, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Mr. John P. Bauer, Manager, Federal
Aviation Administration, Northwest Mountain Region, Airports Division,
Denver Airports District Office, 26805 E. 68th Avenue, Suite 224,
Denver, Colorado 80249-6361.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Mr. Greg Holt, Stapleton Redevelopment Program
Manager, Denver International Airport, at the following address: Mr.
Greg Holt, Stapleton Redevelopment Program Manager, Denver
International Airport, 8500 Pena Boulevard, Ninth Floor, Room 9870,
Denver, Colorado 80249-6340.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Marc Miller, Colorado Engineer/
Compliance Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Northwest
Mountain Region, Denver Airports District Office, 26805 E. 68th Avenue,
Suite 224, Denver, Colorado 80249-6361.
    The request to release property may be reviewed, by appointment, in
person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release property at the former Stapleton International
Airport under the provisions of the AIR 21 (49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2)).
    The Airport and Airway Safety and Capacity Expansion Act of 1987,
Public Law 100-223, 101 Stat. 1529, Section 313(a), gave the Secretary
of Transportation the authorization, subject to the provisions of
Section 4 of the Act of October 1, 1949 (63 Stat. 700; 50 U.S.C. App.
1622c), to grant Stapleton International Airport release from any of
the terms, conditions, reservations, or restrictions contained in each
deed of conveyance under which the United States conveyed property to
the City and County of Denver, Colorado, on which any portion of
Stapleton International Airport is located. This included property
conveyed under Section 16 of the Federal Airport Act (60 Stat. 179).
    On April 3, 2015, the FAA determined that the request to release
property at the former Stapleton International Airport submitted by the
City and County of Denver meets the procedural requirements of the
Federal Aviation Administration.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The City and County of Denver is proposing the release from the
terms, conditions, reservations and restrictions on the remaining
property identified in Section 15 (68.931 acres) and Section 22
(150.708 acres) at the former Stapleton International Airport. These
parcels were conveyed from the United States of America to the City and
County of Denver to be used for aviation development on November 22,
1957, February 26, 1960, and July 18, 1963. In May 1989, Denver voters
endorsed the plan to build a new airport, to be called Denver
International Airport. Stapleton International Airport closed on
February 28, 1995, when Denver International Airport opened, and the
FAA transferred all City and County of Denver's grant obligations in
connection with Stapleton International Airport to the development and
operation of Denver International Airport. The Stapleton property has
slowly been redeveloped over the past 20 years for homes, businesses,
roads, parks, and open space, in accordance with zoning, plats, and
general development plans approved by the City and County of Denver.
The sale of this property will be based on an appraisal conducted in
January 2000 which was approved by the FAA in April 2000. The City and
County of Denver will treat all proceeds as airport revenue and will be
used

exclusively in connection with Denver International Airport,
specifically for the payment of debt.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect
the application, notice and other documents germane to the application
in person at the Denver International Airport.

    Issued in Denver, Colorado on April 3, 2015.
John P. Bauer,
Manager, Denver Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2015-08215 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


07 19 05 BOARD OF SCIENTIFIC COUNSELORS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING DRAFT AGENDA Friday, July 29, 2005 1: 00 p. m.   3: 00 pm Eastern CONFERENCE CALL Participation by Teleconference Only 1: 00 1: 10 p. m. Welcome and Overview Dr. James H. Johnson, Jr.  Purpose of Teleconference Call Chair, BOSC Executive Committee 1: 10   1: 15p. m. DFO Remarks Lori Kowalski, Office of Research and Development 1: 15 1: 35 p. m. Particulate Matter ( PM)/ Ozone Subcommittee Dr. Rogene Henderson, Chair, Draft Report PM/ Ozone Subcommittee  Overview  Revised responses to charge questions 1: 35 1: 50 p. m. Discussion Dr. John Giesy, BOSC Executive Committee/ Dr. James H. Johnson, Jr., Chair BOSC Executive Committee 1: 50 2: 00 p. m. Public Comment 2: 00   2: 45 p. m. Discussion ( Continued) Dr. John Giesy, BOSC Executive Committee/ Dr. James H. Johnson, Jr., Chair BOSC Executive Committee 2: 45   3: 00 p. m. Final Report Dr. James H. Johnson, Jr.  Identification of Additional Changes Chair, BOSC Executive  Approval by Executive Committee Committee 3: 00 p. m. Adjourn


