Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

This Proposed Rule brings a number of significant issues and questions that are important to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback in an accurate and timely manner.

I feel grateful for e-cigarettes as an alternative to cigarettes. Quite simply, I believe that they saved my life. I can breathe a lot better and I don't hack up tar anymore. I want to provide you with my personal experiences and the journey, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my inquiries into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

Thanks for your time and consideration. As a community, this would be a great opportunity for us to get all the information across more accurately rather than frantically trying to get the facts in order. Feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss the matter in more detail. Thank you and have a wonderful day.


MEMORANDUM

DATE:		January 24, 2015

TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR - 2013-0602

FROM:	Howard J. Hoffman, EPA - OGC

SUBJECT:	December 11, 2014 Telephone Call with Professors Freeman and Lazarus Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On December 11, 2014, Lorie Schmidt, Elliott Zenick, Scott Jordan, Steven Silverman and Howard J. Hoffman of EPA-OGC met by telephone with Professors Jody Freeman and Kate Konaschnik of Harvard Law School to discuss legal issues concerning the proposed Clean Power Plan for existing power plants.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 173 (Friday, September 4, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 55304]
[FR Doc No: 2020-19604]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-0026]

Issuance of Priority Review Voucher; Rare Pediatric Disease
Product

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, Health and Human Services (HHS).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a rare
pediatric disease product application. The Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act), as amended by the Food and Drug
Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA), authorizes FDA to
award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric
disease product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA is
required to publish notice of the award of the priority review voucher.
FDA has determined that VILTEPSO (viltolarsen) manufactured by Nippon
Shinyaku Co., Ltd. (NS Pharma Inc., U.S. Agent), meets the criteria for
a priority review voucher.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Althea Cuff, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Fax: 301-
796-9856, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FDA is announcing the issuance of a priority
review voucher to the sponsor of an approved rare pediatric disease
product application. Under section 529 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C.
360ff), which was added by FDASIA, FDA will award priority review
vouchers to sponsors of approved rare pediatric disease product
applications that meet certain criteria. FDA has determined that
VILTEPSO (viltolarsen) manufactured by Nippon Shinyaku Co., Ltd. (NS
Pharma Inc., U.S. Agent), meets the criteria for a priority review
voucher.
    VILTEPSO (viltolarsen) is indicated for the treatment of Duchenne
Muscular Dystrophy in patients amenable to Exon 53 Skipping.
    For further information about the Rare Pediatric Disease Priority
Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 529
of the FD&C Act, go to https://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/DevelopingProductsforRareDiseasesConditions/RarePediatricDiseasePriorityVoucherProgram/default.htm. For further
information about VILTEPSO (viltolarsen) go to the ``[email protected]''
website at http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/.

    Dated: August 31, 2020.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-19604 Filed 9-3-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 20, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 20451-20453]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07624]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0911; Product Identifier 2020-NM-075-AD; Amendment
39-21497; AD 2021-08-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 &
702) airplanes; Model CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550) airplanes;
Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes; Model CL-600-
2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes; and Model CL-600-2E25
(Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. This AD was prompted by a
determination that a new or more restrictive airworthiness limitation
is necessary. This AD requires revising the existing maintenance or
inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate a new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitation. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective May 25, 2021.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of May 25,
2021.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact MHI RJ Aviation ULC, 12655 Henri-Fabre Blvd., Mirabel,
Qu[eacute]bec J7N 1E1, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North
America toll-free telephone +1<PHONE_NUMBER> or direct-dial telephone +1
514 855 8500; fax +1-514 855-8501; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
https://mhirj.com. You may view this service information 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 on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2020-0911.

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-2020-
0911; 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 final rule, any comments received, and other information. The
address for Docket Operations is U.S. Department of Transportation,
Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Siddeeq Bacchus, Aerospace Engineer,
Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services Section, FAA, New York
ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2020-08, dated April 6,
2020 (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all MHI
RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702)
airplanes; Model CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550) airplanes; Model
CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D24
(Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes; and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional
Jet Series 1000) airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2020-0911.
    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all MHI RJ Aviation ULC
Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702) airplanes; Model
CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D15
(Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes; Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet
Series 900) airplanes; and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000)
airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on October 13,
2020 (85 FR 64417). The NPRM was prompted by a determination that a new
or more restrictive airworthiness limitation is necessary. The NPRM
proposed to require revising the existing maintenance or inspection
program, as applicable, to incorporate a new or more restrictive
airworthiness limitation. The FAA is issuing this AD to address failed
telescopic ducts in the wing anti-ice system, which could result in
loss of the wing anti-ice system function, slat skew, slat jam,
structural damage to the slat panel, and loss of the slat panel,
possibly resulting in reduced control of the airplane. See the MCAI for
additional background information.

Comments

    The FAA gave the public the opportunity to participate in
developing this final rule. The following presents the comments
received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Support for the NPRM

    An anonymous commenter and Endeavor Air indicated support for the
NPRM.

