The following summarizes the procedures for projecting future-year 8-hour ozone average and maximum design values to 2023 to determine nonattainment and maintenance receptors. Consistent with the EPA's modeling guidance, the agency uses the air quality modeling results in a "relative" sense to project future concentrations. That is, the ratios of future year model predictions to base year model predictions are used to adjust ambient ozone design values up or down depending on the relative (percent) change in model predictions for each location. The modeling guidance recommends using measured ozone concentrations for the 5-year period centered on the base year as the air quality data starting point for future year projections. This average design value is used to dampen the effects of inter-annual variability in meteorology on ozone concentrations and to provide a reasonable projection of future air quality at the receptor under "average" conditions. Because the base year for this rule is 2011, the EPA is using the base period 2009-2013 ambient ozone design value data to project 2023 average design values in a manner consistent with the modeling guidance.
      The approach for projecting future ozone design values involved the projection of an average of up to three design value periods, which include the years 2009-2013 (design values for 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-2013). The 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-2013 design values are accessible at www.epa.gov/airtrends/values.html. The average of the three design values creates a "5-year weighted average" value. The 5-year weighted average values were then projected to 2023. To project 8-hour ozone design values, the agency used the 2011 base year and 2023 future base-case model-predicted ozone concentrations to calculate relative response factors (RRFs) for the location of each monitoring site. The RRFs were then applied to actual monitored data, i.e., the 2009-2013 average ozone design values (to generate the projected average design values) and the individual design values for 2009-2011, 2010-2012, and 2011-2013 (to generate potential maximum design values). Details of this approach are provided in the Proposed Rule AQM TSD.
      The EPA considers projected design values that are greater than or equal to 76.0 ppb to be violating the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2023. As noted previously, nonattainment receptors are those sites that have projected average design values greater than the 2008 ozone NAAQS and are also violating the NAAQS based on the most recent measured air quality data. Therefore, as an additional step, for those sites that are projected to be violating the NAAQS based on the average design values in 2023, the EPA examined the most recent measured design value data to determine if the site was currently violating the NAAQS. For this proposal, the agency examined ambient data for the 2014-2016 period, which are the most recent available, certified measured design values at the time of this rule.
      As discussed above, maintenance-only receptors include both: (1) those sites with projected average and maximum design values above the NAAQS that are currently measuring clean data; and (2) those sites with projected average design values below the level of the NAAQS, but with projected maximum design values of 76.0 ppb or greater.
      In projecting these future year design values, the EPA applied its own modeling guidance, which recommends using model predictions from the "3 x 3" array of grid cells surrounding the location of the monitoring site to calculate the relative response factors and identify future areas of nonattainment. In addition, in light of comments on the January 2017 NODA and other analyses, the EPA also projected 2023 design values based on a modified version of this approach for those monitoring sites located in coastal areas. In brief, in the alternative approach, the EPA eliminated from the design value calculations those modeling data in grid cells not containing a monitoring site that are dominated by water (i.e., more than 50 percent of the land use in the grid cell is water). For each individual monitoring site, the EPA is providing the base period 2009-2013 average and maximum design values, 2023 projected average and maximum design values based on both the "3 x 3" approach and the alternative approach affecting coastal sites, and 2014-2016 measured design values. As discussed further below, under both the 3x3 approach and the alternative approach all monitoring sites in the Eastern U.S. are modeled to be clean for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2023.  Thus, according to the EPA's findings, there will be no remaining nonattainment or maintenance receptors in the eastern U.S. in 2023.
      Tables III.C-1 and III.C-2 contain the ambient 2009-2013 base period average and maximum 8-hour ozone design values, the 2023 projected baseline average and maximum design values, and the ambient 2014-2016 design values for the air quality monitors that were identified in the CSAPR Update as having remaining problems attaining or maintaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2017, even with CSAPR Update implementation.  Table III.C-1 contains data for the monitors identified as remaining nonattainment receptors in 2017 in the CSAPR Update and Table III.C-2 contains data for the monitors identified as remaining maintenance-only receptors in 2017 in the CSAPR Update.  The design values for all monitoring sites in the contiguous U.S. are provided in the docket. According to the EPA's findings, there are no remaining nonattainment or maintenance receptors in the eastern U.S. in 2023.
      The EPA solicits public comment on the reliability of the modeling data, including any information which may support or not support these results.

Table III.C-1. Base Period, Current (2014-2016), and 2023 Projected Design Values (ppb) for Monitors Identified As Remaining Nonattainment Receptors in 2017 in the CSAPR Update.[,]
                                  Monitor ID
                                     State
                                    County
                                 2009-2013
Avg
                                 2009-2013
Max
                                   2014-2016
                               2023en "3x3"
Avg
                               2023en "3x3"
Max
                            2023en
"No Water" Avg
                             2023en
"No Water" Max
                                                                      090019003
Connecticut
Fairfield
                                     83.7
                                      87
                                      85
                                     72.7
                                     75.6
                                     73.0
                                     75.9
                                                                      090099002
Connecticut
New Haven
                                     85.7
                                      89
                                      76
                                     71.2
                                     73.9
                                     69.9
                                     72.6
                                                                      480391004
Texas
Brazoria
                                     88.0
                                      89
                                      75
                                     74.0
                                     74.9
                                     74.0
                                     74.9
                                                                      484392003
Texas
Tarrant
                                     87.3
                                      90
                                      73
                                     72.5
                                     74.8
                                     72.5
                                     74.8
                                                                      484393009
Texas
Tarrant
                                     86.0
                                      86
                                      75
                                     70.6
                                     70.6
                                     70.6
                                     70.6
                                                                      551170006
Wisconsin
Sheboygan
                                     84.3
                                      87
                                      79
                                     70.8
                                     73.1
                                     72.8
                                     75.1