[Federal Register: July 2, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 126)]
[Notices]
[Page 31786-31788]
[DOCID:fr02jy09-105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-60179; File No. SR-NYSE-2009-61]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Decommissioning the Requirement for Member Organizations To Report
Program Trading Activity on the Daily Program Trading Report

June 26, 2009.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 24, 2009, the New York Stock Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the NYSE. The NYSE has
filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the
Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal
effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to decommission the requirement for member
organizations to report program trading activity on the Daily Program
Trading Report (``DPTR'').
    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange,
the Commission's Public Reference Room, and http://www.nyse.com.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to implement the previously approved
decommissioning of the requirement that member organizations report
program trading activity via the Daily Program Trading Report
(``DPTR'').\5\ Because certain entities previously used DPTR data, the
Exchange delayed implementing the decommissioning of the DPTR
requirement to provide adequate time to coordinate with such entities.
The Exchange files this rule proposal to announce the stated policy of
the Exchange that the last trade date for which member organizations
will be required to file the DPTR with the Exchange will be July 10,
2009 and therefore the last required date to submit the DPTR will be
July 14, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55793 (May 22,
2007), 72 FR 29567 (May 29, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-34).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background
    In 2007, the Exchange filed a rule proposal to update the
definition of program trading and to make certain conforming changes to
rules governing program trading at the Exchange (the ``2007 rule
filing'').\6\ In addition to amending the definition of program
trading, the Exchange proposed to streamline the reporting process that
member organizations must follow when reporting program trading.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 55615 (Apr. 11,
2007), 72 FR 19225 (Apr. 17, 2007) (SR-NYSE-2007-34).
    \7\ Beginning in 1988, the Exchange required that member
organizations report program trading by the close of the second
business day following the trade day on the DPTR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2007 rule filing, the Exchange proposed to eliminate DPTR.
The 2007 filing noted that there was some duplication between the DPTR
data and the audit trail information that member organizations provide
to the Exchange via account-type indicators at the time that they
submit program trades to the Exchange. The Exchange uses account type
indicators to capture program trade information for those portions of
the

program trades that are submitted to and executed on the Exchange.
    In the 2007 rule filing, the Exchange also proposed to redefine two
of the existing program trading related account type indicators.
    Following approval of the rule filing and after consultation with
the Commission the Exchange announced that it would delay
implementation of the two redefined account type indicators, and
pending such implementation, member organizations would be required to
continue filing the DPTR with the Exchange.\8\ The current delayed
implementation date of the redefined account type indicators is June
30, 2009. Accordingly, the Exchange still requires member organizations
to submit DPTR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See NYSE Information Memos 07-52 (June 11, 2007), 07-88
(Aug. 31, 2007), 08-4 (Jan. 16, 2008), 08-25 (Apr. 30, 2008), and
08-64 (Dec. 15, 2008) (extending the reporting requirement changes
to June 30, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Stated Policy, Practice, and Interpretation of Exchange Rules
    The Exchange proposes to implement the decommissioning of the DPTR
requirement following the July 10, 2009 trade date. Accordingly, the
last required submission of the DPTR will be on July 14, 2009, which is
the second business day after the last trade date for which the DPTR is
required.
    Separately, the Exchange notes that in connection with this
proposed stated policy, the Exchange will not be implementing the
proposed redefined program trading account type indicators (J and K)
and will continue to use the existing J and K audit trail account
types. Upon further analysis and based on industry input, the Exchange
has determined that these redefined account type indicators do not
enhance the regulatory audit trail because the proposed redefined J and
K could subsume some of the other, more granular account type
indicators that the Exchange currently receives. Accordingly, the
Exchange sees no benefit to changing the current J and K account types.
    In lieu of DPTR, the Exchange will utilize existing account type
indicator data--which captures program trade information for those
orders that are submitted to and executed on the Exchange--to report to
the Commission on a weekly basis the program trading statistics for
portions of program trades executed on the Exchange. Accordingly,
beginning on July 23, 2009, the Exchange will provide the Commission
with its weekly statistics on program trading based on account type
indicator data rather than DPTR data. Similarly, at the same time, the
weekly statistics regarding program trades that the Exchange provides
to media outlets will also be derived from account type indicator data
rather than the DPTR.
2. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act \9\ which requires the rules of an exchange to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. In
particular, because the Commission has previously approved the
decommissioning of the DPTR, this rule filing simply implements a
previously approved change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(1) \11\ thereunder. The
proposed rule change effects a change that constitutes a stated policy,
practice, or interpretation with respect to the meaning,
administration, or enforcement of an existing rule. In particular, the
Commission previously approved the elimination of the DPTR reporting
requirements. The Exchange has delayed implementing that prior rule
change and through this rule filing, announces its stated policy that
July 10, 2009 will be the last trade date for which member
organizations will be required to file the DPTR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 19b-4(f)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2009-61 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2009-61. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the NYSE. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2009-61 and should be
submitted on or before July 23, 2009.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-15613 Filed 7-1-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 4, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23711-23712]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09355]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 15109-000]