Request To Extend the 60-Day Compliance Time for Initial Actions

    Endeavor Air requested a revision to the initial compliance times
proposed in the NPRM for accomplishing the tasks. Endeavor Air
suggested removing the phrase ``or within 60 days after the effective
date of the AD, whichever is later'' and replacing it with ``for
aircraft with more than 15,200 FH [flight hours], phase in within 8,800
FH from the effective date of the AD.'' Endeavor Air reasoned that the
change would allow the work to be scheduled during C-check maintenance,
and align with the original intent.
    The FAA disagrees with replacing the 60-day grace period with the
compliance time suggested by the commenter. The FAA reviewed the
compliance times, typical fleet usage, and the TCCA AD, and found that
the compliance time specified in paragraph (g) of this AD adequately
addresses the unsafe condition. Most airplanes average 8.5 flight hours
per day and will not reach another 8,800 flight hours for 32 months;
therefore, an extension is

not warranted. However, under the provisions of paragraph (i)(1) of
this AD, the FAA will consider requests for approval of an extension of
the compliance time if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate
that the extension would provide an acceptable level of safety. The FAA
has not changed this AD in this regard.

Conclusion

    The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments
received, and determined that air safety and the public interest
require adopting this AD as proposed, except for minor editorial
changes. The FAA has determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for addressing the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Bombardier has issued CRJ700/900/1000 Series Regional Jet Temporary
Revision ALI-0721, dated December 20, 2019. This service information
describes safe life limitation task 30-11-10-701, Telescopic Duct, that
specifies the life limitation for the telescopic duct. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 577 airplanes of U.S.
registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD.
    The FAA has determined that revising the maintenance or inspection
program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the
agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator.
Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes
for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator
estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate. Therefore, the
agency estimates the average total cost per operator to be $7,650 (90
work-hours x $85 per work-hour).

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

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2021-08-03 MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate Previously Held by
Bombardier, Inc.): Amendment 39-21497; Docket No. FAA-2020-0911;
Product Identifier 2020-NM-075-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective May 25, 2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all MHI RJ Aviation ULC (type certificate
previously held by Bombardier, Inc.) airplanes identified in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this AD, certificated in any
category.
    (1) Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701 & 702)
airplanes.
    (2) Model CL-600-2C11 (Regional Jet Series 550) airplanes.
    (3) Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705) airplanes.
    (4) Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900) airplanes.
    (5) Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30, Rain and Ice
Protection.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that a new or more
restrictive airworthiness limitation is necessary. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address failed telescopic ducts in the wing anti-
ice system, which could result in loss of the wing anti-ice system
function, slat skew, slat jam, structural damage to the slat panel,
and loss of the slat panel, possibly resulting in reduced control of
the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision--Safe Life Limitation
Task 30-11-10-701

    Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to
incorporate the information specified in [Bombardier] CRJ700/900/
1000 Series Regional Jet Temporary Revision ALI-0721, dated December
20, 2019, into Part 2 of the Bombardier CRJ700/900/1000 Maintenance
Requirements Manual. The initial compliance time for doing the tasks
is at the time specified in [Bombardier] CRJ700/900/1000 Series
Regional Jet Temporary Revision ALI-0721, dated December 20, 2019,
or within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever
occurs later.

(h) No Alternative Actions or Intervals

    After the existing maintenance or inspection program has been
revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the
actions and intervals are approved as an alternative method of
compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in
paragraph (i)(1) of this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:

    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO 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 local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate.
If sending information directly to the manager of the certification
office, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing Operational
Safety, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before
using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office.
    (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, New York ACO
Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or MHI RJ
Aviation ULC's TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved
by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) TCCA AD CF-2020-08, dated April 6, 2020, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet
at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2020-0911.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Siddeeq Bacchus,
Aerospace Engineer, Mechanical Systems and Administrative Services
Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) [Bombardier] CRJ700/900/1000 Series Regional Jet Temporary
Revision ALI-0721, dated December 20, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact MHI
RJ Aviation ULC, 12655 Henri-Fabre Blvd., Mirabel, Qu[eacute]bec J7N
1E1, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-
free telephone +1<PHONE_NUMBER> or direct-dial telephone +1 514 855
8500; fax +1-514 855-8501; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet https://mhirj.com.
    (4) You may view this service information 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>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on March 30, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-07624 Filed 4-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 31 (Thursday, February 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10070-10071]
[FR Doc No: 2021-03202]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No: FAA-2021-0111]

Deadline for Notification of Intent To Use the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) Primary, Cargo, and Nonprimary Entitlement
Funds Available to Date for Fiscal Year 2021