Table III.C-2. Base Period, Current (2014-2016), and 2023 Projected Design Values (ppb) for Monitors Identified as Remaining Maintenance-Only Receptors in 2017 in the CSAPR Update.
                                  Monitor ID
                                     State
                                    County
                                 2009-2013
Avg
                                 2009-2013
Max
                                   2014-2016
                               2023en "3x3"
Avg
                               2023en "3x3"
Max
                            2023en
"No Water" Avg
                             2023en
"No Water" Max
                                                                      090010017
Connecticut
Fairfield
                                     80.3
                                      83
                                      80
                                     69.8
                                     72.1
                                     68.9
                                     71.2
                                                                      090013007
Connecticut
Fairfield
                                     84.3
                                      89
                                      81
                                     71.2
                                     75.2
                                     71.0
                                     75.0
                                                                      240251001
Maryland
Harford
                                     90.0
                                      93
                                      73
                                     71.4
                                     73.8
                                     70.9
                                     73.3
                                                                      260050003
Michigan
Allegan
                                     82.7
                                      86
                                      75
                                     69.0
                                     71.8
                                     69.0
                                     71.7
                                                                      360850067
New York
Richmond
                                     81.3
                                      83
                                      76
                                     71.9
                                     73.4
                                     67.1
                                     68.5
                                                                      361030002
New York
Suffolk
                                     83.3
                                      85
                                      72
                                     72.5
                                     74.0
                                     74.0
                                     75.5
                                                                      481210034
Texas
Denton
                                     84.3
                                      87
                                      80
                                     69.7
                                     72.0
                                     69.7
                                     72.0
                                                                      482010024
Texas
Harris
                                     80.3
                                      83
                                      79
                                     70.4
                                     72.8
                                     70.4
                                     72.8
                                                                      482011034
Texas
Harris
                                     81.0
                                      82
                                      73
                                     70.8
                                     71.6
                                     70.8
                                     71.6
                                                                      482011039
Texas
Harris
                                     82.0
                                      84
                                      67
                                     71.8
                                     73.6
                                     71.8
                                     73.5

 Pollutant Transport from Upwind States
      Although the EPA has conducted nationwide contribution modeling for 2023, the EPA does not believe this information is necessary for evaluating remaining good neighbor obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS downwind because there are no ozone monitoring sites in the Eastern U.S. that are expected to have problems attaining or maintaining the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2023.  Nonetheless, the results of EPA's state-by-state ozone contribution modeling were released in a memorandum on March 27, 2018 and are also available in the docket for this action. The EPA notes that, while the air quality modeling did identify potential remaining problem receptors in California in 2023, none of EPA's prior analysis nor its current contribution modeling have linked any of the CSAPR Update states in the eastern U.S. to any of those potential remaining problem receptors.  Therefore, the EPA does not believe there is a need to further evaluate the contributions of the 20 CSAPR Update states to any downwind receptors identified in EPA's 2017 modeling conducted for the CSAPR Update.
 Proposed Determination
      The EPA proposes to determine that, with CSAPR Update implementation, 20 eastern states' good neighbor obligations for the 2008 ozone NAAQS are fully addressed.  The states covered by this action are listed in table III.D-1.  The EPA's proposed determination is based on proposed findings that: (1) 2023 is a reasonable future analytic year for evaluating ozone transport problems with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS; and (2) that interstate ozone transport air quality modeling projections for 2023 indicate that no further air quality problems will remain in the east in 2023.
      As a result, the EPA proposes to conclude that, after implementation of the CSAPR Update, none of the states analyzed will significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in downwind states, and therefore that the CSAPR update fully addresses those states' good neighbor obligations with respect to that NAAQS.  In accord with this determination, the EPA has no remaining obligation issue FIPs nor are states required to submit SIPs that would establish additional requirements for sources in these states to further reduce transported ozone pollution with regard to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
      As explained in more detail in section III.B, the EPA's selection of 2023 as a reasonable future analytic year is supported by an assessment of attainment dates for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and feasibility for control strategies to reduce NOX in CSAPR Update states.  The EPA's NOX control strategy feasibility assessment prioritizes NOX control strategies in CSAPR Update states that would be additional to those strategies that were already quantified into CSAPR Update emissions budgets. The EPA believes that 2023 is an appropriate future analytic year, taking into consideration relevant attainment dates, because it is the first ozone season for which significant new controls to reduce NOX could be feasibly installed across the CSAPR Update region, and thus represents the timeframe that is as expeditious as practicable for upwind states to implement additional emissions reductions.  Furthermore, as described in section III.C, the EPA's analysis of step 1 for the 2023 analytic year indicates that there are no monitoring sites in the east that are projected to have nonattainment or maintenance problems with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2023.  Together, these findings lead to EPA's proposed determination that -- with CSAPR Update implementation -- CSAPR Update states are not expected to significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2008 ozone NAAQS in downwind states in 2023.
      As a result of this proposed determination, the EPA proposes to find that the promulgation of the CSAPR Update for these states fully satisfies the requirements of the good neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, and therefore also satisfies the Agency's obligation pursuant to CAA section 110(c) for these states.  Accordingly, the EPA would have no remaining obligation to issue FIPs nor are the states required to submit SIPs that would further reduce transported ozone pollution, beyond the existing CSAPR Update requirements, with regard to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Table III.D-1 States Covered by the Proposed Determination Regarding Good Neighbor Obligations for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
State Name
Alabama
Arkansas
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Maryland
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Texas
Virginia
West Virginia
Wisconsin