Turnagain Arm Tidal Energy Corp.; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On April 13, 2021, the Turnagain Arm Tidal Energy Corp filed an
amended application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f)
of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the feasibility of the
proposed Turnagain Arm Tidal Electric Generation Project (TATEG) No.
15109-000, to be located on Turnagain Arm and adjacent lands of the
Municipality of Anchorage and the Kenai Peninsula Borough. The sole
purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) Six 0.5-
mile-long, 300-foot-wide tidal power stations, with five stations
containing 40, 10-megawatt (MW) tidal-to-electrical energy generating
units and one station containing 42, 10-MW tidal-to-electrical energy
generating units for a total installed capacity of 2,420 MW; (2) a
transmission network consisting of 29.81 miles of undersea transmission
lines connecting the six power stations and coming onshore at Point
Campbell in Anchorage and near Possession Point on Kenai Peninsula
Borough land; (3) a 7.5-mile-long, aboveground transmission line
extending from Point Campbell through South Anchorage to a control
building and step-up facility in South Anchorage; (4) a 2.91-mile-long,
230-kilovolt (kV) aboveground transmission line extending from the
Anchorage control building to a 40,000-square-foot industrial battery
array with

a storage capacity of 300 MW and then to the Chugach Electric
Association substation in Anchorage; (5) a 0.2-mile-long, 230 kV
aboveground transmission line extending from the control building to a
200,000-square-foot hydrogen electrolysis plant and storage yard
located in South Anchorage with a processing capacity of up to 1.21-
Gigawatts (GW); (6) a 34.8-mile-long, aboveground transmission line
following an existing right-of-way extending from Possession Point to a
control building and step-up facility in Nikiski; (7) a 2.75-mile-long,
230 kV aboveground transmission line extending from the Nikiski control
building to the Homer Electric Association substation; and (8)
appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an estimated
average annual generation of 10,599,500 megawatt-hours.
    Applicant Contact: Christopher D.L. Lee, 821 North St., Suite 207,
Anchorage, Alaska, 99501; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    FERC Contact: Kristen Sinclair; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing
applications using the Commission's eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy.
Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via
any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should include docket
number P-15109-000.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's website at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-15109) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: April 29, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-09355 Filed 5-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


EPA's Pesticide Drift Reduction Technologies Program - A Voluntary Program  -  DRAFT Web page - May 2014

Verified drift reduction technologies can significantly reduce pesticide spray drift and loss  from the application site, thereby keeping more pesticide on the crop and reducing risks to nearby crops, the environment and people.

What is the Drift Reduction Technologies Program?  How to Test for Percent Drift Reduction  EPA-Verified Drift Reduction Technologies and the Star-Ratings Adding Directions to Include DRTs on Pesticide Product Labels Table of Verified DRT-Rated Technologies Additional Resources  What is the Drift Reduction Technologies Program? The EPA's Drift Reduction Technologies (DRT) Program is a voluntary program that is intended to encourage the identification and use of DRTs that can substantially reduce drift of pesticide spray droplets from the target application site (e.g., a corn field) downwind to non-target areas.  Examples of drift reduction technologies include spray nozzles, shrouds and shields, and nozzle/drift reducing adjuvant chemical combinations. Although these and other technologies have the potential to provide drift reduction, there is often uncertainty about their effectiveness or performance. Verification testing of technologies can provide a specific, quantitative measure of the effectiveness of the tested technology to reduce spray drift.  The DRT Program focuses on technologies used for groundboom and aerial applications to field and row crops, which are the predominant pesticide use and application methods as well as the largest crop acreage in the United States.  The EPA believes that over time, the DRT Program will move the agricultural sector away from unverified application technologies, toward the widespread use of low drift technologies. A robust adoption of this voluntary testing program by equipment and pesticide manufacturers and the resultant widespread use of DRTs by pesticide applicators will provide many benefits including:    * A standardized scientific approach to verifying and rating DRTs    * Reduced loss of pesticide product to drift and increased deposition of product on the intended crop, potentially improving  efficacy of the pest or weed control    * Pesticide labels containing use directions with reductions for necessary spray restrictions, giving applicators more flexibility    * Reduced potential for off-target adverse effects, improved protection to sensitive crops and environments and nearby people

