[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 165 (Friday, August 26, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52469-52471]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18395]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0692]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Maumee River, Toledo, OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters directly surrounding the northern half of the I-75
Bridge over the Maumee River. The safety zone is needed to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards
created by demolition of the bridge. Entry of vessels or persons into
this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain
of the Port Detroit.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9:30 p.m. on August 27, 2022,
through 11:30 p.m. on August 28, 2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0692 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or

email MST1 Karl Dirksmeyer, Waterways Management, Marine Safety Unit
Toledo, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the party conducting the work
notified the Coast Guard with insufficient time to accommodate the
comment period. It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must
establish this safety zone by August 27, 2022.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed in
order to keep the I-75 demolition project on schedule, and to keep the
public safe during this demolition phase.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Detroit
(COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the bridge
demolition occurring between August 27, 2022-August 28, 2022, will be a
safety concern for anyone transiting near the I-75 bridge on the Maumee
River. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the
marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while
the bridge is being demolished.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 9:30 p.m. through 11:30
p.m. on August 27, 2022. In the case of inclement weather on August 27,
2022, this safety zone will be enforced from 9:30 p.m. through 11:30
p.m. on August 28, 2022. The safety zone will cover all navigable
waters 500 feet up and down river from surface to bottom, below the old
Michael V. DiSalle Memorial (I-75) Bridge located at 41[deg]37'31.2'' N
83[deg]32'31.1'' W. The duration of the safety zone is intended to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these
navigable waters while the bridge is being demolished. No vessel or
person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on size, location,
duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires

Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone that will prohibit entry into the waters 500 feet up and
down river of the Michael V. DiSalle Memorial (I-75) Bridge while it is
demolished. It is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph L[60(a)] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual
023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket. For
instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0692 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0692  Safety Zone; Maumee River, Toledo, OH.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: The safety zone
will cover all navigable waters 500 feet up and down river from surface
to bottom, underneath the old Michael V. DiSalle Memorial (I-75) Bridge
located at 41[deg]37'31.2'' N 83[deg]32'31.1'' W. All geographic
coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
    (b) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry into, transiting or anchoring within this safety
zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Detroit, or his or her designated representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated
representative.
    (3) The ``designated representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Detroit to act on his
behalf. The designated representative of the Captain of the Port
Detroit will be aboard either a Coast Guard or Coast Guard Auxiliary
vessel. The Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated
representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated
representative to obtain permission to do so at least 30 minutes prior
to transit. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in
the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the
Captain of the Port Detroit or his designated representative.
    (c) Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced from August
27, 2022-August 28, 2022, from 2130-2330.

    Dated: August 22, 2022.
Brad W. Kelly,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2022-18395 Filed 8-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 160 (Monday, August 19, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42804-42805]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17695]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0312; Special Conditions No. 25-755-SC]

Special Conditions: Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation Model MRJ-200
Airplane; Airplane Electronic-System Security Protection From
Unauthorized Internal and External Access

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for the Mitsubishi
Aircraft Corporation (Mitsubishi) Model MRJ-200 airplane. This airplane
will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state
of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport
category airplanes. This design feature is avionics that allow internal
and external connection to previously isolated data networks, which are
connected to systems that perform functions required for the safe
operation of the airplane. This feature creates a potential for
unauthorized persons to access the aircraft-control domain and airline
information-services domain, and presents security vulnerabilities
related to the introduction of computer viruses and worms, user errors,
and intentional sabotage of airplane electronic assets (networks,
systems, and databases). The applicable airworthiness regulations do
not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Mitsubishi on August 19, 2019. Send
comments on or before October 3, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2019-0312 using
any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket website, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478).
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Varun Khanna, Airplane and Flight Crew
Interface Section, AIR-671, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and
Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198;
telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    The substance of these special conditions previously has been
published in the Federal Register for public comment. These special
conditions have been derived without substantive change from those
previously issued. It is unlikely that prior public comment would
result in a significant change from the substance contained herein.
Therefore, the FAA has determined that prior public notice and comment
are unnecessary, and finds that, for the same reason, good cause exists
for adopting these special conditions upon publication in the Federal
Register.