      Consistent with this proposed determination, this action also proposes minor revisions to the existing state-specific sections of the CSAPR Update regulations for states other than Kentucky and Tennessee. The revisions will remove the current statements indicating that the CSAPR Update FIP for each such state only partially addresses the state's good neighbor obligation under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Because states can replace the CSAPR Update FIPs with SIPs, these revisions will also mean that a SIP that is approved through notice-and-comment rulemaking to fully replace the CSAPR Update FIP for one of these states would also fully address the state's good neighbor obligation for this NAAQS. In particular, the EPA proposes to find that the Agency's previous approval of Alabama's CSAPR Update SIP fully satisfies the state's good neighbor obligation for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.  Thus, Alabama would have no obligation to submit any additional SIP revision addressing this obligation.
      The EPA seeks comments on this proposal, including the legal, technical, and policy decisions informing the EPA's proposed determination that the CSAPR Update fully addresses the good neighbor obligation with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS for 20 eastern states. Note that the EPA in this proposal is not reconsidering or reopening the determinations made in the CSAPR Update, which was finalized in 2016, regarding the obligations of upwind states pursuant to the good neighbor provision for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.  Those determinations have already been subject to notice and comment rulemaking processes, and the FIPs promulgated in that action are already being implemented. The analysis conducted in this action does not reconsider any analysis conducted or determinations made in that action. Thus, the EPA is not requesting comment on any of the legal, technical, or policy decisions informing that the CSAPR Update.
IV.	Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
   Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A.	Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review, and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
   This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket.
B.	Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs
   This action is not expected to be subject to Executive Order 13771 because this proposed rule is expected to result in no more than de minimis costs.
C.	Paperwork Reduction Act
   This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the Paperwork Reduction Act. The OMB has previously approved the information collection activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0667. The minor revisions to the FIP provisions proposed in this action would have no impact on monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for affected EGUs in the CSAPR NOX Ozone Season Group 2 Trading Program.
D.	Regulatory Flexibility Act
   I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. This action makes a minor modification to existing CSAPR Update FIPs and does not impose new requirements on any entity. The EPA has therefore concluded that this action will have no net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
E.	Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
   This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. This action simply updates the existing CSAPR Update FIPs to establish that no further federal regulatory requirements are necessary.
F.	Executive Order 13132: Federalism
   This action does not have federalism implications. It will 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. This action simply updates the existing CSAPR Update FIPs to establish that no further federal regulatory requirements are necessary.
G.	Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
   This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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. This action simply updates the existing CSAPR Update FIPs to establish that no further federal regulatory requirements are necessary.  Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA consulted with tribal officials while developing the CSAPR Update. A summary of that consultation is provided in the preamble for the CSAPR Update, 81 FR 74584 (October 26, 2016).
H.	Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health and Safety Risks
   The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of "covered regulatory action" in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it simply updates the existing CSAPR Update FIPs to establish that no further federal regulatory requirements are necessary.
I.	Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
   This action is not a "significant energy action" because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action simply updates the existing CSAPR Update FIPs to establish that no further federal regulatory requirements are necessary.
J.	National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
   This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
K.	Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
   The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This action simply updates the existing CSAPR Update FIPs to establish that no further federal regulatory requirements are necessary.  Consistent with Executive Order 12898 and the EPA's environmental justice policies, the EPA considered effects on low-income populations, minority populations, and indigenous peoples while developing the CSAPR Update. The process and results of that consideration are described in the preamble for the CSAPR Update, 81 FR 74585 (October 26, 2016).

L. Determinations Under Section 307(b)(1) and (d)
      Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final actions by EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit if (i) the agency action consists of "nationally applicable regulations promulgated, or final action taken, by the Administrator," or (ii) such action is locally or regionally applicable, but "such action is based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is based on such a determination."
      The EPA proposes to find that any final action related to this rulemaking is "nationally applicable" or, in the alternative, is based on a determination of "nationwide scope and effect" within the meaning of section 307(b)(1). Through this rulemaking action, the EPA is interpreting section 110 of the CAA, a statutory provision that applies to all states and territories in the United States. In addition, the proposed rule addresses emissions impacts and sources located in 20 States, which are located in multiple EPA Regions and federal circuits. The proposed rule is also based on a common core of factual findings and analyses concerning the transport of pollutants between the different states. Courts have found similar actions to be nationally applicable. Furthermore, EPA intends this interpretation and approach to be consistently implemented nationwide with respect to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
      For these reasons, the Administrator proposes to determine that any final action related to this proposal is nationally applicable or, in the alternative, is based on a determination of nationwide scope and effect for purposes of section 307(b)(1).  Thus, pursuant to section 307(b) any petitions for review of any final actions regarding the rulemaking must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date any final action is published in the Federal Register.
      In addition, pursuant to sections 307(d)(1)(C) and 307(d)(1)(V) of the CAA, the Administrator proposes to determine that this action is subject to the provisions of section 307(d). CAA section 307(d)(1)(B) provides that section 307(d) applies to, among other things, "the promulgation or revision of an implementation plan by the Administrator under CAA section 110(c)." 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(B). Under section 307(d)(1)(V), the provisions of section 307(d) also apply to "such other actions as the Administrator may determine." 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(V). The Agency has complied with procedural requirements of CAA section 307(d) during the course of this rulemaking.

