PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. EPA 2. OMB control number b. G None a. 2060 0443 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. New collection b. X Revision of a currently approved collection c. Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Synthetic Organic Chemical Industry ( SOCMI): Consolidation of Information Collection Requests ( Revision)

8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR Number 1854.03 9. Keywords Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution Control, Hazardous Air Pollutants, Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements 10. Abstract Respondents are owners and operators of synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry facilities. This ICR consolidates into one ICR the Consolidated Air Rule and its referencing subparts for ease of renewal. EPA will use this information to ensure compliance with the standards.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X")

a. Individuals or households d. Farms b. X Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. G Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. X Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 3,862 b. Total annual responses 10,361 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 20% c. Total annual hours requested 2,165,600 d. Current OMB inventory 427,046 e. Difference 1,738,554 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 0 2. Adjustment 1,738,554 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars) a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs $ 4,273 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) ____ 95,648 c. Total annualized cost requested 99,921 d. Current OMB inventory 32,334 e. Difference 67,587 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment _________ 67,587 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. __ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. _ X_ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. X Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. X On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. X Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. Q Other ( describe)

17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods?

Q Yes X No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Marcia B. Mia Phone: ( 202) 564 7042 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( i) Why the information is being collected; ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( i) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Office Official Michael S. Alushin, Director Compliance Assessment and Media Programs Division Office of Compliance ( OC) Date Signature of Senior Official or designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Environmental Information ( OEI) Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 236 (Monday, December 9, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73687-73689]
[FR Doc No: 2013-29122]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 236 / Monday, December 9, 2013 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0979; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-223-AD;
Amendment 39-17697; AD 2013-25-01]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; DASSAULT AVIATION Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
DASSAULT AVIATION Model Falcon 10 airplanes. This AD requires a one-
time inspection for cracking of the right-hand (RH) and left-hand (LH)
inboard flaps, and replacement if necessary. This AD was prompted by
reports of cracking found on the inboard end plate (rib) of the RH
inboard flap. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such
cracking, which could lead to complete fracture of the rib and loss of
integrity of the flap structure, resulting in loss of control of the
airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective December 24, 2013.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 24,
2013.
    We must receive comments on this AD by January 23, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Dassault
Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606; telephone 201-
440-6700; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com. You may view this
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2013-0262, dated October 30, 2013 (referred to
after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified
products. The MCAI states:

    Cracks were found on two Falcon 10 aeroplanes on the inboard end
plate (rib) of the Right Hand (RH) inboard flap. On both aeroplanes
the crack had initiated in the same area of the rib.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
complete fracture of the rib and loss of integrity of the flap
structure.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Dassault Aviation
published Service Bulletin (SB) F10-318, which provides instructions
for inspection of the affected area.
    For reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-time
[detailed] inspection of the RH and Left Hand (LH) inboard flaps
and, depending on findings, replacement of the cracked part.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-
2013-0979.

Relevant Service Information

    Dassault Aviation has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin F10-318,
dated October 30, 2013. The actions described in this service
information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in
the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service
information referenced above. We are issuing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined the unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same
type design.

FAA's Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies
waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because
cracking of the inboard end plate (rib) of the inboard flap could lead
to complete fracture of the rib and loss of integrity of the flap
structure, resulting in loss of control of the airplane. Therefore, we
determined that notice and opportunity for public comment before
issuing this AD are impracticable and that good cause exists for making
this amendment effective in fewer than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not precede it by notice and opportunity for public
comment. We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under
the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-0979; Directorate
Identifier 2013-NM-223-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. We
specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD because of
those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 81 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
           Action                       Labor cost               Parts cost        product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection..................  1 work-hour x $85 per hour =                $0              $85            $6,885
                               $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate the following costs to do any necessary replacement
that would be required based on the results of the inspection. We have
no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this
replacement:

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                Action                                Labor cost                   Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement..........................  2 work-hours x $85 per hour = $170.....         $41,600          $41,770
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2013-25-01 DASSAULT AVIATION: Amendment 39-17697. Docket No. FAA-
2013-0979; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-223-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective December 24, 2013.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to DASSAULT AVIATION Model Falcon 10 airplanes,
certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight
controls.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracking found on the inboard
end plate (rib) of the right-hand inboard flap. We are issuing this
AD to detect and correct such cracking, which could lead to complete
fracture of the rib and loss of integrity of the flap structure,
resulting in loss of control of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Replacement

    Within 65 days after the effective date of this AD, do a
detailed inspection for cracking of ribs 1 and 3 of the left- and
right-hand inboard flaps, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F10-318, dated
October 30, 2013. If any cracking is found, before further flight,
replace the inboard flap with a crack-free serviceable flap, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Dassault
Mandatory Service Bulletin F10-318, dated October 30, 2013.

(h) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, 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 International
Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer, use these actions if they
are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if
they were approved by the State of Design Authority (or its
delegated agent, or the DAH with a State of Design Authority's
design organization approval). For a repair method to be approved,
the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD. You are
required to ensure the product is airworthy before it is returned to
service.

(i) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2013-0262,
dated October 30, 2013, for related information. You may examine the
MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2013-0979.

(j) 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) Dassault Mandatory Service Bulletin F10-318, dated October
30, 2013.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Dassault Falcon Jet, P.O. Box 2000, South Hackensack, NJ 07606;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet http://www.dassaultfalcon.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (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, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 26, 2013.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-29122 Filed 12-6-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 59 (Thursday, March 27, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17009-17011]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06775]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 59 / Thursday, March 27, 2014 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[FAA-2013-0545; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-048-AD; Amendment 39-
17787; AD 2014-05-14]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
The Boeing Company Model 727 airplanes. This AD was prompted by certain
mandated programs intended to support the airplane reaching its limit
of validity of the engineering data that support the established
structural maintenance program. This AD requires an inspection for
cracks in the main wheel well pressure floor and a preventive
modification or permanent repair, as applicable. We are issuing this AD
to prevent cracking in the main wheel well pressure floor, which could
result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane, and
decompression of the cabin.