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments
we receive.

Background

    On August 19, 2009, Mitsubishi applied for a type certificate for
their new Model MRJ-200 airplane. This airplane is a twin-engine,
transport category airplane with a passenger-seating capacity of 92 and
a maximum takeoff weight of 98,767 pounds.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14
CFR) 21.17,

Mitsubishi must show that the Model MRJ-200 airplane meets the
applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by amendments 25-1 through
25-141.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Mitsubishi Model MRJ-200 airplane
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under the provisions of Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Mitsubishi Model MRJ-200 airplane must comply with the
fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the
noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type
certification basis under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Mitsubishi Model MRJ-200 airplane will incorporate the
following novel or unusual design feature:
    The installation and activation of electronic network system
architecture equipment that allows access from internal and external
sources (e.g., wireless devices, internet connectivity) to the
airplane's internal electronic components.

Discussion

    Current aircraft communication designs are beginning to adopt
Ethernet switch technology and Avionics Full-Duplex switched Ethernet
(AFDX) data networking using commercial products. Transmission Control
Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) is an industry-standard platform
used for passenger flight information and in-flight entertainment
systems in a way that is separated physically and logically from
flight-critical systems. However, a gateway technology that can connect
networks with different communication standards allows connection
between avionics assets (such as functions or items) with passenger
flight information and in-flight entertainment systems. These systems
may also be connected to the ground worldwide internet through a
satellite-communication service provider.
    Additionally, for the purpose of data uploading for aircraft
avionics systems, networks, and maintenance operations, external access
is possible from the operator's and airplane manufacturer's servers
through a cellular radio network.
    The Japan Civil Aviation Bureau (JCAB) is the certificating
authority for the Mitsubishi Model MRJ-200 airplane, and the FAA is the
validating authority. Typically, the FAA issues separate special
conditions for ``Airplane Electronic-System Security Protection from
Unauthorized Internal Access'' and ``Electronic-System Security
Protection from Unauthorized External Access.'' In special conditions
written for the Mitsubishi Model MRJ-200 airplane, the JCAB addresses,
in one special conditions document, both internal and external
electronic-system security protection for these novel airplane-digital-
network design features. The FAA reviewed the proposed JCAB special
conditions and determined that they are equivalent in all material
respects to the separate internal and external electronic-system
security protection special conditions the FAA typically issues, and
has issued, to applicants. Therefore, in these special conditions, the
FAA also is issuing one special conditions document, for both internal
and external electronic-system security protection, to harmonize the
FAA special conditions to the JCAB-issued special conditions, thereby
minimizing differences between the certificating authority and the
validating authority certification bases. The resultant combination of
internal and external electronic-system security protection special
conditions in this document are identical in all material respects to
FAA special conditions issued for the same separate topics.
    The existing regulations and guidance material did not anticipate
these types of airplane electronic-system architectures. Furthermore,
14 CFR regulations, and the current electronic-system safety assessment
policy and techniques, do not address potential security
vulnerabilities, which could be exploited by unauthorized access to
airplane networks, data buses, and servers. Therefore, these special
conditions ensure that the security (i.e., confidentiality, integrity,
and availability) of airplane systems is not compromised by
unauthorized wired or wireless electronic connections.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the
Mitsubishi Model MRJ-200 airplane. Should Mitsubishi apply at a later
date for a change to the type certificate to include another model
incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special
conditions would apply to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature
on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Authority Citation