Determination Regarding Good Neighbor Obligations for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard
                                 Page XX of XX

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
	Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Regional haze, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

Dated:__________________

E. Scott Pruitt,
Administrator

	For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52 of chapter I of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 52 -- APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
	Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
§§ 52.54, 52.184, 52.731, 52.789, 52.840, 52.882, 52.984, 52.1084, 52.1186, 52.1284, 52.1326, 52.1584, 52.1684, 52.1882, 52.1930, 52.2040, 52.2283, 52.2440, 52.2540, and 52.2587 [Amended]
■ 2. Part 52 is amended by removing the text ", provided that because the CSAPR FIP was promulgated as a partial rather than full remedy for an obligation of the State to address interstate air pollution, the SIP revision likewise will constitute a partial rather than full remedy for the State's obligation unless provided otherwise in the Administrator's approval of the SIP revision" from the second sentence in each of the following paragraphs:
	a. Section 52.54(b)(2);
	b. Section 52.184(b);
	c. Section 52.731(b)(2);
	d. Section 52.789(b)(2);
	e. Section 52.840(b)(2);
	f. Section 52.882(b)(1);
	g. Section 52.984(d)(2);
	h. Section 52.1084(b)(2);
	i. Section 52.1186(e)(2);
	j. Section 52.1284(b);
	k. Section 52.1326(b)(2);
	l. Section 52.1584(e)(2);
	m. Section 52.1684(b)(2);
	n. Section 52.1882(b)(2);
	o. Section 52.1930(b);
	p. Section 52.2040(b)(2);
	q. Section 52.2283(d)(2);
	r. Section 52.2440(b)(2);
	s. Section 52.2540(b)(2); and
	t. Section 52.2587(e)(2).


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 167 (Wednesday, August 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41256-41258]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18420]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0139; FRL-9966-83]

Methylene Chloride in Furniture Refinishing; Workshop

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: On September 12, 2017, EPA is holding a workshop on the use of
methylene chloride in furniture refinishing. In a proposed rule
published on January 19, 2017, EPA proposed to prohibit manufacture
(including import), processing, and distribution in commerce of
methylene chloride in consumer paint and coating removal and most types
of commercial paint and coating removal, except for

commercial furniture refinishing. This workshop will help inform EPA's
understanding of methylene chloride use in furniture refinishing.
Federal and state governments, industry professionals, furniture
refinishing experts, non-government organizations, and academic
experts, among others, will discuss the role of methylene chloride in
furniture refinishing, potential alternatives, economic impacts, and
other issues identified in EPA's January 2017 proposed rule on
methylene chloride, which deferred action on the use of methylene
chloride in commercial furniture refinishing. This information will
allow EPA to better understand current work practices and obtain
additional information on the economic considerations involved in
selecting chemical products for paint and coating removal in the
furniture refinishing sector. The meeting also aims to facilitate an
exchange of information on existing use practices and furniture
refinishers' experience, in general, with paint removal products and
methods.

DATES: The meeting will be held in Boston on September 12, 2017, from
9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
    To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT,
preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much
time as possible to process your request.
    Meeting Registration. You may register online (preferred) or in
person at the meeting. To register online for the meeting, go to:
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/us-epa-public-meeting-on-methylene-chloride-in-furniture-refinishing-tickets-36895406153. Advance
registration for the meeting must be completed no later than September
10, 2017. On-site registration will be permitted, but seating and
speaking priority will be given to those who pre-register by the
deadline.
    Comments. EPA will hear oral comments at the meeting, and will
accept written comments and materials submitted to docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0139 at http://www.regulations.gov on or before November 12, 2017. For further
information about participation and submitting materials, see Unit III:
How Can I Request to Participate in this Meeting?

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at held at EPA's Region 1 office at
5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-3912.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Ingrid Feustel, Chemical Control
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action may be of particular interest to entities that
manufacture (defined under TSCA to include import), process, distribute
in commerce, use or dispose of methylene chloride or other chemicals in
furniture restoration, especially entities identified under North
American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) code 811420. Since
other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to
describe all the specific entities and corresponding NAICS codes for
entities that may be interested in or affected by this action.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0139 is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center
(EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Background

    In the Federal Register of January 19, 2017 (82 FR 7464) (FRL-9958-
57), EPA proposed to prohibit manufacture (including import),
processing, and distribution in commerce of methylene chloride in
consumer paint and coating removal and in most types of commercial
paint and coating removal, excluding commercial furniture refinishing.
In that notice, the Agency announced its intention to hold a public
meeting to learn more about methylene chloride use in furniture
refinishing. This workshop will help EPA and all stakeholders better
understand challenges in commercial furniture refinishing. The workshop
aims to facilitate an exchange of information on existing use and work
practices, the needs, and preferences and expertise of craftspeople,
and the availability and effectiveness of paint and coating removal
approaches. Federal and state governments, industry professionals,
furniture restoration experts, non-profit organizations, and academic
experts, among others, will discuss the role of methylene chloride in
furniture restoration. The workshop will include presentations by
subject matter experts, with sessions focused on current use practices,
the availability of safer alternatives in furniture refinishing, and
worker protection measures. The workshop will include opportunities for
public comment.