DATES: This AD is effective May 1, 2014.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of December 14,
1992 (57 FR 53247, November 9, 1992).

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view the referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2013-
0545; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the Docket Office (phone: 800-647-
5527) is Docket Management Facility, 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: Chandraduth Ramdoss, Aerospace
Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Suite 100, Lakewood, CA
90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company
Model 727 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July
18, 2013 (78 FR 42900). The NPRM was prompted by certain mandated
programs intended to support the airplane reaching its limit of
validity of the engineering data that support the established
structural maintenance program. The NPRM proposed to require an
inspection for cracks in the main wheel well pressure floor and a
preventive modification or permanent repair, as applicable. We are
issuing this AD to prevent cracking in the main wheel well pressure
floor, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane, and decompression of the cabin.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the comments received on the proposal
(78 FR 42900, July 18, 2013) and the FAA's response to each comment.

Request To Clarify the Reason for Issuing the NPRM (78 FR 42900, July
18, 2013)

    Boeing requested that we clarify a statement in the ``Discussion''
section of the preamble of the NPRM (78 FR 42900, July 18, 2013).
Boeing stated that the ``Discussion'' section in the preamble of the
NPRM did not explain that the reason for proposing the NPRM was to
complete one of the recommendations contained in Boeing's 727 Service
Action Requirement Program. Boeing noted that in the NPRM's
``Discussion'' section references were made to ``certain programs'' and
``previously established program,'' but should have specifically
referred to the Boeing 727 Service Action Requirement Program. Boeing
also noted that the service information referenced in the NPRM is
related to the Boeing 727 Service Action Requirement Program.
    We agree that the references to ``certain programs'' and
``previously established program'' were both referring to the Boeing
727 Service Action Requirement Program, and that the service
information referenced in the NPRM (78 FR 42900, July 18, 2013) is
related to that program. However, the portion of the NPRM's
``Discussion'' section that Boeing referred to is not carried over into
this final rule; therefore, no change to this final rule is necessary
in this regard.

Request To Correct Statements Regarding Other Relevant Rulemaking

    Boeing requested that we correct the statements regarding the AD
requirements of the other relevant rulemaking mentioned in the preamble
of the NPRM (78 FR 42900, July 18, 2013). Boeing stated that the
discussion regarding AD 92-19-11, Amendment 39-8369 (57 FR 53247,
November 9, 1992), incorrectly stated that AD 92-19-11 required the
preventative modification or permanent repair for airplanes having line
numbers 001 through 1432. Boeing noted that AD 92-19-11 did not require
the preventative modification, but provided the option to

terminate the repetitive inspections if the preventative modification
or permanent repair was installed on airplanes with line numbers 001
through 1432. Boeing also stated that, in a different rulemaking
action, the ``Other Relevant Rulemaking'' section provided a clearer
description of the actions required by AD 90-06-09, Amendment 39-6488
(55 FR 8370, March 7, 1990), and AD 92-19-11, and requested that the
NPRM be revised to include the language from the other rulemaking
action.
    We agree that the NPRM (78 FR 42900, July 18, 2013) incorrectly
stated that AD 92-19-11, Amendment 39-8369 (57 FR 53247, November 9,
1992), requires the preventive modification or permanent repair.
However, in its comment, Boeing stated that the option to terminate the
repetitive inspections provided in AD 92-19-11 was for airplanes having
line numbers 001 through 1432, which is not correct. AD 92-19-11
provides the option to terminate the repetitive inspection requirements
for all Model 727 airplanes once the permanent repair or preventive
modification is installed.
    We are issuing this final rule to require the permanent repair or
modification for Model 727 airplanes with line positions 1433 through
1832 inclusive. AD 90-06-09, Amendment 39-6488 (55 FR 8370, March 7,
1990), only requires the permanent repair or terminating modification,
in accordance with Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53-0149, Revision 2,
dated March 20, 1981, which only applies to airplanes having line
numbers 001 through 1432 inclusive. AD 92-19-11, Amendment 39-8369 (57
FR 53247, November 9, 1992), does not require the permanent repair or
terminating modification, but provides it as an option.
    The ``Other Relevant Rulemaking'' section of the NPRM (78 FR 42900,
July 18, 2013) is not carried over into this final rule; therefore, no
change to this final rule is necessary in this regard.

Conclusion

    We 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. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (78 FR 42900, July 18, 2013) for correcting the unsafe condition;
and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (78 FR 42900, July 18, 2013).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 106 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Action                    Labor cost         Parts cost  Cost per  product   Cost on U.S. operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection.....................  2 work-hours x $85 per           $0  $170.............  $18,020.
                                  hour = $170.
Modification/repair............  Up to 272 work-hours x        5,565  Up to $28,685....  Up to $3,040,610.
                                  $85 per hour =
                                  $23,120.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

2014-05-14 The Boeing Company: Amendment 39-17787; Docket No. FAA-
2013-0545; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-048-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective May 1, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 92-19-11, Amendment 39-8369 (57 FR 53247,
November 9, 1992).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 727, 727C, 727-100,
727-100C, 727-200, and 727-200F series airplanes, certificated in
any category, having line position 1433 through 1832 inclusive,
identified as Group 2 airplanes in Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53-
0149, Revision 4, dated June 27, 1991.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by certain mandated programs intended to
support the airplane reaching its limit of validity of the
engineering data that support the established structural maintenance
program. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking in the

main wheel well pressure floor, which could result in reduced
structural integrity of the airplane, and decompression of the
cabin.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Definition of Detailed Inspection

    For the purposes of this AD, a detailed inspection is an
intensive examination of a specific item, installation, or assembly
to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is
normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at an
intensity deemed appropriate. Inspection aids such as mirrors,
magnifying lenses, etc., may be necessary. Surface cleaning and
elaborate procedures may be required.