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This action announces March 15, 2021, as the deadline for each
airport sponsor to notify the FAA if it will use its Fiscal Year (FY)
2021 entitlement funds (referred to as apportionments in 49 U.S.C.
47114) to accomplish Airport Improvement Program (AIP) eligible
projects. Each sponsor has previously identified to the FAA such
projects through the Airports Capital Improvement Plan process. This
action further announces May 3, 2021, as the deadline for an airport
sponsor to submit a final grant application to use FY 2021 entitlement
funds.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David F. Cushing, Manager, Airports
Financial Assistance Division, APP-500, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title 49 U.S.C. 47105(f) provides that the
sponsor of an airport for which entitlement funds are apportioned shall
notify the Secretary, by such time and in a form as prescribed by the
Secretary, of the airport sponsor's intent to submit a grant
application for its available entitlement funds. Therefore, the FAA is
hereby notifying such airport sponsors of the steps required to ensure
that the FAA has sufficient time to carry over and convert remaining
entitlement funds.
    The AIP grant program is operating under the requirements of Public
Law 115-254, the ``FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018,'' enacted on
October 5, 2018, which authorizes the AIP through September 30, 2023,
and Public Law 116-260, the ``Transportation, Housing and Urban
Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2021,'' which
appropriates FY 2021 funds for the AIP through September 30, 2021. In
accordance with legislation enacted as of the date of this notice, the
AIP has approximately $2.3 billion of entitlement funds available
through September 30, 2021.
    This notice applies only to those airports that have entitlement
funds apportioned to them, except those nonprimary airports located in
designated Block Grant States.
    An airport sponsor intending to apply for any of its available
entitlement funds, including those unused but still available in
accordance with 49 U.S.C. 47117 from prior years, must notify the FAA
of its intent to submit a grant application by 12 p.m. prevailing local
time on Monday, March 15, 2021.
    This notice must be in writing and address all entitlement funds
available to date for FY 2021, including those entitlement funds not
obligated from prior years. These notifications are critical to ensure
efficient planning and administration of the AIP. The final grant
application deadline is Monday, May 3, 2021. The final grant
application funding requests should be based on bids, not estimates.
The FAA will carryover the remainder of available entitlement funds
after the above date as prescribed under 49 U.S.C. 47117. These funds
will not be available again to the airport sponsor until the

beginning of FY 2022. Dates are subject to possible adjustment based on
future legislation. As of the publication of this notice,
appropriations for the FAA expire on September 30, 2021, and
authorization legislation for the FAA expires on September 30, 2023.
    The FAA has determined this process and deadline will expedite and
facilitate the FY 2021 grant-making process.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 11, 2021.
Robert John Craven,
Director, Office of Airport Planning and Programming.
[FR Doc. 2021-03202 Filed 2-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 247 (Tuesday, December 27, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79301-79302]
[FR Doc No: 2022-28078]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-10515-01-OA]

Notification of Request for Nominations to the National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Request for nominations to the National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council (NEJAC).

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites
nominations from a diverse range of qualified candidates to be
considered for appointment to its National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council (NEJAC). The NEJAC was chartered to provide advice
regarding broad, cross-cutting issues related to environmental justice.
This notice solicits nominations to fill approximately ten (10) new
vacancies for terms through September 2024. To maintain the
representation outlined by the charter, nominees will be selected to
represent: academia, business and industry; community-based; non-
governmental organizations; state and local governments; and tribal
governments and indigenous organizations. We are interested in adding
members located in in all EPA regions. Vacancies are anticipated to be
filled by September 2023. Sources in addition to this Federal Register
Notice will be utilized in the solicitation of nominees.

DATES: Nominations should be submitted in time to arrive no later than
Friday, March 17, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit nominations electronically with the subject line
NEJAC Membership 2023 to [email protected]. The Office of Environmental
Justice and External Civil Rights will acknowledge receipt of
nominations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paula Flores Gregg, NEJAC Designated
Federal Officer, U.S. EPA; email: [email protected]; telephone: (214) 665-
8123.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NEJAC is a Federal advisory committee
chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law
92-463. EPA established the NEJAC in 1993 to provide independent
consensus advice to the EPA Administrator about a broad range of
environmental issues related to environmental justice. The NEJAC
conducts business in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA) (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and related regulations. In accordance with
Executive Order 14035, EPA values and