III. How can I request to participate in this meeting?

A. Registration

    To attend the meeting in person or to receive remote access, you
must register no later than September 10, 2017, by visiting: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/us-epa-public-meeting-on-methylene-chloride-in-furniture-refinishing-tickets-36895406153. While on-site registration
will be available, seating will be on a first-come, first-served basis,
with priority given to early registrants, until room capacity is
reached. For registrants not able to attend in person, the meeting will
also provide remote access capabilities; registered participants will
be provided information on how to connect to the meeting prior to its
start.

B. Submitting Written Materials

    You may submit written information for consideration during or
after this meeting. Information should be submitted to docket ID number
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-139 available at through https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting information or comments.
Once submitted, this information cannot be edited or withdrawn. EPA may
publish any information received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written statement or information. Information

must be received on or before November 12, 2017.

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 2605.

    Dated: August 24, 2017.
Wendy Cleland-Hamnett,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2017-18420 Filed 8-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 224)]
[Notices]
[Page 65638-65643]
[DOCID:fr21no07-114]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2007-27181 (Notice No. 07-10)]

Information Collection Activities

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Information Collection Request (ICR) entitled ``Hazardous
Materials Public Sector Training and Planning Grants'' is being revised
to implement a statutory provision authorizing PHMSA to request
information from states concerning fees related to the transportation
of hazardous materials. In addition, this ICR is being revised to
include more detailed information from grantees to enable us to more
accurately evaluate the effectiveness of the grant program in meeting
emergency response planning and training needs. In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces that the ICR
will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
revision and extension.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before December 21, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimates, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for PHMSA, 725 17th Street, NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.
    We invite commenters to address the following issues: (1) Whether
the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the
Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information
collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
    A comment to OMB is most effective if OMB receives it within 30
days of publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Boothe or T. Glenn Foster,
Office of Hazardous Materials Standards (PHH-11), Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001, Telephone (202)
366-8553.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations requires
PHMSA to provide interested members of the public and affected agencies
an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping
requests. This notice identifies an information collection PHMSA is
submitting to OMB for revision under OMB Control Number 2137-0586. This
collection is contained in 49 CFR part 110, Hazardous Materials Public
Sector Training and Planning

Grants. We are revising the information collection to implement a
statutory provision authorizing PHMSA to request information from
states concerning fees related to the transportation of hazardous
materials. In addition, we are revising the current information
collection to include more detailed information from grantees to enable
us to more accurately evaluate the effectiveness of the grant program
in meeting emergency response planning and training needs.

A. HMEP Program

    The Hazardous Materials and Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) grants
program, as mandated by the Federal hazardous materials transportation
law (Federal hazmat law; 49 U.S.C. 5101 et seq.) provides Federal
financial and technical assistance to states and Indian tribes to
``develop, improve, and carry out emergency plans'' within the National
Response System and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know
Act of 1986 (Title III), 42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq. The grants are used to
develop, improve, and implement emergency plans; to train public sector
hazardous materials emergency response employees to respond to
accidents and incidents involving hazardous materials; to determine
flow patterns of hazardous materials within a state and between states;
and to determine the need within a state for regional hazardous
materials emergency response teams. The HMEP grants program is funded
by registration fees collected from persons who offer for
transportation or transport certain hazardous materials in intrastate,
interstate, or foreign commerce.
    Federal hazmat law specifies that HMEP grant funds are to be
allocated based on the needs of states and Indian tribes for emergency
response planning and training, considering a number of factors
including whether the state or tribe imposes and collects a fee on the
transportation of hazardous materials and whether the fee is used only
to carry out a purpose related to the transportation of hazardous
materials. 49 U.S.C. 5116(b)(4). Accordingly, the HMEP grant
application procedures in 49 CFR part 110 require applicants to submit
a statement explaining whether the applicant assesses and collects fees
for the transportation of hazardous materials and whether those fees
are used solely to carry out purposes related to the transportation of
hazardous materials.
    In addition, section 5125(f) of the Federal hazmat law permits a
state, political subdivision of a state, or Indian tribe to impose a
fee related to the transportation of hazardous materials only if the
fee is fair and used for a purpose related to transporting hazardous
materials, including enforcement and planning, developing, and
maintaining a capability for emergency response. In accordance with
Sec.  5125, the Department of Transportation may require a state,
political subdivision of a state, or Indian tribe to report on the fees
it collects, including: (1) The basis on which the fee is levied; (2)
the purposes for which the revenues from the fee are used; and (3) the
total amount of annual revenues collected from the fee. Until now, we
have not proposed asking states, political subdivisions, or Indian
tribes to report this information.