How to Test for Percent Drift Reduction EPA's Offices of Research and Development and Pesticide Programs, with technical input from external experts, have developed a protocol Generic Verification Protocol for Testing Pesticide Application Spray Drift Reduction Technologies for Row and Field Crops.  [insert link] for testing pesticide application technologies to estimate the percent reduction of spray drift. This protocol addresses three testing approaches:  low speed wind tunnels (to simulate application by groundboom equipment), high speed wind tunnels (to simulate application by aircraft), and field testing (groundboom or aerial application).  Generally, testing of smaller technologies, such as spray nozzles or nozzle/adjuvant combinations, would be conducted in wind tunnels which measure the amount of the relatively smallest driftable droplets (fines).  The DRT rating of the technology will be based on the difference between the amounts of driftable fines from the technology being tested as compared to the reference nozzle.  Use of a standardized DRT test protocol will enable EPA to make valid comparisons of test results. The drift reduction estimated by the study results would then be used to assign the technology its DRT rating. EPA believes that field studies will most likely be used to determine drift reduction for shrouds or other large equipment that cannot fit into a wind tunnel.  Field studies generate a deposition pattern and quantity of spray drift at downwind distances.  EPA can use these data to estimate the percent drift reduction.  Each field study is likely to be unique, and involve case-by-case considerations.   EPA can use data from wind tunnel and field tests in the models for its risk assessments. EPA will "credit" the DRT-rated technology in the risk assessment-management decision rather than assuming no spray drift reduction. Pesticide labels that include use directions that specify DRT-rated technologies would also specify spray drift risk management measures, such as buffer zones, maximum wind speed, or release height.  Since pesticide product labels will only specify, for example, to use a nozzle with a, for example, a DRT** rating, the label will not include brand names.  Thus, applicators will have a variety of technologies from which to choose. EPA notes that the protocol is limited to technologies for application to row and field crops because a large majority of agricultural pesticides are applied to these crops by groundboom and aerial equipment.  A focus on encouraging the use of DRTs for these uses should have an overall greater benefit to drift reduction.  In the future, EPA may consider expanding this voluntary program to application technologies for orchard and vineyard crops which require the use of significantly different application equipment. Test Facilities Technology manufacturers should contract with a qualified testing facility capable of performing this test with the appropriate equipment, methods and quality control standards. Refer to the protocol, section A8. Special Training and Certifications, for further information. Submitting Test Reports to the EPA for Review and Evaluation The EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs has developed a format for data submission. [link] Send test reports to the EPA DRT box at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>OPP will review the reports to verify the quality of the study and verify the tested technology's drift reduction potential.  Based on the data and information in the submitted report, OPP will verify whether the test was performed in an appropriate manner and only then determine if the data support a DRT rating.

EPA-Verified Drift Reduction Technologies and the Star-Ratings DRT-Assigned Ratings 25% to 49% 50% to 74% 75% to 89%  90% +