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Mitsubishi Model MRJ-200 airplanes.
    1. The applicant shall ensure security protection of the systems
and networks of the aircraft from access by unauthorized sources, both
internal and external, if the systems' corruption (including hardware,
software, and data) by an inadvertent or intentional attack would
impair safety.
    2. The applicant shall ensure that the security threats to the
aircraft, including those possibly caused by maintenance activity or
any unprotected connecting equipment and devices, or from the on-board
passengers, are identified and assessed, and risk-mitigation strategies
are implemented to protect the aircraft systems and networks from all
adverse impacts on safety.
    3. The applicant shall establish appropriate procedures for
security measures against aircraft systems and networks to be
maintained following changes to the type certificated design.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on August 13, 2019.
Mary A. Schooley,
Acting Manager, Transport Standards Branch, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-17695 Filed 8-16-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


adsorbed gases must conform to the following ISO standards, as
applicable: ISO 11513:2011, Gas cylinders--Refillable welded steel
cylinders containing materials for sub-atmospheric gas packaging
(excluding acetylene)--Design, construction, testing, use and periodic
inspection, or ISO 9809-1:2010: Gas cylinders--Refillable seamless
steel gas cylinders--Design, construction and testing--Part 1: Quenched
and tempered steel cylinders with tensile strength less than 1100 MPa.
(IBR, see Sec.  171.7 of this subchapter.)
* * * * *
    (o) Material compatibility. In addition to the material
requirements specified in the UN pressure receptacle design and
construction ISO standards, and any restrictions specified in part 173
for the gases to be transported, the requirements of the following
standards must be applied with respect to material compatibility:
    (1) ISO 11114-1:2012: Gas cylinders--Compatibility of cylinder and
valve materials with gas contents--Part 1: Metallic materials. (IBR,
see Sec.  171.7 of this subchapter).
    (2) ISO 11114-2: Transportable gas cylinders--Compatibility of
cylinder and valve materials with gas contents--Part 2: Non-metallic
materials. (IBR, see Sec.  171.7 of this subchapter).
* * * * *
    (r) Marking sequence. The marking required by paragraph (q) of this
section must be placed in three groups as shown in the example below:
    (1) The top grouping contains manufacturing marks and must appear
consecutively in the sequence given in paragraphs (q)(13) through (19)
of this section.
    (2) The middle grouping contains operational marks described in
paragraphs (q)(6) through (11) of this section.
    (3) The bottom grouping contains certification marks and must
appear consecutively in the sequence given in paragraphs (q)(1) through
(5) of this section.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA15.001

* * * * *
    (t) Marking of UN non-refillable pressure receptacles. Unless
otherwise specified in this paragraph, each UN non-refillable pressure
receptacle must be clearly and legibly marked as prescribed in
paragraph (q) of this section. In addition, permanent stenciling is
authorized. Except when stenciled, the marks must be on the shoulder,
top end or neck of the pressure receptacle or on a permanently affixed
component of the pressure receptacle (e.g., a welded collar).
    (1) The marking requirements and sequence listed in paragraphs
(q)(1) through (19) of this section are required, except the markings
in paragraphs (q)(8), (9), (12) and (18) are not applicable. The
required serial number marking in paragraph (q)(14) may be replaced by
the batch number.
    (2) Each receptacle must be marked with the words ``DO NOT REFILL''
in letters of at least 5 mm in height.
    (3) A non-refillable pressure receptacle, because of its size, may
substitute the marking required by this paragraph with a label.
Reduction in marking size is authorized only as prescribed in ISO 7225,
Gas cylinders--Precautionary labels. (IBR, see Sec.  171.7 of this
subchapter).
    (4) Each non-refillable pressure receptacle must also be legibly
marked by stenciling the following statement: ``Federal law forbids
transportation if refilled-penalty up to $500,000 fine and 5 years in
imprisonment (49 U.S.C. 5124).''
    (u) Marking of bundles of cylinders. (1) Individual cylinders in a
bundle of cylinders must be marked in accordance with paragraphs (q),
(r), (s) and (t) of this section as appropriate.
    (2) Refillable UN bundles of cylinders must be marked clearly and
legibly with certification, operational, and manufacturing marks. These
marks must be permanently affixed (e.g., stamped, engraved, or etched)
on a plate permanently attached to the frame of the bundle of
cylinders. Except for the ``UN'' mark, the minimum size of the marks
must be 5 mm. The minimum size of the ``UN'' mark must be 10 mm. A
refillable UN bundle of cylinders must be marked with the following:
    (i) The UN packaging symbol;
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA15.002