B. 60-Day Notice

    On July 5, 2007, we published a Federal Register notice [72 FR
36754] with a 60-day comment period, soliciting comments on revisions
to the instructions for submitting an HMEP grant application. The
revisions are intended to increase the transparency of the programs
funded by HMEP grants and to enable us to more accurately evaluate the
effectiveness of the HMEP program in meeting emergency response
planning and training needs. Specifically, in accordance with the
statutory mandate in 49 U.S.C. 5116(b)(4) and 5125(f), we proposed to
revise the grant application to request applicants to respond to the
following questions:
    1. Does your state or tribe assess a fee or fees in connection with
the transportation of hazardous materials?
    2. If the answer to question 1 is ``yes,''
    a. What state agency administers the fee?
    b. What is the amount of the fee and the basis on which the fee is
assessed? Examples of the bases on which fees may be assessed include:
(1) An annual fee for each company which transports hazardous materials
within your state or tribal territory; (2) a fee for each truck or
vehicle used to transport hazardous materials within your state or
tribal territory; (3) a fee for certain commodities or quantities of
hazardous materials transported in your state or tribal territory; or
(4) a fee for each hazardous materials shipment transiting your state
or tribal territory.
    c. Is company size considered when assessing the fee? For instance,
do companies meeting the Small Business Administration's (SBA)
definition of a small business pay the same or lesser fee amount than
companies that do not meet the SBA definition?
    d. For what purpose(s) is the revenue from the fee used? For
example, is the revenue used to support hazardous materials
transportation enforcement programs? Is the fee used to support
planning, developing, and maintaining an emergency response capability?
    e. What is the total annual amount of the revenue collected for the
last fiscal year or 12-month accounting period?
    In addition, to assist us to evaluate the effectiveness of the HMEP
grant program, we proposed to ask grant recipients to report the
following specific information regarding the planning and training
activities funded by the HMEP grants and to provide an overall
evaluation of the effectiveness of their programs:
Planning Grants
    1. Did you complete or update assessments of commodity flow
patterns in your jurisdiction? If so, how many and what were the
results of those assessments? What was the amount of planning dollars
devoted to this effort? What percentage of total planning dollars does
this represent?
    2. Did you complete or update assessments of the emergency response
capabilities in your jurisdiction? What factors did you consider to
complete such assessments? How many assessments were completed and what
were the results of those assessments? What was the amount of HMEP
planning grant funds devoted to this effort? What percentage of total
HMEP planning grant funds does this represent?
    3. Did you develop or improve emergency plans for your
jurisdiction? If so, how many plans were either developed or updated?
Briefly describe the outcome of this effort. What was the amount of
HMEP planning grant funds devoted to this effort? What percentage of
total HMEP planning grant funds does this represent?
    4. Did you conduct emergency response drills or exercises in
support of your emergency plan? How many exercises or drills did you
conduct? Briefly describe the drill or exercise (tabletop, computer
simulation, real-world simulation, or other drill or exercise), the
number and types of participants, including shipper or carrier
participants, and lessons learned. What was the amount of HMEP planning
grant funds devoted to this effort? What percentage of total HMEP
planning grant funds does this represent?
    5. Did you use HMEP planning grant funds to provide technical staff
in support of your emergency response planning program? If so, what was
the amount of HMEP planning grant funds devoted to this effort? What
percentage

of total HMEP planning grant funds does this represent?
    6. How many Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) are located
in your jurisdiction? How many LEPCs were assisted using HMEP funds?
What was the amount of HMEP planning grant funds devoted to such
assistance? What percentage of total HMEP planning grant funds does
this represent?
Training Grants
    1. Did you complete an assessment of the training needs of the
emergency response personnel in your jurisdiction? What factors did you
consider to complete the assessment? What was the result of that
assessment? What was the amount of HMEP training grant funds devoted to
this effort? What percentage of total HMEP training grants funds does
this represent?
    2. Provide details concerning the number of individuals trained in
whole or in part using HMEP training grant funds. You should include
separate indications for the numbers of fire, police, emergency medical
services (EMS) or other personnel who were trained and the type of
training provided based on the categories listed in standards published
by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration at 29 CFR 1910.120
pertaining to emergency response training. (Note that ``other''
personnel include public works employees, accident clean-up crews, and
liaison and support officers. Note also that if HMEP training grant
funds were used in any way to support the training, such as for books
or equipment, you should show that the training was partially funded by
HMEP training grant funds.) What was the amount of training dollars
devoted to this effort? What percentage of total training dollars does
this represent?
    3. Did you incur expenses associated with training and activities
necessary to monitor such training, including, for example,
examinations, critiques, and instructor evaluations? What was the
amount of HMEP training grant funds devoted to this activity? What
percentage of total HMEP training grant funds does this represent?
    4. Did you provide incident command systems training? If so,
provide separate indications for the numbers of fire, policy, EMS, or
other personnel who were trained. What was the amount of HMEP training
grant funds devoted to this effort? What percentage of total HMEP
training grant funds does this represent?
    5. Did you develop new training using HMEP training grant funds in
whole or in part, such as training in handling specific types of
incidents of specific types of materials? If so, briefly describe the
new programs. Was the program qualified using the HMEP Curriculum
Guidelines process? What was the amount of HMEP training grant funds
devoted to this effort? What percentage of total HMEP training grant
funds does this represent?
    6. Did you use HMEP training grant funds to provide staff to manage
your training program to increase benefits, proficiency, and rapid
deployment of emergency responders? If so, what was the amount of HMEP
training grant funds devoted to this effort? What percentage of total
HMEP training grant funds does this represent?
    7. Do you have a system in place for measuring the effectiveness of
emergency response to hazardous materials incidents in your
jurisdiction? Briefly describe the criteria you use (total response
time, total time at an accident scene, communication among different
agencies or jurisdictions, or other criteria). How many state and local
response teams are located in your jurisdiction? What is the estimated
coverage of these teams (e.g., the percent of state jurisdictions
covered)?
Overall Program Evaluation
    1. Using a scale of 1-5 (with 5 being excellent and 1 being poor),
how well has the HMEP grants program met your need for preparing hazmat
emergency responders?
    2. Using a scale of 1-5 (with 5 being excellent and 1 being poor),
how well do you think the HMEP grants program will meet your future
needs?
    3. What areas of the HMEP grants program would you recommend for
enhancement?