welcomes opportunities to increase diversity, equity, inclusion, and
accessibility on its Federal advisory committees. EPA's Federal
advisory committees have a workforce that reflects the diversity of the
American people.
    The Council consists of 32 members (including two Co-Chairpersons
and two Vice-Chairpersons) appointed by EPA's Administrator. Members
serve as non-Federal stakeholders who represent academia, business and
industry; community-based organizations; non-governmental/environmental
organizations; state and local governments; tribal governments and
indigenous organizations, of which one member serves as a liaison to
the National Tribal Caucus. Members are appointed for one (1); two (2)
or three (3)-year terms with the possibility of reappointment for
another term.
    The NEJAC usually convenes 4 to 6 times a year, generally meeting
face-to-face twice (2) a year in the Spring and the Fall and virtually
for the remaining meetings. Additionally, members will be asked to
participate in work groups to develop recommendations, advice letters,
and reports to address specific policy issues. The average workload for
members is approximately 20 to 25 hours per month, not including public
meeting hours and with the expectation that the member will take part
in two (2) or more workgroup activities. EPA provides reimbursement for
travel and other incidental expenses associated with official
Government business.
    Nominations: Any interested person and/or organization may nominate
qualified individuals for membership. Individuals are encouraged to
self-nominate. The EPA values and welcomes opportunities to increase
diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility on its Federal advisory
committees and is seeking to obtain nominations from all geographic
locations of the United States of America. All nominations will be
fully considered, but applicants need to be aware of the specific
representation sought as outlined in the summary above. In addition,
EPA is seeking nominees with knowledge in youth led or youth focused
environmental organization; environmental measures; public health/
health disparities; water infrastructure and other water concerns;
farmworkers and pesticides; community sustainability and resiliency;
green jobs and green infrastructure; land use and equitable
development; and emerging inclusion of sub-populations such as the
unhoused individuals, veterans, individuals in the criminal justice
system, etc. Other criteria used to evaluate nominees will include:
     the background and experience that would help members
contribute to the diversity of perspectives on the committee (e.g.,
geographic, economic, social, cultural, educational background,
professional affiliations, and other considerations),
     demonstrated experience with environmental justice and
community sustainability issues at the national, state, or local level,
     excellent interpersonal and consensus-building skills,
     ability to volunteer time to attend meetings 4-6 times a
year, participate in virtual and in-person meetings, volunteer time to
take part in two (2) or more workgroup activities, attend listening
sessions with the Administrator or other senior-level officials,
develop policy recommendations to the Administrator, and prepare
reports and advice letters, and
     willingness to commit time to the committee and
demonstrated ability to work constructively and effectively on
committees. The average workload for members is approximately 20 to 25
hours per month, not including public meeting hours and with the
expectation that the member will take part in two (2) or more workgroup
activities.
    How to Submit Nominations: Any interested person or organization
may nominate qualified persons to be considered for appointment to this
advisory committee. Individuals are encouraged to self-nominate.
Nominations will be submitted in electronic format following the
template available at https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/nominations-nejac. To be considered, all nominations should include:
     Current contact information for the nominee/applicant,
including the nominee's/applicant's name, organization (and position
within that organization), current business address, email address,
telephone numbers and the stakeholder category position you are
interested in.
     Brief Statement describing the nominee's/applicant's
interest in serving on the NEJAC.
     R[eacute]sum[eacute] and a short biography describing the
professional and educational qualifications of the nominee, including a
list of relevant activities, and any current or previous service on
advisory committees.
     Brief statements describing experience as it relates to
engaging affected communities, understanding environmental justice/
relevant issues, consensus building, communication skills and
availability.
     Letter[s] of recommendation from a third party supporting
the nomination. Letter[s] should describe how the nominee's experience
and knowledge will bring value to the work of the NEJAC.

    Dated: December 20, 2022.
Matthew Tejada,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Office of Environmental Justice and
External Civil Rights.
[FR Doc. 2022-28078 Filed 12-23-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 8, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50424-50426]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19471]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0011]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from six individuals
for an exemption from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) in interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions will
enable these individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce without
meeting the vision requirement in one eye.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 8, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0011 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov/,
insert the docket number, FMCSA-2021-0011, in the keyword box, and
click ``Search.'' Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),''
choose the first notice listed, and click on the ``Comment'' button.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Dockets Operations; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-
0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. If you have questions regarding viewing or
submitting material to the docket, contact Dockets Operations, (202)
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0011), indicate the specific section of
this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for
each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and
material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only
one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a
mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of
your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-2021-0011. Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-
Older),'' choose the first notice listed, click the ``Comment'' button,
and type your comment into the text box on the following screen. Choose
whether you are submitting your comment as an individual or on behalf
of a third party and then submit.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope.
    FMCSA will consider all comments and material received during the
comment period.

B. Viewing Comments

    To view comments go to www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket
number, FMCSA-2021-0011, in the keyword box, and click ``Search.''
Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose the first
notice listed, and click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not have access
to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets
Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
To be sure someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

C. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The six individuals listed in this notice have requested an
exemption from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10).
Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each
applicant to determine whether granting an exemption will achieve the
required level of safety mandated by statute.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at
least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual
acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with
corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen)
in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at
least 70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability
to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing standard
red, green, and amber.
    On July 16, 1992, the Agency first published the criteria for the
Vision Waiver Program, which listed the conditions and reporting
standards that CMV drivers approved for participation would need to
meet (57 FR 31458). The current Vision Exemption Program was
established in 1998, following the

enactment of amendments to the statutes governing exemptions made by
Sec.  4007 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-
21), Public Law 105-178, 112 Stat. 107, 401 (June 9, 1998). Vision
exemptions are considered under the procedures established in 49 CFR
part 381 subpart C, on a case-by-case basis upon application by CMV
drivers who do not meet the vision standards of Sec.  391.41(b)(10).
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely in intrastate commerce with the vision
deficiency for the past three years. Recent driving performance is
especially important in evaluating future safety, according to several
research studies designed to correlate past and future driving
performance. Results of these studies support the principle that the
best predictor of future performance by a driver is his/her past record
of crashes and traffic violations. Copies of the studies may be found
at www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's former
waiver study program clearly demonstrated the driving performance of
experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of all
CMV drivers collectively.\1\ The fact that experienced monocular
drivers demonstrated safe driving records in the waiver program
supports a conclusion that other monocular drivers, meeting the same
qualifying conditions as those required by the waiver program, are also
likely to have adapted to their vision deficiency and will continue to
operate safely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A thorough discussion of this issue may be found in a FHWA
final rule published in the Federal Register on March 26, 1996 and
available on the internet at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1996-03-26/pdf/96-7226.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.