(h) Inspection and Repair/Modification

    At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and
(h)(2) of this AD: Do a one-time detailed, high frequency eddy
current (HFEC), or dye penetrant inspection for cracks in the main
wheel well pressure floor at body stations 930, 940, and 950,
between left and right buttock line 50 and the side of the airplane
body, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing
Service Bulletin 727-53-0149, Revision 4, dated June 27, 1991.
    (1) Prior to the accumulation of 60,000 total flight cycles; or
    (2) Within 2,500 flight cycles or 2 years after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first.

    Note 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD: If a detailed inspection is
performed, stripping the paint will help ensure accurate inspection
results.

(i) Preventive Modification

    If no cracks are found during the inspection required by
paragraph (h) of this AD: Before further flight, do the preventive
modification, in accordance with Part IV of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53-0149, Revision 4,
dated June 27, 1991. Doing the preventive modification terminates
the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (d) of AD 92-19-11,
Amendment 39-8369 (57 FR 53247, November 9, 1992).

(j) Permanent Repair

    If any crack is found during the inspection required by
paragraph (h) of this AD: Before further flight, do the permanent
repair, in accordance with Part III of the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53-0149, Revision 4,
dated June 27, 1991. Doing the permanent repair terminates the
repetitive inspections required by paragraph (d) of AD 92-19-11,
Amendment 39-8369 (57 FR 53247, November 9, 1992).

(k) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(h) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53-0149, Revision
3, dated November 2, 1989, which was incorporated by reference in AD
92-19-11, Amendment 39-8369 (57 FR 53247, November 9, 1992).

(l) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(m) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Chandraduth
Ramdoss, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, Los Angeles
Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), FAA, 3960 Paramount Boulevard,
Suite 100, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 562-
627-5210; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference in this AD may be obtained at the
addresses specified in paragraphs (n)(4) and (n)(5) of this AD.

(n) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
December 14, 1992 (57 FR 53247, November 9, 1992).
    (i) Boeing Service Bulletin 727-53-0149, Revision 4, dated June
27, 1991.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (4) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P. O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
    (5) You may view this service information at FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98057-3356. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (6) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on February 18, 2014.
Ross Landes,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-06775 Filed 3-26-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 196 (Thursday, October 14, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57252-57253]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22315]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0015]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Hearing

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 25 individuals from the
hearing requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate
commerce. The exemptions enable these hard of hearing and deaf
individuals to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on October 8, 2021. The
exemptions expire on October 8, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], FMCSA,
DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-
0001. Office hours are from 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,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Comments

    To view comments go to www.regulations.gov. Insert the docket
number, FMCSA-2021-0015, 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.

B. 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

    On August 31, 2021, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt of
applications from 25 individuals requesting an exemption from the
hearing requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(11) to operate a CMV in
interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (86 FR
48769). The public comment period ended on September 30, 2021, and no
comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that granting exemptions to these individuals would achieve
a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would
be achieved by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(11).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding hearing
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(11) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person first perceives a forced
whispered voice in the better ear at not less than 5 feet with or
without the use of a hearing aid or, if tested by use of an audiometric
device, does not have an average hearing loss in the better ear greater
than 40 decibels at 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, and 2,000 Hz with or without a
hearing aid when the audiometric device is calibrated to American
National Standard (formerly ASA Standard) Z24.5--1951.
    This standard was adopted in 1970 and was revised in 1971 to allow
drivers to be qualified under this standard while wearing a hearing
aid, 35 FR 6458, 6463 (Apr. 22, 1970) and 36 FR 12857 (July 3, 1971).

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    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 Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on current medical information and literature, and the 2008
Evidence Report, ``Executive Summary on Hearing, Vestibular Function
and Commercial Motor Driving Safety.'' The evidence report reached two
conclusions regarding the matter of hearing loss and CMV driver safety:
(1) No studies that examined the relationship between hearing loss and
crash risk exclusively among CMV drivers were identified; and (2)
evidence from studies of the private driver's license holder population
does not support the contention that individuals with hearing
impairment are at an increased risk for a crash. In addition, the
Agency reviewed each applicant's driving record found in the Commercial
Driver's License Information System, for commercial driver's license
(CDL) holders, and inspections recorded in the Motor Carrier Management
Information System. For non-CDL holders, the Agency reviewed the
driving records from the State Driver's Licensing Agency. Each
applicant's record demonstrated a safe driving history. Based on an
individual assessment of each applicant that focused on whether an
equal or greater level of safety is likely to be achieved by permitting
each of these drivers to drive in interstate commerce as opposed to
restricting him or her to driving in intrastate commerce, the Agency
believes the drivers granted this exemption have demonstrated that they
do not pose a risk to public safety.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the hearing standard in Sec.  391.41(b)(11) is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must report any crashes or accidents as defined in Sec.
390.5; (2) each driver must report all citations and convictions for
disqualifying offenses under 49 CFR 383 and 49 CFR 391 to FMCSA; and
(3) each driver is prohibited from operating a motorcoach or bus with
passengers in interstate commerce. The driver must also have a

copy of the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly
authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement official. In addition,
the exemption does not exempt the individual from meeting the
applicable CDL testing requirements.