II. Discussion of Comments

    The comment period for the 60-Day notice closed on September 5,
2007. PHMSA received 16 comments from the following companies,
organizations, and individuals: (1) The American Trucking Association
(ATA); (2) Colorado Emergency Planning Commission; (3) Kevin Crawford;
(4) Robert E. Dopp; (5) Delaware Emergency Management Agency; (6) the
Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME); (7) Lyle Milby; (8) Timothy
Gablehouse; (9) Steven Goza; (10) Donald K. Hall; (11) the National
Tank Truck Carriers (NTTC); (12) the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI);
(13) Oklahoma Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Commission; (14)
James J. Plum; (15) Daniel Roe; and (16) the State of Wisconsin/
Department of Military Affairs Wisconsin Emergency Management. On
October 12, 2007, we received an additional comment from the Interested
Parties for Hazardous Materials Transportation (Interested Parties)
which had been filed with OMB. In addition, the National Association of
SARA Title III Program Officials and the Oklahoma Hazardous Materials
Response Commission submitted letters to OMB and copied PHMSA in
response to the October 12 comment from the Interested Parties. All
comments are included in the docket for this notice and are available
for review at the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov
.

    Commenters expressing support for revisions to the HMEP application
kit include ATA, IME, NEI, and NTTC. These commenters generally agree
that additional information from grantees will assist PHMSA to evaluate
the emergency response funding needs of states and Indian tribes and
promote more effective use of HMEP grant funds. For example, in
expressing its support, ATA, the national representative of over 37,000
trucking companies, states that the information being sought by PHMSA
is critical to the effective administration of the HMEP grant program.
    In its support of the proposed revisions, NEI states that although
limited resources will be expended responding to the additional
questions, the net result is a better use of funds nationwide and
improved responses to events involving hazardous materials. Similarly,
NTTC, a trade association comprised of 210 trucking companies, states
the additional information resulting from the HMEP revisions is
necessary to ``ensure proper funds allocation based on need under the
HMEP grant program,'' and will enable PHMSA ``to better determine
whether states' fees are properly apportioned and being utilized for
purposes associated with hazardous materials transportation.''
    In its comments, IME, the safety and security association of the
commercial explosives industry, states that because its members are
both shippers and carriers subject to fees that support the HMEP grants
program, it has a keen interest in how these funds are used. The
commenter supports PHMSA's efforts to accurately evaluate the
effectiveness of its grants program through the proposed questions, and
asserts that utilizing the HMEP grant application process is the least
burdensome method to capture the information authorized by section 5125
of the Federal hazmat law.
    In its October 12 comment sent to OMB and copied to PHMSA, the
Interested Parties suggest that the additional questions will aid the

agency's risk-based approach while ensuring that legislative intent is
achieved.
    Commenters opposing the revisions include Colorado Emergency
Planning Commission; Kevin Crawford; Delaware Emergency Management
Agency; Robert E. Dopp; Lyle Milby; Timothy Gablehouse; Steven Goza;
Donald K. Hall; Oklahoma Hazardous Materials Emergency Response
Commission; James J. Plum; Daniel Roe; and the State of Wisconsin/
Department of Military Affairs Wisconsin Emergency Management. The
comments address three inter-related areas: (1) The need for the
additional information, particularly the information on fees; (2)
concern that funding may be reduced or eliminated based on grantees'
responses to the additional questions; and (3) whether the additional
information collection burden resulting from the additional questions
is off-set by measurable benefits. These comments are addressed below.
In addition, the National Association of SARA Title III Program
Officials and the Oklahoma Hazardous Materials Response Commission
submitted letters to OMB and copied PHMSA in response to the October 12
comment from the Interested Parties. Both commenters question the
motivation of the Interested Parties for submitting its comment and
express opposition to the revisions of this ICR.

 A. Need for the Additional Information

    Several commenters suggest that PHMSA's motivation in proposing to
collect more detailed information on hazardous materials fees is to
make it easier for hazardous materials shippers and carriers to
challenge the fees. These commenters assert that aggrieved industry
parties already have sufficient tools to pursue challenges to specific
fees by utilizing the preemption provisions in Federal hazmat law and
that information on hazardous materials fees assessed by state or
tribal governments is already available through other sources. One
commenter suggests that PHMSA ``should have the industries claiming
that they pay fees to the states and tribes (and perhaps local
entities), identify themselves to PHMSA, at the Secretary of
Transportation's request. The facility could identify the state/tribe
and agency to which they pay those fees and the amount of the fees, so
that U.S. DOT nationally could wrap its arms around the issue to
determine if there is, in fact, an identifiable problem.'' A second
commenter suggests that PHMSA conduct a further study of the proposed
revisions to the grant application kit, such as convening a
stakeholder's forum to include both state and tribal governments and
industry representation to discuss issues related to the assessment and
uses of hazardous materials fees.
    Commenters are not correct that PHMSA is proposing to require HMEP
grant applicants to submit information concerning hazardous materials
fees as a means to assist hazardous materials shippers or carriers to
challenge those fees through preemption or other means. In awarding
HMEP grants, PHMSA is required by the Federal hazmat law to consider
whether the state or tribe imposes and collects a fee on the
transportation of hazardous materials and whether the fee is used only
to carry out a purpose related to the transportation of hazardous
materials. The information we are requesting in the revised grant
application kit is consistent with our statutory mandate.
    We disagree with the commenters that suggest information concerning
hazardous materials fees assessed by state or tribal governments is
readily available through other sources. We have considered utilizing
internet or other resources, but generally we have found that the
information is not consistently available or reliably accurate. We note
in this regard that commenters' suggestions concerning other methods
for collecting information on state or tribal hazardous materials fees,
such as through a separate survey or stakeholder meeting, would impose
a similar or greater burden on respondents as the questions we propose
to add to the grant application kit. Moreover, the overall response
from state or tribal governments to such methods would likely be
somewhat less than the overall response to the questions in the grant
application kit and would not provide data to evaluate the
effectiveness of the grant program.