III. Qualifications of Applicants

Jason R. Flodin

    Mr. Flodin, 47, has amblyopia in his left eye due to a traumatic
incident in childhood. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/20, and
in his left eye, 20/400. Following an examination in 2021, his
optometrist stated, ``In my medical opinion, Jason is [sic] has
sufficient vision to perform driving tasks required to operate a
commercial vehice.'' Mr. Flodin reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 30 years, accumulating 210,000 miles, and tractor-trailer
combinations for 14 years, accumulating 14,000 miles. He holds a Class
A CDL from Washington. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no
crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Justin W. Green

    Mr. Green, 38, has had a retinal detachment in his left eye due to
a traumatic incident in 2009. The visual acuity in his right eye is 20/
15, and in his left eye, light perception. Following an examination in
2021, his optometrist stated, ``It is my professional opinion that Mr.
Green meets the visual requirements to operate a commercial motor
vehicle.'' Mr. Green reported that he has driven straight trucks for 18
years, accumulating 216,000 miles, and tractor-trailer combinations for
4 years, accumulating 400,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
Arkansas. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes and
no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Joshua L. Kupsch

    Mr. Kupsch, 31, has a retinal hermorrhage in his right eye due to a
traumatic incident in 2017. The visual acuity in his right eye is
counting fingers, and in his left eye, 20/15. Following an examination
in 2021, his ophthalmologist stated, ``It is my opinion that his
current level of vision, being very stable, should be sufficient for
commercial driving.'' Mr. Kupsch reported that he has driven straight
trucks for 6 years, accumulating 162,000 miles. He holds a Class ABCDM
CDL from Wisconsin. His driving record for the last 3 years shows one
crash in a CMV, for which he was cited, and no convictions for moving
violations in a CMV.

Josue M. Rodriguez-Espinoza

    Mr. Rodriguez-Espinoza, 30, has had refractive amblyopia in his
right eye since birth. The visual acuity in his right eye is counting
fingers, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an examination in 2021,
his ophthalmologist stated, ``I feel that Mr. Rodriguez would have no
problem performing the tasks required to appropriately operate a
commercial vehicle despite the poor vision in his right eye.'' Mr.
Rodriguez-Espinoza reported that he has driven straight trucks for 8
years, accumulating 80,000 miles. He holds a Class A CDL from
California. His driving record for the last 3 years shows no crashes
and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Dana R. Williams

    Mr. Williams, 30, has complete loss of vision in his right eye due
to a traumatic incident in 2009. The visual acuity in his right eye is
no light perception, and in his left eye, 20/20. Following an
examination in 2021, his ophthalmologist stated, ``In my medical
opinion Dana Williams have [sic] sufficient vision to operate a
commercial vehicle safely.'' Mr. Williams reported that he has driven
straight trucks for 5 years, accumulating 125,000 miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from Illinois. His driving record for the last 3 years
shows no crashes and no convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

Larry L. Yow

    Mr. Yow, 65, has had amblyopia in his right eye since birth. The
visual acuity in his right eye is 20/60, and in his left eye, 20/20.
Following an examination in 2021, his ophthalmologist stated, ``In my
professional opinion, the patient has sufficient correctable vision to
[sic] ability to perform driving tasks required to operate a commercial
motor vehicle.'' Mr. Yow reported that he has driven tractor-trailer
combinations for 12 years, accumulating 1.08 million miles. He holds a
Class A CDL from North Carolina. His driving record for the last 3
years shows no crashes and no

convictions for moving violations in a CMV.

IV. Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments and material
received before the close of business on the closing date indicated
under the DATES section of the notice.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-19471 Filed 9-7-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56314-56315]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24671]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC19-22-000.
    Applicants: Dominion Bridgeport Fuel Cell, LLC, FuelCell Energy
Finance, LLC.
    Description: Application for Authorization Under Section 203 of the
Federal Power Act, et al. of Dominion Bridgeport Fuel Cell, LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 11/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20181105-5209.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-1533-018.
    Applicants: Macquarie Energy LLC.
    Description: Notice of Non-Material Change in Status of Macquarie
Energy LLC.
    Filed Date: 11/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20181105-5199.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER17-2219-001.
    Applicants: System Energy Resources, Inc.
    Description: Report Filing: SERI Refund Report to be effective N/A.

    Filed Date: 11/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20181105-5197.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-2324-000.
    Applicants: NorthWestern Corporation.
    Description: Supplement (Diagram) to August 27, 2018 Request for
Limited Waiver of Filed Tariff of NorthWestern Corporation.
    Filed Date: 11/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20181102-5259.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/9/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-286-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 3101R2 Heartland Consumers
Power District NITSA and NOA to be effective 4/22/2018.
    Filed Date: 11/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20181105-5063.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-287-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Original ISA SA No. 5227;
Queue No. AB2-158 to be effective 10/8/2018.
    Filed Date: 11/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20181105-5064.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-288-000.
    Applicants: Carson Hybrid Energy Storage LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Application for Market Based
Rate to be effective 12/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 11/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20181105-5076.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-289-000.
    Applicants: Cleco Cajun LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Baseline new to be effective
1/5/2019.
    Filed Date: 11/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20181105-5181.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-290-000.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Revisions to Appendix A to
the US DOE Berkeley Site Office IA (SA 63) to be effective 11/6/2018.
    Filed Date: 11/5/18.
    Accession Number: 20181105-5198.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/26/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-291-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool.
    Description: ISO New England Inc., et al. submits Installed
Capacity Requirement, Hydro Quebec Interconnection Capability Credits
and Related Values for the 2022/2023 Capacity Commitment Period.
    Filed Date: 11/6/18.
    Accession Number: 20181106-5025.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: November 6, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-24671 Filed 11-9-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 6, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14479-14480]
[FR Doc No: 2013-05215]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-1337; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-21]