                                                                                DRT-Assigned Ratings 25% to 49% 50% to 74% 75% to 89%  90% +

                                                                                The EPA will offer four DRT ratings represented by one, two, three, or four stars for verified technologies which demonstrate at least 25% reduction in potential spray drift: Adding Directions to Include DRTs on Pesticide Product Labels The EPA encourages pesticide registrants to submit registration applications for new or amended registrations to include the use of verified DRTs on their product labels. As previously explained, the label will not include brand names, but will have use directions, such as, "Apply this product with DRT** technology."  Applications to include DRT label claims should be submitted according to standard requirements and procedures for applications for registration. OPP will review registration applications and will credit the DRT label claim in its risk assessment and management decisions. Use of DRT-rated technologies can potentially result in significantly less off-target deposition, and could therefore mean that labels could contain use directions with reduced application restrictions, such as reduction or elimination of a buffer zone, or allowing applications during greater wind velocity or spray release height.  Conversely, for identical or substantially similar pesticides without a DRT claim, EPA/OPP would not apply the credit of a DRT claim and therefore would likely require greater application restrictions to address potentially greater off-target drift and risks.  Pesticide applicants and registrants can choose to label their products for use with both standard application equipment (non-DRT) and DRT-rated equipment or technologies, thus giving the applicator a choice.  In this case such labels would have two sets of application restrictions:  One set of restrictions if the product is applied without DRT and another set of restrictions if the product is applied with a DRT. Table of Verified DRT-Rated Technologies Pesticide applicators who choose to use a product labeled with a specific DRT claim can locate the application  technologies that have been verified for that DRT claim using the Table of Verified DRT-Rated Technologies. For example, if a label allows the applicator to use DRT*** technology, the applicator would refer to the EPA's DRT website to see the identities of the specific DRT*** rated technologies to make the application.

Table of Verified DRT-Rated Technologies for Groundboom Applications Manufacturer DRT-Rated Technology System Pressure (psi)

DRT* Technologies

DRT** Technologies

DRT*** Technologies

DRT**** Technologies

Table for Verified DRT-Rated Technologies for Aerial Applications

Manufacturer DRT-Rated Technology System Pressure (psi)

DRT* Technologies

DRT** Technologies

DRT*** Technologies

DRT**** Technologies

Additional Resources    * Federal Register notice: EPA DRT Program [need link to FR notice]


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 19, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2899-2900]
[FR Doc No: 2010-821]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61333; File No. SR-NYSE-2009-117]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC; Order
Approving Proposed Rule Change Amending Its Listing Fees for Structured
Products

January 12, 2010.

I. Introduction

    On November 19, 2009, New York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change

amending its maximum fee for structured products. The proposed rule
change was published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2009.\3\
The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This order
approves the proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 61091 (December 1,
2009), 74 FR 64797 (hereinafter referred to as ``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The Exchange proposes to apply a maximum listing fee in any
calendar year (including initial and annual listing fees) of $500,000
in connection with the listing under Section 902.05 of the Listed
Company Manual (the ``Manual'') of any individual issuance of
securities, with retroactive application to any securities listed on or
after the date of November 19, 2009. Currently, Section 902.05 sets
forth listing fees applicable to securities traded on the equity floor
of the Exchange and listed under Section 703.18, the equity criteria
set out in Section 703.19, and Section 703.21. Additionally, Section
902.05 provides that issuers of ``retail debt securities'' are subject
to an annual maximum aggregate listing fee of $500,000 for all retail
debt securities issued in a calendar year. Further, under Section
902.02 of the Manual, companies are subject to the maximum of $500,000
per issuer for initial and annual fees payable on listed equity
securities. Under Sections 902.02 and 902.05, the total maximum fee of
$500,000 billable to an issuer in a calendar year under the fee cap in
Section 902.02 includes all annual fees billed to an issuer for listed
retail debt securities. However, securities listed under Section
902.05, other than retail debt securities, are not subject to the
maximum fees set forth in Section 902.02 or any maximum fee established
in Section 902.05.
    The Exchange proposes to establish a maximum fee in any calendar
year (including both initial and annual listing fees) per issuance
listed under Section 902.05 of $500,000. In the Notice, the Exchange
stated that by applying a maximum fee, the Exchange would rectify an
anomaly under the Exchange's fee structure, whereby issuers of
securities listed under Section 902.05 (other than retail debt
securities), could pay fees in excess of $500,000, while the fees for
all other categories of securities would be capped. The Exchange
further represented in its filing that it did not believe that any
revenue it would forego as a result of the proposed fee cap would
negatively affect its ability to fund its regulatory program.