    (ii) The ISO standard, for example ISO 9809-1, used for design,
construction and testing. Acetylene cylinders must be marked to
indicate the porous mass and the steel shell, for example: ``ISO 3807-
2/ISO 9809-1'';
    (iii) The mark of the country where the approval is granted. The
letters ``USA'' must be marked on UN pressure receptacles approved by
the United States. The manufacturer must obtain an approval number from
the Associate Administrator. The manufacturer approval number must
follow the country of approval mark, separated by a slash (for example,
USA/MXXXX). Pressure receptacles approved by more than one national
authority may contain the mark of each country of approval, separated
by a comma;
    (iv) The identity mark or stamp of the IIA;
    (v) The date of the initial inspection, the year in four digits
followed by the two digit month separated by a slash, for example
``2006/04'';
    (vi) The test pressure in bar, preceded by the letters ``PH'' and
followed by the letters ``BAR'';
    (vii) For pressure receptacles intended for the transport of
compressed gases and UN 1001 acetylene, dissolved, the working pressure
in bar, proceeded by the letters ``PW'';
    (viii) For liquefied gases, the water capacity in liters expressed
to three significant digits rounded down to the last digit, followed by
the letter ``L''. If the value of the minimum or nominal water capacity
is an integer, the digits after the decimal point may be omitted;
    (ix) The total mass of the frame of the bundle and all permanently
attached parts (cylinders, manifolds, fittings and valves). Bundles
intended for the carriage of UN 1001 acetylene, dissolved must bear the
tare mass as specified in clause N.4.2 of ISO 10961:2010;
    (x) The country of manufacture. The letters ``USA'' must be marked
on cylinders manufactured in the United States;
    (xi) The serial number assigned by the manufacturer; and
    (xii) For steel pressure receptacles, the letter ``H'' showing
compatibility of the steel, as specified in 1SO 11114-1.
    (v) Marking sequence. The marking required by paragraph (u) of this
section must be placed in three groups as follows:
    (1) The top grouping contains manufacturing marks and must appear
consecutively in the sequence given in paragraphs (u)(2)(x) through
(u)(2)(xii) of this section as applicable.
    (2) The middle grouping contains operational marks described in
paragraphs (u)(2)(vi) through (u)(2)(ix) of this section as applicable.
When the operational mark specified in paragraph (u)(2)(vii) is
required, it must immediately precede the operational mark specified in
paragraph (u)(2)(vi).
    (3) The bottom grouping contains certification marks and must
appear consecutively in the sequence given in paragraphs (u)(2)(i)
through (u)(2)(v) of this section as applicable.

0
75. In Sec.  178.75, paragraphs (d)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii) are revised
to read as follows:

Sec.  178.75  Specifications for MEGCs.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) ISO 9809-1: Gas cylinders--Refillable seamless steel gas
cylinders--Design, construction and testing--Part 1: Quenched and
tempered steel cylinders with tensile strength less than 1100 MPa.
(IBR, see Sec.  171.7 of this subchapter). Until December 31, 2018, the
manufacture of a cylinder conforming to the requirements in ISO 9809-
1:1999 (IBR, see Sec.  171.7 of this subchapter) is authorized;
    (ii) ISO 9809-2: Gas cylinders--Refillable seamless steel gas
cylinders--Design, construction and testing--Part 2: Quenched and
tempered steel cylinders with tensile strength greater than or equal to
1100 MPa. (IBR, see Sec.  171.7 of this subchapter). Until December 31,
2018, the manufacture of a cylinder conforming to the requirements in
ISO 9809-2:2000 (IBR, see Sec.  171.7 of this subchapter) is
authorized;
    (iii) ISO 9809-3: Gas cylinders--Refillable seamless steel gas
cylinders--Design, construction and testing--Part 3: Normalized steel
cylinders. (IBR, see Sec.  171.7 of this subchapter). Until December
31, 2018, the manufacture of a cylinder conforming to the requirements
in ISO 9809-3:2000 (IBR, see Sec.  171.7 of this subchapter) is
authorized; or
* * * * *