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Boca Grande, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E Airspace at Boca
Grande, FL, to accommodate a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global
Positioning System (GPS) special Standard Instrument Approach Procedure
(SIAP) serving Boca Grande Heliport. This action would enhance the
safety and airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations within the National Airspace System.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 22, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-
800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket Number
FAA-2012-1337; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-21, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit and review received comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O.
Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this rule by
submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire.
Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and
suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned
regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited
on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and
energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2012-1337; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-21) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket
No. FAA-2012-1337; Airspace Docket No. 12-ASO-21.'' The postcard will
be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded from and
comments submitted through http://www.regulations.gov. Recently
published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's
Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments

received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation
Administration, Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia
30337.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
to request a copy of Advisory circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is considering an amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 to establish Class E airspace at Boca
Grande, FL providing the controlled airspace required to support the
new Copter RNAV (GPS) special standard instrument approach procedures
for Boca Grande Heliport. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface is required for IFR operations within a 6-mile
radius of the point in space coordinates of the heliport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA order 7400.9W, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This proposed rulemaking is promulgated under the authority
described in Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under
that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign
the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This proposed regulation is within the scope
of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace at Boca Grande
Heliport, Boca Grande, FL.
    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

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

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

* * * * *

ASO FL E5 Boca Grande, FL [New]

Boca Grande Heliport, FL
    (Lat. 26[deg]44'33'' N., long. 82[deg]15'32'' W.)
Point in Space Coordinates
    (Lat. 26[deg]44'33'' N., long. 82[deg]15'32'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6-mile radius of the Point in Space Coordinates (lat.
26[deg]44'33'' N., long. 82[deg]15'32'' W.) serving Boca Grande
Heliport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on February 15, 2013.
Barry A. Knight,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2013-05215 Filed 3-5-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Cost and Impacts of Wasting Cement Kiln Dust or Replacing Fly
Ash to Reduce Mercury Emissions

FROM:	Mike Laney, RTI

		David Green, RTI

		Keith Barnett, EPA

TO:		Docket Number OAR-2002-0051

DATE:		June 11, 2006	(Revised December 5, 2006)

A. Wasting Cement Kiln Dust

The mercury that enters cement kilns in coal and feed materials is
vaporized at high kiln temperatures and is either emitted in cement kiln
exhaust gases or absorbed on to particulate matter (cement kiln dust
[CKD]) and collected by particulate matter control devices. Little or no
mercury is retained in the clinker. A large percentage of the CKD that
is generated is recycled back into the kiln. Both European and U.S.
investigators suggest that periodically removing, or wasting, a portion
of the CKD is effective in removing mercury from the kiln and control
device system and reducing mercury emissions (VDZ; Schreiber, et. al.,
2005).

According to the Portland Cement Association (PCA), the industry has
been increasing the amount of CKD recycled and reducing the amount that
is sent to landfills.  The PCA claims that in 2003 more than 75 percent,
or 8 million tons per year, of CKD was recycled directly back into the
cement kiln as raw material (PCA 2005). Based on these figures, the
total amount of CKD generated by the industry is 10.7 million tons/yr.
The USGS (2006) reported US cement production in 2003 to be 81,882,000
metric tons or 90,259,000 tons. Thus, the industry is producing
approximately 12 tons of CKD per 100 tons of cement.  Other
investigators report 9 tons of CKD/100 tons of clinker (University of
Maine, 2006).

Evidence suggests that cement kiln systems have the capacity to retain a
portion of the mercury in the CKD. In a study of the mercury content of
cement kiln raw materials, investigators identified CKD as having the
highest mercury concentration of all of the raw materials analyzed
(Hills and Stevenson, 2006). The authors found the mercury concentration
in 19 samples to range from 5 – 24,560 ppb, with a mean of 1,530 ppb
and

a median value of 53 ppb.  EPA (1998) reported the results of analyses
of 57 samples for mercury where the mean concentration was 0.33 ppm and
a range of 0.003 – 2.9 ppm.

Another study, conducted to demonstrate that cement kiln systems have an
inherent ability to control mercury emissions, supported the findings
that mercury is retained by CKD that is collected by control devices as
well as being collected by the raw materials in in-line raw mills
(Schreiber, et. al., 2005). Based on emission tests conducted on
hazardous waste-burning kilns, as well as mercury concentrations
measured in other input and output streams, mass balances and system
removal efficiencies (SRE) for mercury were calculated for different
kiln types with the following results:

Kiln type	Average fractional closure (Hg mass out/Hg mass in)	Average
mercury System Removal Efficiency (%)

All kilns	0.407	77.3

All wet kilns	0.582	71.1

All dry kilns	0.192	84.9

Dry kilns – raw mill on	0.061	96.0

Dry kilns – raw mill off	0.346	72.0

The authors concluded that the very poor mass balance closure data
suggested that these studies were not reliable.  Based on other
regulatory compliance testing, primarily on hazardous waste burning
kilns, they observed that when high rates of mercury entered the kiln
system, SREs greater than 90 percent were found, while at low input
rates, SREs varied significantly.