III. Discussion and Commission's Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.
Specifically, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with
Sections 6(b)(4) and (b)(5) of the Act,\4\ which require, among other
things, that the rules of an exchange (i) provide for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its
members and issuers and other persons using its facilities, and (ii)
are not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers,
issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted above, the NYSE fee cap for structured products listed
under Section 902.05 of the Manual applies to any individual issuance
of securities. This is in contrast to the $500,000 maximum total fee
billed to an issuer for generally all listed equity issuances in a
calendar year.\5\ According to the Exchange, it is appropriate to have
a separate fee cap for each individual issuance of structured products,
as many companies list multiple new classes of structured products
within a calendar year, requiring the repeated utilization of the
Exchange's operational and regulatory resources to a degree that is not
normally the case with respect to equity securities subject to the cap
under Section 902.02. Particularly, the Exchange states that no company
will pay a higher initial or annual listing fees in connection with the
listing of structured products as a result of the proposed amendment
and some companies will pay less if their fees in relation to an
individual structured product would exceed $500,000 in the absence of
the proposed cap.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Section 902.02 of the Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that the application of the maximum
listing fee, as proposed, should be retroactively applied to any
securities listed on or after November 19, 2009, as it will enable
companies to benefit from the proposed fee cap without having to delay
their listing until after Commission approval solely for the purpose of
benefitting from the fee reduction.
    Based on the above, the Commission believes that the Exchange's
proposed rule change provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among issuers, in that it
applies uniformly to all companies listing structured products. The
Commission also believes that the proposal does not unfairly
discriminate between issuers as all companies will be subject to the
same fee schedule. While the Commission recognizes that the fee cap
proposal for structured products is applied per issuance, unlike the
aggregated fee cap for all equity securities in Section 902.02, the
Exchange has provided a reasonable justification for that difference
and therefore, we find that it meets the requirements under Sections
6(b)4 and 6(b)(5) of the Act. The Commission notes that the proposal
caps the maximum amount payable by issuers for the listing of
structured products. The Commission further notes that the Exchange has
represented that despite any reduction, the Exchange will continue to
have sufficient revenue to continue to adequately fund its regulatory
activities. Finally, the Commission believes that the proposed maximum
listing fees for structured products is appropriate and, as proposed by
the Exchange, can be applied retroactively to any securities listed on
or after November 19, 2009, because no company will be subject to
increased fees as a result of the proposal and as noted above, some
companies may pay less than currently required under the existing fees.
Further, it will allow companies that have listed new classes of
securities after the date of filing of this proposed rule change to
benefit from any applicable reduction in listing fees. The Commission
also notes that the change, including the retroactive effect, was
published for notice and comment in the Federal Register and we did not
receive any comments.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with the Act.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4). In approving the proposed rule change,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact in
efficiency, competition and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\7\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSE-2009-117) be, and it
hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-821 Filed 1-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 225 (Friday, November 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69550-69551]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27588]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0104; Notice 1]

JLG Industries, Inc., Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: JLG Industries, Inc. (JLG) has determined that certain JLG
Triple-L utility trailers do not fully comply with paragraph S4.3.5 of
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 110, Tire Selection
and Rims and Motor Home/Recreation Vehicle Trailer Load Carrying
Capacity Information for Motor Vehicles with a GVWR of 4,536 kilograms
(10,000 pounds) or Less. JLG has filed an appropriate report dated July
16, 2014, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is December 22,
2014.

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 at the beginning of this notice and
submitted by any of the following methods:
     Mail: Send comments by mail addressed to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Deliver: Deliver comments by hand to: U.S. Department
of Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The
Docket Section is open on weekdays from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. except
Federal Holidays.
     Electronically: Submit comments electronically by: Logging
onto the Federal Docket Management System

(FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed to
(202) 493-2251.
    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 your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Documents submitted to a docket may be viewed by anyone at the
address and times given above. The documents may also be viewed on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by following the online
instructions for accessing the dockets. DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement is available for review in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19477-78).
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. JLG's Petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see
implementing rule at 49 CFR part 556), JLG submitted a petition for an
exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C.
Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of JLG's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    II. Trailers Involved: Affected are approximately 2,940 JLG Triple-
L utility trailers with a GVWR of less than 10,000 lbs. that were
manufactured between August 2005 and July 2014.
    III. Noncompliance: JLG explains that the noncompliance is that the
tire and loading information placard does not contain the words ``The
weight of the cargo should never exceed XXX kilograms or XXX pounds''
as required by paragraph S4.3.5 of FMVSS No. 110.
    V. Rule Text: Paragraph S4.3.5 of FMVSS No. 110 requires in
pertinent part:

    S6.5 Requirements for trailers. Each trailer, except for an
incomplete vehicle, must show the information specified in S4.3 (c)
through (g), and may show the information specified in S4.3 (h) and
(i), on a placard permanently affixed proximate to the certification
label specified in 49 CFR Part 567. Additionally, each trailer must
on its placard contain a cargo capacity statement expressed as ``The
weight of cargo should never exceed XXX kilograms or XXX pounds'' in
the same location on the placard specified for the ``vehicle
capacity weight'' statement required by the standard . . .