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 25 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the hearing standard, Sec.
391.41(b)(11), subject to the requirements cited above:

Judith Badore (VT)
Eric Bastian (NY)
Michael Camacho-Luna (VA)
Kevin Clickner (MI)
Tiffany Davis (FL)
Jonathon DeBoer (CA)
Michael Garman (IN)
Dareous Glover (IL)
Delroy Hunt (FL)
Andrew Jones (IA)
Lawrence Mills (OH)
John Norman (IL)
Destin Overstreet (UT)
Damiere Phillips (PA)
Stuart Randles (FL)
David Ritter (WA)
Beau Robinson (TX)
Jose Rosales (MD)
Christopher Shaw (MD)
Harmeet Singh (CA)
William Smitley (CA)
Kyle Voss (TX)
Deborah Wagner (PA)
Donald Weyand (MI)
Steven Woods (TN)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid
for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.
The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) The person
fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315(b).

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-22315 Filed 10-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 125 (Monday, June 30, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36692-36696]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15287]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0989; FRL-9912-88-Region 5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Indiana; Redesignation of
Lake and Porter Counties to Attainment of the 2008 Eight-Hour Ozone
Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to
disapprove a December 5, 2012, request from the state of Indiana to
redesignate Lake and Porter Counties to attainment of the 2008 eight-
hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard)
because Indiana has not demonstrated that the Chicago-Naperville,
Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin (IL-IN-WI) ozone nonattainment area (Chicago
nonattainment area), which includes Lake and Porter Counties, has
attained this NAAQS. EPA proposes to take no action on Indiana's ozone
maintenance plan and Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs), submitted
with Indiana's ozone redesignation request, since approval of these
State Implementation Plan (SIP) components is contingent on the
attainment of the ozone standard.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 30, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-RO5-
OAR-2012-0989, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: John Mooney, Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
     Hand Delivery: John Mooney, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 18th
Floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Regional Office official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2012-0989. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects and viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and
Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone
Edward Doty at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Doty, Environmental Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What actions is EPA proposing?
III. What is the background for these actions?
IV. What are the criteria for redesignation to attainment?
V. What is EPA's analysis of the State's request?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or to organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified in the proposed rule.

II. What actions is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing to disapprove Indiana's December 5, 2012, ozone
redesignation request for Lake and Porter Counties for the 2008 eight-
hour ozone NAAQS because the Chicago nonattainment area continues to
violate this standard based on the most recent three years (2011-2013)
of quality assured, state-certified monitoring data for this ozone
nonattainment area. Because this area continues to violate the 2008
ozone NAAQS, we cannot approve the ozone maintenance plan and MVEBs
included in Indiana's December 5, 2012, submittal. We are proposing to
take no action on the maintenance plan and MVEBs at this time.

III. What is the background for these actions?

    EPA has determined that ground-level ozone (O3) is
detrimental to human health. On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA
promulgated an eight-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.075 parts per million parts
of air (0.075 ppm) (the 2008 eight-hour ozone NAAQS or standard). This
standard is violated in an area when any monitor in the area records
eight-hour ozone concentrations with a three-year average of the annual
fourth-highest daily maximum eight-hour ozone concentrations that
equals or exceeds 0.076 ppm.
    Ground-level ozone is generally not emitted directly by sources.
Rather, emitted Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) and Volatile
Organic Compounds (VOC) react in the presence of sunlight, particularly
under warm conditions, to form ground-level ozone, as a secondary
pollutant, along with other secondary compounds. NOX and VOC
are ``ozone precursors.'' Reduction of peak ground-level ozone
concentrations is achieved through controlling VOC and NOX
emissions.
    Section 107 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) required EPA to designate as
nonattainment any area that violated the 2008 eight-hour ozone
standard. EPA promulgated designations and classifications for this
standard for most areas on May 21, 2012 (77 FR 30088). However, in that
rulemaking (77 FR 30091), EPA noted that the designation of the Chicago
area was being delayed, pending review of 2011 ozone data certified by
the state of Illinois in a December 7, 2011, letter. On June 11, 2012
(77 FR 34221), EPA promulgated the designation of the Chicago area as
nonattainment for the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard with a
classification of marginal nonattainment based on the review of 2009-
2011 ozone data from Illinois and 2008-2010 data from Indiana and
Wisconsin.\1\ This review showed a violation of the standard at the
Zion, Illinois monitoring site. The Chicago nonattainment area includes
Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry and Will Counties, Aux Sable and
Goose Lake Townships in Grundy County, and Oswego Township in Kendall
County in Illinois, Lake and Porter Counties in Indiana, and the area
east of and including the corridor of Interstate 94 in Kenosha County,
Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The states of Indiana and Wisconsin failed to certify 2011
ozone data by a February 29, 2012, deadline imposed by the EPA in
December 9, 2011, letters to state governors notifying the states of
EPA's preliminary responses to state-recommended area designations
for the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard. The letters to the governors
of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin informed these states of EPA's
intention to designate the Chicago area as nonattainment based on
the monitored 2009-2011 ozone standard violation at the Zion,
Illinois monitoring site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What are the criteria for redesignation to attainment?