As the CKD is fed back to the kiln, the mercury is cycled back through
the kiln system and increases as additional mercury from fuel and new
feed materials enter the kiln. Similarly, mercury collected on the
material in the raw mill while the raw mill is operating, is also cycled
through the kiln. Eventually the level of mercury in the kiln reaches a
steady state. With the addition of mercury above this steady state
level, mercury is revaporized and ultimately emitted to the atmosphere.
To prevent mercury from being re-emitted, a portion of CKD could be
wasted rather than recycled back to the kiln.  If some or all of this
material could be mixed with the clinker in the finish mill, it would
also reduce emissions.

Using the information on the mercury concentration of CKD, an estimate
can be made of the amount of mercury emissions that would be potentially
avoided by not recycling CKD (see Table 1). Using the average mercury
concentrations of 0.33 ppm (EPA 1998) and 1,530 ppb (Hills and
Stevenson, 2006), an estimate of the range of mercury emitted annually
from the recycling of CKD can be made. Based on mercury concentrations
ranging from 0.33 to 1.53 ppm and a recycling rate for CKD of 75
percent, mercury emissions would range from 2.65 to 12.28 ton/yr.

Table 1. Mercury Emitted from the Recycling of Cement Kiln Dust

Mercury concentration

(ppm)	CKD generated

(Mtons/yr)	Total Hg generated

(tons/yr)	CKD recycled

(%)	Hg emitted

(tons/yr)	Hg emitted per ton of CKD recycled

(lb/ton)

0.33	10.7	3.5	75	2.65	0.0007

1.53	10.7	16.37	75	12.28	0.0031

On a model plant basis, a 600,000 ton/yr kiln would produce 72,000 tons
of CKD/yr (600000 x .12 ton CKD/ton clinker). At concentrations ranging
from 0.33 ppm to 1.53 ppm mercury, the amount of mercury in the 72,000
tons of CKD would range from  47.5 lb (0.33 ppm x 72000 ton CKD x 2000
lb/ton) to 220.3 lb. The amount of mercury emitted from the CKD would
depend on the amount recycled. Mercury emissions on a model plant basis
assuming 50 percent of the CKD is recycled are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Mercury Emissions from a Model Kiln

Model kiln

(tons clinker/yr)	CKD generated

/ton clinker)	CKD

(tons/yr)	CKD recycled (%)	Mercury concentration

(ppm)	Mercury emissions

(tons/yr)

600,000	0.12	72,000	50	0.33	0.012

600,000	0.12	72,000	50	1.53	0.055

The cost of a requirement to waste CKD rather than recycle can be
estimated by assuming that wasted CKD has a value equal to the cement
final product. The price of cement in 2004 was approximately $80/metric
ton, or $73/ton (USGS, 2006). Disposal of wasted CKD would be an
additional cost. Disposal cost for CKD are influenced by a variety of
factors including whether the waste is disposed of on-site or off-site,
and if disposed of off-site, the distance to the landfill. Prices can be
as low as $5/ ton of CKD to $20 - $40/ton. Assuming a disposal cost of
$30/ton and that the 600,000 ton/yr model plant wasted one-half of the
CKD it produced, or 36,000 tons/yr, the cost for wasting the CKD would
be as follows:

Annual Cost	= (36,000 tons CKD x $73/ton) + (36,000 tons CKD x $30/ton)

to Waste CKD

		= $3.7 million

At a mercury concentration of 0.33 ppm, the emission reduction from
wasting 36,000 tons/yr of CKD would be 0.012 tons/yr of mercury (0.33
ppm x 36,000), for a cost effectiveness of $308 million/ton of mercury
reduction. The cost effectiveness assuming CKD mercury concentrations
ranging from 0.33 to 1.53 ppm for a 600,000 ton/yr clinker production
where 50 percent of the CKD is recycled is summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Cost Effectiveness for a Requirement to Waste Cement Kiln Dust
for a 600,000 Ton/Yr Kiln

Mercury concentration

(ppm)	Reduction in mercury emissions

(tons/yr)	CKD recycled

(tons/yr)	Annual cost

($M/yr)	Cost effectiveness

($M/ton mercury reduction)

0.33	0.012	36,000	3.7	308

1.53	0.055	36,000	3.7	67

The degree to which wasting CKD would reduce mercury emissions has not
been studied sufficiently to accurately quantify the environmental or
economic impacts associated with this practice. The degree to which
wasting a portion of CKD would reduce mercury emissions is likely to be
highly variable among plants and kilns and would likely vary according
to a number of kiln specific process conditions including the make up of
the feed and fuel materials. The impacts would be further complicated by
the fact that there are advantages associated with recycling CKD
including:

Reduced need for limestone and other raw materials

Reduced energy consumption because the CKD is already calcined

Less waste going to landfills

Reduced CO2 emissions due to reduced fuel consumption and calcination
(0.5 -1 ton of CO2 is emitted for each ton of cement produced)

Other beneficial uses of CKD include soil benefaction and soil
stabilization.  In addition, under some circumstances, CKD can be
blended with clinker to become part of the product.