0
76. In Sec.  178.703, paragraph (b)(7)(iii) is revised to read as
follows:

Sec.  178.703  Marking of IBCs.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (7) * * *
    (iii) The symbol must be a square with each side being not less
than 100 mm (3.9 inches) by 100 mm (3.9 inches) as measured from the
corner printer marks shown on the figures in paragraph (b)(7)(i) of
this section. Where dimensions are not specified, all features must be
in approximate proportion to those shown.
    (A) Transitional exception. A marking in conformance with the
requirements of this paragraph in effect on December 31, 2014, may
continue to be applied to all IBCs manufactured, repaired or
remanufactured between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2016.
    (B) For domestic transportation, an IBC marked prior to January 1,
2017 and in conformance with the requirements of this paragraph in
effect on December 31, 2014, may continue in service until the end of
its useful life.
* * * * *

0
77. In Sec.  178.910, revise paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), (b) introductory
text, and add paragraphs (a)(2)(iv), (b)(1) and (b)(2) to read as
follows.

Sec.  178.910  Marking of Large Packagings.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (ii) The code number designating the Large Packaging design type
according to Sec.  178.905. The letters ``T'' or ``W'' may follow the
Large Packaging design type identification code on a Large Packaging.
Large Salvage Packagings conforming to the requirements of subpart P of
this part must be marked with the letter ``T''. Large Packagings must
be marked with the letter ``W'' when the Large Packaging differs from
the requirements in subpart P of this part, or is tested using methods
other than those specified in this subpart, and is approved by the
Associate Administrator in accordance with the provisions in Sec.
178.955;
* * * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) For a steel Large Salvage Packaging suitable for stacking;
stacking load: 2,500 kg; maximum gross mass: 1,000 kg.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR08JA15.003

    (b) All Large Packagings manufactured, repaired or remanufactured
after January 1, 2015 must be marked with the symbol applicable to a
Large Packaging designed for stacking or not designed for stacking, as
appropriate. The symbol must be a square with each side being not less
than 100 mm (3.9 inches) by 100 mm (3.9 inches) as measured from the
corner printer marks shown on the following figures. Where dimensions
are not specified, all features must be in approximate proportion to
those shown.
* * * * *
    (1) Transitional exception--A marking in conformance with the
requirements of this paragraph in effect on December 31, 2014, may
continue to be applied to all Large Packagings manufactured, repaired
or remanufactured between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2016.
    (2) For domestic transportation, a Large Packaging marked prior to
January 1, 2017 and in conformance with the requirements of this
paragraph in effect on December 31, 2014, may continue in service until
the end of its useful life.
* * * * *

PART 180--CONTINUING QUALIFICATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PACKAGINGS

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

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 5101-5128; 49 CFR 1.81 and 1.97.

0
79. In Sec.  180.207, in paragraph (c), a new entry is added to the end
of Table 1 and a new paragraph (d)(5) is added to read as follows:

Sec.  180.207  Requirements for requalification of UN pressure
receptacles.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

      Table 1--Requalification Intervals of UN Pressure Receptacles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              UN pressure receptacles/
             Interval  (years)                   hazardous materials
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                * * * * *
5.........................................  Pressure receptacles used
                                             for adsorbed gases.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (d) * * *
    (5) UN cylinders for adsorbed gases: Each UN cylinder for adsorbed
gases must be inspected and tested in accordance with Sec.  173.302c
and ISO 11513:2011 (IBR, see Sec.  171.7 of this subchapter).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 23, 2014 under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Timothy P. Butters,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2014-30462 Filed 12-31-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 138 (Tuesday, July 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 42762]
[FR Doc No: 2011-18196]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Final Written Re-Evaluation for Environmental Impact Statement:
Sikorsky Memorial Airport, Stratford, CT

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public that a
Writetn Re-Evaluation of a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
has been completed for Sikorsky Memorial Airport in Stratford,
Connecticut.