    V. Summary of JLG's Analyses: JLG stated its belief that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for
the following reasons:
    (A) With regard to trailers JLG states that there is no need to
account for passenger weight when considering cargo weight because
there are no designated seating positions on the trailer and all of the
weight capacity is designated towards cargo. JLG also believes that
providing the maximum load capacity for the trailer therefore provides
the same information as providing the maximum weight of the cargo.
    (B) Although the Tire and Loading Information label on the subject
trailers do not contain the statement set forth in S4.3.5, the same
information is provided on a separate label in the vicinity of the Tire
and Loading Information label. That label states that the ``Max Load
Capacity xxxx lbs'' and further instructs the operator to ``center load
on deck.'' It also draws attention to the maximum carrying load of the
trailer and ensures that drivers loading the trailer are aware of the
maximum load capacity the trailer can carry--the precise information
the regulatory text intends to be conveyed.
    JLG has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future production trailer Tire and Loading
Information labels will comply with FMVSS No. 110.
    In summation, JLG believes that the described noncompliance of the
subject trailers is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition, to exempt JLG from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject trailers that JLG no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve tire
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant trailers under their control after JLG
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-27588 Filed 11-20-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


From:
Ford, Luke<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Friday, February 3, 2023 8:31 AM
To:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Coke ICR2<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: Cokenergy 114 Stack Test

Dr. Jones

Wanted to pass along an update on status of testing at Cokenergy.  TRC setup on 2/1 and began testing on 2/2 completing one run for Method 5/29, one run for OTM 46, four runs for Method 18, three runs for Method 7E and Method 10.  Overnight we had a boiler come offline and am not sure of return yet. I'll know more by this afternoon but if the boiler is not available to return today, I do not believe TRC will be able to complete all the testing without rescheduling for a future date.  We can continue with the testing with 15 of the 16 HRSG's online if you are in agreement.

I'll update when I know more.  If you have questions, please let me know.

Regards,

Luke E. Ford
Director EH&S
Primary Energy
3210 Watling St.
MC 2-991
East Chicago, IN 46312

Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office<PHONE_NUMBER>
Mobile<PHONE_NUMBER>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 3:10 PM
To: Ford, Luke<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Cokenergy 114 Stack Test

If you already have a schedule, then go ahead and test as planned or, if TRC can do it, over weekend next week.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: Ford, Luke<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 3:19 PM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Cokenergy 114 Stack Test

Dr. Jones

Our stack testing contractor, TRC, currently has us on the schedule for the weeks of January 23 and January 30 to complete the scope of work.  If the HRSG is back online by the end of next week we may be able to complete the work by working through the weekend. I do not know TRC's availability into February and beyond but will check.

Have a good weekend.

Luke E. Ford
Director EH&S
Primary Energy
3210 Watling St.
MC 2-991
East Chicago, IN 46312

Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office<PHONE_NUMBER>
Mobile<PHONE_NUMBER>

From: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 2:04 PM
To: Ford, Luke<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: Cokenergy 114 Stack Test

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Mr. Ford  -  You can wait until a week from next week, but then please proceed with testing the week of Feb 6[th] without the HRSG that is down. Thanks for letting me know.

Have a good weekend.

Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Group (D243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

Pronouns - She/Her/Hers
Salutation - Dr./Ms.

From: Ford, Luke<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Friday, January 20, 2023 10:21 AM
To: Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Cokenergy 114 Stack Test

Dr. Jones,

I wanted to pass along an update regarding the stack testing at Cokenergy planned to start next week.  One of the 16 HRSG's has been forced offline with tube leak and is currently being repaired. I do not have a return date at this time but it's possible that repairs will be completed by the later part of next week at the earliest.  I wanted to reach out and see if you are okay with us proceeding with the testing as scheduled or to delay until the HRSG has been repaired?

Please give me a call if you would like to discuss or need additional information.

Regards,

Luke Ford
Director EH&S
Primary Energy
3210 Watling St.
MC 2-991
East Chicago, IN 46312
Desk  -<PHONE_NUMBER>
Cell  -<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>