    The CAA provides the basic requirements for redesignating a
nonattainment area to attainment. Specifically, section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA authorizes redesignation provided that: (1) The Administrator
determines that the area has attained the applicable NAAQS based on
current air quality data; (2) the Administrator has fully approved an
applicable state implementation plan for the area under section 110(k)
of the CAA; (3) the Administrator determines that the improvement in
air quality is due to permanent and enforceable emission reductions
resulting from implementation of the applicable SIP, Federal air
pollution control regulations, and other permanent and enforceable
emission reductions; (4) the Administrator has fully approved a
maintenance plan for the area meeting the requirements of section 175A
of the CAA; and, (5) the state has met all requirements applicable to
the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA.
    EPA provided guidance on redesignations in the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the CAA Amendments of 1990 on April
16, 1992 (57 FR 13498), and supplemented this guidance on April 28,
1992 (57 FR 18070).
    Two significant policy documents affecting the review of ozone
redesignation requests are the following: (1) ``Procedures for
Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,''

Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, September 4, 1992 (the September 4, 1992 Calcagni
memorandum); and, (2) ``Reasonable Further Progress, Attainment
Demonstration, and Related Requirements for Ozone Nonattainment Areas
Meeting the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' Memorandum
from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, May 10, 1995 (the May 10, 1995 Clean Data Policy
memorandum). Additional guidance on processing redesignation requests
is included in the following documents:
     ``Maintenance Plans for Redesignation of Ozone and Carbon
Monoxide Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief
Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, April 30, 1992;
     ``Contingency Measures for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Redesignations,'' Memorandum from G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon
Monoxide Programs Branch, June 1, 1992;
     ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Actions Submitted in
Response to Clean Air Act (Act) Deadlines,'' Memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, October 28, 1992;
     ``Technical Support Documents (TSDs) for Redesignation of
Ozone and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from
G.T. Helms, Chief, Ozone/Carbon Monoxide Programs Branch, August 17,
1993;
     ``State Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements for Areas
Submitting Requests for Redesignation to Attainment of the Ozone and
Carbon Monoxide (CO) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) On
or After November 15, 1992,'' Memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, September 17,
1993;
     ``Use of Actual Emissions in Maintenance Demonstrations
for Ozone and CO Nonattainment Areas,'' Memorandum from D. Kent Berry,
Acting Director, Air Quality Management Division, November 30, 1993;
and
     ``Part D New Source Review (Part D NSR) Requirements for
Areas Requesting Redesignation to Attainment,'' Memorandum from Mary D.
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, October 14,
1994.

V. What is EPA's analysis of the State's request?

    EPA is proposing to disapprove Indiana's ozone redesignation
request for Lake and Porter Counties with a determination that the
Chicago nonattainment area continues to violate the 2008 eight-hour
ozone standard based on quality assured, state-certified ozone data for
2010-2013. Indiana's ozone redesignation request fails to meet the
critical air quality requirement of section 107(d)(3)(E)(1) of the CAA.
The basis for EPA's proposed disapproval of the redesignation request
is discussed in more detail as follows.

A. Has the Chicago area attained the 2008 eight-hour ozone NAAQS?

    An area may be considered to attain the 2008 eight-hour ozone NAAQS
if there are no violations of the NAAQS, as determined in accordance
with 40 CFR 50.10 and appendix P, based on the most recent three
consecutive years of complete, quality-assured air quality monitoring
data at all ozone monitoring sites in the area. To attain this
standard, the average of the annual fourth-high daily maximum eight-
hour averaged ozone concentrations measured and recorded at each
monitoring site in the area over the most recent three-year period (the
monitoring site's ozone design value) must not exceed 0.075 ppm. The
data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with 40 CFR
part 58, and must be recorded in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS). The
ozone monitoring data considered here meet these certification
criteria. All ozone monitoring data considered here have been certified
by the states of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin.
    As part of the December 5, 2012, ozone redesignation request, the
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) summarized the
annual fourth-high daily maximum eight-hour ozone concentrations and
three-year eight-hour ozone design values for the period of 2006-2011
for all ozone monitoring sites in the Chicago nonattainment area.
    Since the December 5, 2012, submittal of Indiana's ozone
redesignation request, 2012 and 2013 ozone data have been quality-
assured and certified by the states of Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin
and entered into AQS. These data, along with the ozone data summarized
in Indiana's ozone redesignation request, must be considered in the
review of Indiana's ozone redesignation request.
    Table 1 summarizes the monitoring site-specific annual fourth-high
daily maximum eight-hour ozone concentrations for all monitoring sites
in the Chicago-Naperville, IL-IN-WI area for the period of 2006-2013.
Note that the 2012 and 2013 ozone data were obtained from EPA's AQS,
whereas the 2006-2011 ozone data were documented in Indiana's ozone
redesignation request and are confirmed by ozone monitoring data
contained in AQS.

  Table 1--Annual Fourth-High Daily Maximum Eight-Hour Ozone Concentrations for Monitoring Sites in the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin
                                                                Ozone Nonattainment Area
                                                                          [ppm]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Site/site No.                                County                 2006     2007     2008     2009     2010     2011     2012     2013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana:
    Gary 180890022...........................  Lake.............................    0.073    0.085    0.062    0.058    0.064    0.066    0.078    0.064
    Hammond 180892008........................  Lake.............................    0.075    0.077    0.068    0.065    0.069    0.072    0.077    0.063
    Whiting 180890030........................  Lake.............................    0.081    0.088    0.062    0.062    0.069    0.069    0.081    0.062
    Ogden Dunes 181270024....................  Porter...........................    0.070    0.084    0.069    0.067    0.067    0.068    0.081    0.069
    Valparaiso 181270026.....................  Porter...........................    0.071    0.080    0.061    0.064    0.061    0.063    0.067    0.063
Illinois:
    Alsip 170310001..........................  Cook.............................    0.078    0.085    0.066    0.069    0.073    0.071    0.079    0.064
    Chicago--Southwest Filtration Plant        Cook.............................    0.075    0.082    0.067    0.065    0.074    0.079    0.091    0.071
     170310032.
    Chicago--Ellis Avenue 170310064..........  Cook.............................    0.070    0.079    0.063    0.060    0.071    0.074    0.081    0.058
    Chicago--Ohio Street 170310072...........  Cook.............................    0.065    0.075    0.063    0.062    0.071    0.074    0.090       NA
    Chicago--Lawndale 170310076..............  Cook.............................    0.075    0.080    0.066    0.067    0.068    0.073    0.081    0.062
    Chicago--Hurlbut Street 170311003........  Cook.............................    0.077    0.079    0.064    0.064    0.070    0.067    0.079    0.066
    Lemont 170311601.........................  Cook.............................    0.070    0.085    0.071    0.067    0.073    0.069    0.081    0.064