B. Fly Ash Ban

Because of the presence of mercury in raw materials and coal, portland
cement plants are a source of mercury emissions. One of the materials
used in the production of some cement is flyash, which can replace other
raw materials, such as shale. As a coal combustion product, flyash can
also contain mercury.

According to the PCA (July 2005), over 3 million short tons of flyash
were used in kilns to produce cement. In 2005, 39 portland cement plants
were using fly ash as a raw material in the manufacture of clinker, and
3 plants were blending fly ash into one or more cement products. As
electric utility boiler begin to reduce their mercury emissions, there
is concern that mercury emissions from portland cement plants may
increase over current levels. One option for reducing mercury emissions
is restricting the use of mercury-containing flyash in kilns to produce
portland cement.

Air Quality

One portland cement facility reported a mercury content of their flyash
at 0.5ppm. The quantity of flyash consumed annually was 245,272 tons.
Assuming all of the mercury is the flyash is emitted, the facility’s
annual mercury emissions from the flyash would be 245.3 lb/yr (0.5 x
245272/1000000 x 2000). The median mercury concentration reported by PCA
(2006) for shale was 0.022 ppm. If an equivalent amount of shale was
consumed in place of the flyash, the amount of mercury emitted annually
would be 10.8 lb/yr (0.022 x 245272/1000000 x 2000). The reduction in
mercury emissions by replacing all flyash with shale would be 234.5
lb/yr.

On a nationwide basis, replacing 3 million tons/yr of flyash with shale
would result in a reduction in mercury emissions of 2,868 lb/yr (3000000
x [0.5 – 0.022]/1000000 x 2000).

Cost

One portland cement facility reports receiving $15 for each ton of
flyash they accept. (EPA 2006) At 245,272 tons of flyash per year, the
value of the flyash disposal is $3,679,080. At a cost of $50/ton of
shale (EPA 2006), purchasing the equivalent amount of shale to replace
the flyash would be $12,263,600/yr. The total cost to the facility of
replacing the flyash with shale would be $15,942,680yr.

On a nationwide basis, replacing 3 million tons/yr of flyash with shale
would result in an additional cost of $195,000,000 ([15 + 50] x
3000000).

Limitation of Impact Estimates

It should be recognized that:

1) the value of the flyash disposal varies with the transport distance
between the flyash supply and the kiln (so that cement plants further
from boilers might incur lower costs in switching to shale);

2) The Hg concentration of the flyash varies with the the Hg content of
the coal as well as the type of emission control system associated with
the boiler (so that substituting shale for flyash generated in a boiler
burning low mercury coal might result in lower mercury emission
reductions and  substituting shale for flyash collected by some types of
ESPs might result in lower mercury emission reductions than substituting
shale for flyash collected by some types of fabric filters.

3) The mercury content of shale also varies, which will impact mercury
reductions.

4) Other materials than shale can be substituted for flyash.

5) The cost of shale to a cement plant is dependent on distance to a
shale supply, and some cement plants may have shale available as a
byproduct of a contiguous limestone quarry.

References

Hills, L. M. and Stevenson, R.W. Mercury and Lead Content in Raw
Materials, R&D Serial No. 2888, Portland Cement Association , Skokie,
IL, 2006,45 pages.

PCA 2005. Report on Sustainable Manufacturing: Solid Waste Production.
HYPERLINK "http://www.cement.org/smreport05/sec_page3_2.htm"
http://www.cement.org/smreport05/sec_page3_2.htm .

PCA, July 2005. Portland Cement Association Sustainable Manufacturing
Fact Sheet. Power Plant Byproducts.

PCA 2006. Mercury and Lead Content in Raw Materials. PCA R&D Serial No.
2888.

Schreiber, R., Kellett, C., Joshi, N, Inherent Mercury Controls Within
the Portland Cement Kiln System, R&D Serial No. 2841, Portland Cement
Association , Skokie, IL, 2005, 24 pages.

University of Maine. Beneficial Use of Solid Waste in Maine. March 12,
2006.   HYPERLINK
"http://useit.umaine.edu/materials/ckd/current_disposal.htm"
http://useit.umaine.edu/materials/ckd/current_disposal.htm .

U.S. EPA 2006. Communication between K. Barnett, EPA and B. Gasiorowski,
Lafarge North America Inc. Costs for replacing fly ash with shale.

U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste. Technical Background Document on Ground
Water Controls at CKD Landfills (Draft). June 1998. p. 1-8.

U.S. Geological Survey. Cement. Mineral Commodity Summaries, January
2006.

Verein Deutscher Zementwerke e.V. (German Cement Works Association). Hg
reduction.   HYPERLINK "http://vdz-online.de/403.html"
http://vdz-online.de/403.html

 PAGE

 PAGE   6