ADDRESSES: The Written Re-Evaluation document is available for review
during normal business hours at the following locations:

FAA New England Region, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA,
781-238-7613.
Stratford Public Library, 2203 Main St., Stratford, CT,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Bridgeport Public Library, Borroughs Bldg., 925 Broad St., Bridegport,
CT,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Igor Sikorsky Memorial Airport, Administration Bldg., 1000 Great Meadow
Dr., Stratford, CT,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Doucette, Environmental
Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration New England, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA.<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In October 1999 the FAA issued a Record of
Decision (ROD) approving actions associated with proposed improvments
to the Sikorsky Memorial Airport, Stratford, Connecticut. That ROD was
based on information and analysis contained in a Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) that the FAA issued in May 1999. No action was
taken on the October 1999 ROD. Recently, the FAA evaluated the
suitability of applying the May 1999 FEIS to a substantially similar
project at Sikorsky Memorial Airport involving Runway Safety Areas and
other airfield improvements. This Written Re-Evaluation documents the
FAA's assessment of the suitability of using the information and
analysis in the May 1999 FEIS for the current project.
    A Record of Decision is anticipated, no sooner than 30 days from
this notice.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on July 1, 2011.
Michel Hovan,
Acting Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-18196 Filed 7-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                             Fluometuron (035503)
                     Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)
                            Date: August 27, 2015

What is a Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA)?
      * Available estimates of pesticide usage data for a particular active ingredient that is used on agricultural crops in the United States.
      * Pesticide usage data obtained from various sources.  The data are then merged, averaged, and rounded so that the presented information is not proprietary, business confidential, or trade secret.
What does it contain?
      * Pesticide usage data for a single active ingredient only.
      * Agricultural use sites (crops) that the pesticide is reported to be used on.
      * Available pesticide usage information from U.S. states that produce 80% or more of a crop, in most cases, or less than 80%, in rare cases, depending on the scope of the survey and available resources.
      * Annual percent of crop treated (average & maximum) for each agricultural crop.
      * Average annual pounds of the pesticide applied for each agricultural crop (i.e., for the states surveyed, not for the entire United States).
What assumptions can I make about the reported data?
      * Average pounds of active ingredient applied - Values are calculated by merging pesticide usage data sources together; averaging across all observations, then rounding.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 500, then that value is labeled <500.  Estimated values between 500 & <1,000,000 are rounded to 1 significant digit.  Estimated values of 1,000,000 or greater are rounded to 2 significant digits.)
      * Average percent of crop treated - Values are calculated by merging data sources together; averaging by year, averaging across all years, & rounding to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.  If the estimated value is less than 1, then the value is labeled <1.
      * Maximum percent of crop treated - Value is the single maximum value reported across all data sources, across all years, & rounded up to the nearest multiple of 5.  Note:  If the estimated value is less than 2.5, then the value is labeled <2.5.
What are the data sources used?
      * USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service)  -  pesticide usage data from 2004 to 2013.
      * Private pesticide market research  -  pesticide usage data from 2004 to 2013.
      * California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) data for 2004 to 2012.
What are the limitations to the data?
      * Additional registered uses may exist but are not included because the available surveys do not report usage (e.g., small acreage crops).
      * Lack of reported usage data for the pesticide on a crop does not imply zero usage.
      * Usage data on a particular site may be noted in data sources, but not quantified.  In these instances, the site would not be reported in the SLUA.
      * Non-agricultural use sites (e.g., turf, post-harvest, mosquito control, etc.) are not reported in the SLUA.  A separate request must be made to receive these estimates.
      * Some sites show some use, even though they are not on the label.  This usage could be due to various factors, including, but not limited to Section 18 requests, existing stocks of the chemical, data collection errors, and experimental use permits (EUPs).

                            Date: August 27, 2015
    Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Fluometuron (035503)
                             Sorted Alphabetically
                          Reporting Years: 2004-2013

                                Annual Average
                             Percent Crop Treated

Crop
                                   Lbs. A.I.
                                    Average
                                    Maximum
                                                                              1
Cotton
                                    500,000
                                       5
                                      10

All numbers are rounded.

SLUA data sources include:
  USDA-NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service)
Private Pesticide Market Research
These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are releasable to the public.