    Cicero 170314002.........................  Cook.............................    0.060    0.068    0.060    0.067    0.068    0.072    0.083    0.063
    Des Plaines 170314007....................  Cook.............................    0.065    0.078    0.057    0.057    0.064    0.065    0.073    0.067
    Northbrook 170314201.....................  Cook.............................    0.068    0.076    0.065    0.069    0.072    0.076    0.087    0.069
    Evanston 170317002.......................  Cook.............................    0.072    0.080    0.058    0.064    0.067    0.078    0.093    0.069
    Lisle 170436001..........................  DuPage...........................    0.062    0.072    0.057    0.059    0,064    0.068    0.093    0.063
    Elgin 170890005..........................  Kane.............................    0.062    0.075    0.061    0.068    0.069    0.070    0.075    0.064
    Zion 170971007...........................  Lake.............................    0.068    0.080    0.069    0.075    0.078    0.076    0.093    0.072
    Cary 171110001...........................  McHenry..........................    0.057    0.074    0.065    0.066    0.065    0.071    0.077    0.065
    Braidwood 171971011......................  Will.............................    0.068    0.071    0.060    0.063    0.065    0.061    0.071    0.061
Wisconsin:
    Chiwaukee Prairie 550590019..............  Kenosha..........................    0.079    0.085    0.072    0.071    0.081    0.081    0.092    0.075
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 gives the three-year averages of the annual fourth-high
daily maximum eight-hour ozone concentrations for each monitoring site,
the monitoring sites' ozone design values.

    Table 2--Three-Year Averages of the Annual Fourth-High Daily Maximum Eight-Hour Ozone Concentrations for
         Monitoring Sites in the Chicago-Naperville, Illinois-Indiana-Wisconsin Ozone Nonattainment Area
                                                      [ppm]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Site/site No.             2006-2008    2007-2009    2008-2010    2009-2011    2010-2012    2011-2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana:
    Gary 180890022................        0.073        0.068        0.061        0.062        0.069        0.069
    Hammond 180892008.............        0.073        0.070        0.067        0.068        0.073        0.070
    Whiting 180890030.............        0.077        0.070        0.064        0.064        0.073        0.070
    Ogden Dunes 181270024.........        0.074        0.073        0.067        0.067        0.072        0.072
    Valparaiso 181270026..........        0.070        0.068        0.062        0.062        0.064        0.064
Illinois:
    Alsip 170310001...............        0.076        0.073        0.069        0.071        0.074        0.071
    Chicago--Southwest Filtration         0.074        0.071        0.068        0.068        0.081        0.080
     Plant 170310032..............
    Chicago--Ellis Avenue                 0.071        0.067        0.064        0.068        0.075        0.071
     170310064....................
    Chicago--Ohio Street 170310072        0.067        0.066        0.065        0.069        0.078           NA
    Chicago--Lawndale 170310076...        0.073        0.071        0.067        0.069        0.074        0.072
    Chicago--Hurlbut Street               0.073        0.069        0.066        0.067        0.072        0.070
     170311003....................
    Lemont 170311601..............        0.075        0.074        0.070        0.069        0.074        0.071
    Cicero 170314002..............        0.063        0.065        0.065        0.069        0.074        0.072
    Des Plaines 170314007.........        0.066        0.064        0.059        0.062        0.067        0.068
    Northbrook 170314201..........        0.069        0.070        0.068        0.072        0.078        0.077
    Evanston 170317002............        0.070        0.067        0.063        0.069        0.079        0.080
    Lisle 170436001...............        0.063        0.062        0.060        0.063        0.069        0.068
    Elgin 170890005...............        0.066        0.068        0.066        0.069        0.071        0.069
    Zion 170971007................        0.072        0.075        0.074        0.076        0.082        0.080
    Cary 171110001................        0.065        0.068        0.065        0.067        0.071        0.071
    Braidwood 171971011...........        0.066        0.064        0.063        0.063        0.066        0.064
Wisconsin:
    Chiwaukee Prairie 550590019...        0.078        0.076        0.074        0.077        0.085        0.082
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As can be seen from table 2, the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard is
currently violated at the following sites in the Chicago area: (1)
Chicago-Southwest Filtration Plant; (2) Northbrook; (3) Evanston; (4)
Zion; and (5) Chiwaukee Prairie. In addition, the most recent three-
years of quality assured, state certified ozone data (2010-2012)
available for the Chicago-Ohio Street monitoring site show a violation
of the 2008 ozone standard (the 2013 ozone data for this monitoring
site are incomplete and not available to assess the attainment of the
ozone standard). This shows that the Chicago nonattainment area has not
attained the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard.
    IDEM based the state's ozone redesignation request on the lack of
ozone standard violations in Lake and Porter Counties. IDEM, however,
has failed to demonstrate that the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard has
been attained throughout the Chicago nonattainment area. The quality-
assured and state certified ozone data for 2011-2013 show a violation
of the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard in the Chicago nonattainment
area. Preliminary 2014 ozone data also indicate that multiple monitors
in the Chicago nonattainment area continue to violate the 2008 ozone
standard for the period of 2012-2014. Therefore, Indiana's ozone
redesignation request fails to meet the first, and most important,
criterion for the approval of ozone redesignation requests: attainment
of the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard throughout the entire
nonattainment area.

B. Has Indiana submitted an approvable ozone maintenance plan and
approvable motor vehicle emission budget?

    To be approvable, an ozone maintenance plan, in part, must
demonstrate that the ozone standard will be maintained in the ozone
nonattainment area for at least 10 years after EPA approves the state's
ozone redesignation request. A critical component of ozone maintenance
plans is an ozone attainment emissions inventory documenting the VOC
and NOX emissions inventory for the period in which the area
has attained the ozone standard. The ozone maintenance demonstration
usually involves the demonstration that future (during the 10 years
after redesignation) VOC and NOX emissions will be at or
below the attainment emissions. Indiana's ozone redesignation request
contains such an ozone maintenance demonstration.
    Since the Chicago ozone nonattainment area continues to violate the
2008 eight-hour ozone standard, we cannot conclude that Indiana has
developed an acceptable attainment year emissions inventory. This means
that the ozone maintenance demonstration portion of the ozone
maintenance plan is unacceptable.
    Since the estimation of the VOC and NOX MVEBs depends on
the determination of mobile source emissions that, along with other
emissions in the nonattainment area, provide for attainment of the
ozone standard, and since the Chicago nonattainment area continues to
violate the 2008 eight-hour ozone standard, we conclude that Indiana's
estimates of the VOC and NOX MVEBs are also not acceptable.
    We are not proposing action on Indiana's ozone maintenance
demonstration and plan and MVEBs at this time. However, we note that,
if we were to propose actions on these ozone redesignation request
elements, we would find it necessary to propose disapproval.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and, therefore, is
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely disapproves state law as not meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Because this rule disapproves pre-existing requirements under state
law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that
required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the
Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). This action merely disapproves a state rule, and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments

    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
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, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (59
FR 22951, November 9, 2000).

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks

    This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 ``Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997), because it disapproves a state rule.

Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, Or Use

    Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action under Executive
Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' this action is also not
subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001).

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    In reviewing state submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the state
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: June 18, 2014.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2014-15287 Filed 6-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 114 (Friday, June 12, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35992-35994]
[FR Doc No: 2020-12716]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0005; Notice 1]

Daimler Trucks North America, LLC, Receipt of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Daimler Trucks North America, LLC (DTNA) has determined that
certain model year (MY) 2011-2021 Thomas Built Buses Saf-T-Liner HDX
school buses do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 222, School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash
Protection. DTNA filed a noncompliance report dated December 17, 2019,
and later amended the report on January 16, 2020. DTNA subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on January 16, 2020, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This notice announces receipt of DTNA's petition.

DATES: Send comments on or before July 13, 2020.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. Overview: DTNA has determined that certain MY 2011-2021 Thomas
Built Saf-T-Liner HDX school buses do not fully comply with the
requirements of paragraph S5.2.3 of FMVSS No. 222, School Bus Passenger
Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.222). DTNA filed a
noncompliance report dated December 17, 2019, and later amended their
report on January 16, 2020, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and
Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. DTNA subsequently petitioned
NHTSA on January 16, 2020, for an exemption from the notification and
remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556,
Exemption for Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    This notice of receipt of DTNA's petition is published under 49
U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent

any agency decision or other exercise of judgment concerning the merits
of the petition.
    II. Buses Involved: Approximately 7,601 MY 2011-2021 Thomas Built
Saf-T-Liner HDX school buses manufactured between October 21, 2009, and
December 16, 2019, are potentially involved.
    III. Noncompliance: DTNA explains that the noncompliance is that
the subject school buses are equipped with a wall-mounted restraining
barrier that does not meet the requirements specified in paragraph
S5.2.3 of FMVSS No. 222. Specifically, when tested according to the
test procedure, the restraining barrier did not meet the force/
deflection curve or deflection requirements because the upper loading
bar contacted the trim panel on the front entry door of the bus causing
the upper loading bar force to exceed the allowable limit.
    IV. Rule Requirements: Paragraph S5.2.3 of FMVSS No. 222 includes
the requirements relevant to this petition. When force is applied to
the restraining barrier in the same manner as specified in paragraphs
S<IP_ADDRESS> through S<IP_ADDRESS> for seating performance tests the restraining
barrier:
    (a) Force/deflection curve shall fall within the zone specified in
Figure 1;
    V. Summary of DTNA's Petition: The following views and arguments
presented in this section, V. Summary of DTNA's Petition, are the views
and arguments provided by DTNA. They have not been evaluated by the
Agency and do not reflect the views of the Agency. DTNA described the
subject noncompliance and stated their belief that the noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    In support of its petition, DTNA submitted the following reasoning:
    1. Background and description of the noncompliance: DTNA found that
it had modified the restraining barrier design in October 2009
following an update to FMVSS No. 222 to increase the seat back height
requirement to 24 inches. For aesthetic purposes and not for functional
or compliance reasons, DTNA similarly adjusted the profiles (slope and
angle) of the restraining barrier to match the new higher seatback
height. To do so, DTNA added approximately \5/8\ inch of foam padding
to each side of the restraining barrier. Notably, the foam was added
onto the outside of the frame of the barrier--doing so did not widen
the frame structure itself. The additional padding is used for cosmetic
purposes (to promote uniformity of design of the seat profiles at that
time) and is not needed to provide protection beyond the construction
of the restraining barrier itself.
    2. Analysis: DTNA says that the purpose of the restraining barrier
is to provide compartmentalization for occupants of the first row of
school bus seats where there is not a seat back to offer protection.
FMVSS No. 222 includes a series of performance requirements for school
bus frontal barriers which includes distance between the barrier and
the seat (S5.2.1), the barrier height and position (S5.2.2), and
barrier forward performance (S5.2.3). The purpose of the barrier
forward performance requirement at S5.2.3 is to ensure the front
barrier can withstand the impact of certain set forces while at the
same time maintaining component integrity.
    3. The forces measured in testing are a product of the test
apparatus that would not occur in the real world. DTNA says that the
effect of the additional foam outside the restraining barrier frame was
to slightly widen the restraining barrier. Now, with a wider
restraining barrier, the placement of the upper restraining barrier is
moved outwards so that it now encounters the door frame trim. With a
wider restraining barrier, based on its calculated placement per the
test procedure, the corresponding length of the upper loading bar
becomes longer than that of the prior design. When the upper loading
bar deployed, it contacted the front entrance door trim and caused the
upper loading bar to exceed the force limits. The behavior of the upper
loading bar is a product of the test procedure and does not represent
the behavior of the barrier in actual use conditions. Prior to the 2009
design change; there was an approximately two-inch gap at the height
where the upper loading arm was placed. This design well exceeded the
minimum requirements as indicated above. With the design change in
2009, that space was filled in with soft foam, but the effect of doing
so did not have any impact on the performance or integrity of the
barrier itself.
    DTNA has since conducted its own analysis of the restraining
barrier performance in the design tested by the Agency as well as the
prior design. The results of that testing demonstrate that the
additional foam creates approximately 11 mm (.43 inches) of
interference between the upper loading bar on the right side of the
vehicle and the bus entrance door frame. The additional foam was not
intended to and does not provide any safety or functional benefit. Even
though the prior design of the restraining barrier left a small gap
between the bus sidewall and the barrier itself, the barrier was more
than sufficient to meet the performance forward requirements. The
addition of foam for cosmetic purposes in 2009 does not deter from the
safety of the barrier.
    Removing the additional \5/8\ inches of foam padding would
eliminate the potential for any interference with the upper loading bar
as it then cannot come into physical contact with the doorframe. The
previous small gap in space did not expose occupants to an increased
risk of harm (as demonstrated by the lack of any reports from the field
potentially related to this issue), and the more recent addition of the
foam also does not create any safety concerns beyond the operation of
the test itself.
    4. The current restraining barrier addresses the unreasonable risk
to safety identified by FMVSS No. 222. DTNA says that the purpose of a
restraining barrier is to compartmentalize and contain passengers
located in the first row of seats in the event of a crash or sharp
deceleration. The forward performance test evaluates the strength of
the restraining barrier in a forward impact and to deflect in a
controlled manner as it absorbs the energy of the occupant striking the
barrier.
    The restraining barrier is intended to provide an equivalent level
of compartmentalization as does the seat back for the rearward seats.
The safety benefit of compartmentalization is realized through the
height of the restraining barrier (or seatback) as a restraining
barrier that is too low could increase the likelihood that in a forward
crash, an occupant could be thrown over the barrier. This view is
consistent with the requirement that the height and position of the
restraining barrier match or ``coincide'' with that of the seatback.
Because FMVSS No. 222 defines the unreasonable risk to safety as the
potential for being thrown over the barrier, it is the height and
position of the barrier that mitigate against this risk.
    Additionally, while the surface area of the barrier must at least
coincide with the surface area of the seatback, any additional width of
the barrier that extends beyond the frame of the barrier and thus is
surplus material that does not address the unreasonable risk to safety
identified by the standard. DTNA says that the Agency has previously
recognized that a ``restraining barrier must therefore only coincide
with or lie outside of the seatback surface required by S5.1.2. If a
seat back surface exceeds the size required in Standard 222, the size
of the restraining barrier need not coincide.'' Letter to Wort, August
11,

1987. The reverse also holds true. For the subject buses, the surface
area of the barrier is larger than that of the seat back and exceeds
the area required by S5.2.1. While the restraining barrier surface area
can be larger than the seat back, the unreasonable risk to safety is
addressed by maximizing the effects of compartmentalization by ensuring
the perimeter of the restraining barrier coincides with the surface
area of the seatback.
    DTNA says that the test procedure considers the need to assess the
portion of the barrier that is intended to bear the force of the
loading. DTNA believes that when creating the test procedure, the
Agency intentionally limited the length of the loading bar to be
approximately 4 inches shorter than the width of the seat back or
restraining barrier. DTNA says NHTSA declined to reduce the size of the
range to two inches because it wanted ``to ensure loads would be
transferred to the seat structure without collapse of the seat back''
and to discourage manufacturers from adding a narrow structural member
to meet the requirements. See 39 FR 27585 (July 30, 1974). In other
words, the objective of the forward performance test is to measure the
operation and structural integrity of the restraining barrier by
ensuring the loads are concentrated in the core of the structure itself
and not the periphery of the structure which could cause it to
unnecessarily collapse. Thus, the additional foam installed outwards of
the retaining barrier frame has no bearing on the forward performance
of the restraining barrier.
    5. DTNA has corrected this issue in production by adjusting the
location of the installation of the barrier by moving it away from the
wall by \3/4\ inch. Doing so ensures that in any future testing, the
loading bar will not encounter the door frame.
    6. Finally, DTNA has used this seating design for over a decade. It
is not aware of any consumer complaints or reports of accidents or
injuries related to the forward displacement of the restraining
barrier.
    DTNA's complete petition and all supporting documents are available
by logging onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) website at
https://www.regulations.gov and by following the online search
instructions to locate the docket number as listed in the title of this
notice.
    DTNA concluded by expressing the belief that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety,
and that its petition to be exempted from providing notification of the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the
noncompliance, as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject buses that DTNA no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve vehicle
distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for
sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate
commerce of the noncompliant buses under their control after DTNA
notified them that the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-12716 Filed 6-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P