B. Reduced Funding

    A number of commenters express concern that HMEP grant funding for
individual state or tribal governments may be reduced or eliminated as
a result of responses by the applicants to the additional questions.
For instance, Mr. Johnnie L. Smith of the State of Wisconsin/Department
of Military Affairs Wisconsin Emergency Management states that ``It
would be inappropriate to withhold or reduce a state's HMEP funding not
supported by the appropriate legal action.'' The commenter continues by
stating that ``* * * there is no reason why the emergency management
community should be penalized by lost or reduced funding and why
essential planning and training should not be performed.'' The Colorado
Emergency Planning Commission writes that ``The collection of
additional information in the manner advocated by petitioner and other
commenters is unjustified because their suggested use of that
information is improper.'' Mr. Kevin Crawford comments that ``As HMEP
funding is the bulk of the resources * * * industry's efforts to
penalize states by artificially evaluating the use of funds is ill-
conceived at best.''
    In proposing additional questions for inclusion in the grant
application kit, PHMSA has no intent to penalize grant recipients by
the reduction or elimination of grant funds. Rather, our purpose in
proposing the revised questions is to enable us to work with grantees
to promote the effective use of HMEP grant funds and identify
additional state or Indian tribe emergency response planning and
training needs.
    We note in this regard that the HMEP grant program was established
over 15 years ago and has continued with few changes since its initial
implementation. HMEP grantees have used program funds to train first
responders; conduct commodity flow studies; write or update emergency
plans; conduct emergency response exercises; and assist local emergency
planning committees. As indicated above, the HMEP grant program is
funded by registration fees paid by hazardous materials shippers and
carriers. It is incumbent on the agency administering the grant program
as well as the grantees themselves to ascertain that the program is
accountable to those who fund it and is as effective as possible in
meeting its emergency response planning and training goals.
    The information we are requesting will provide data to evaluate
emergency response planning and training programs conducted by states
and Indian tribes. The development of accurate output information will
also summarize the achievements of the HMEP grant program. This is
especially important in light of the increase in grant funding
authorized under the Hazardous Materials Safety and Security
Reauthorization Act (Title VII of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users), enacted on
August 10, 2005. Under the Act, authorized funding for the HMEP grant
program effectively doubles, from $14.3 million to $28 million. The
information we seek from grantees will enhance emergency response
preparedness and response by allowing PHMSA and its state and tribal
partners to target gaps in current planning and training efforts and
focus

on strategies that have been proven to be effective.

C. Increased Information Collection Burden

    Many of the commenters who oppose the proposed revisions to the
grant application kit consider them to be an excessive burden on
applicants without a measurable benefit or an identified use of the
information. For example, Ms. Montressa Jo Elder of the Oklahoma
Hazardous Materials Emergency Response Commission comments that ``These
burdens are not trivial. Our local emergency planning committees and
most of our rural fire departments are volunteer groups. Devoting time
and energy to reports detracts from their other very important
missions.'' Mr. Daniel Roe states that ``the proposed notice is going
to place quite a burden not only on states, but on all funding
recipients, to include tribes, locals and others.'' The commenter
further states that ``funds that clearly are productively used for
planning and training functions and are now adequately documented will
be diverted to administrative burdens, the utility of which is quite
questionable.'' Mr. Timothy Gablehouse states that ``it is unclear how
the addition of the proposed questions to the ICR would enable PHMSA to
glean any additional information about how effectively HMEP grant money
is spent.'' Similarly, Mr. Robert E. Dopp states that ``We do not
believe that DOT/PHMSA should impose the burden of information
collection without a clear plan and purpose to use the information in a
fashion that comports with statute and regulation. At this point all we
really have is the advocacy of outsiders regarding the use of the
information. Until and unless DOT/PHMSA is clear in its plans for the
use of the information it appears that the proposed collection activity
is simply an increased burden without a purpose.'' The Colorado
Emergency Planning Commission also notes that, as stated in PHMSA's
previous Federal Register notice, a large percentage of the information
is already collected.
    PHMSA appreciates commenters' concerns that the additional burden
resulting from the proposed revisions to the way grantees report on the
programs funded by the HMEP grants may detract from grantees planning
and training efforts. We continue to believe, however, that grantees'
performance reports should include both quantitative and qualitative
data in sufficient detail to enable the grantees and PHMSA to evaluate
the programs, identify effective planning and training strategies, and
target areas where improvements are needed. Grantees are currently
required to provide data on the planning and training programs they
administer; the more detailed information we are requesting should be
readily available.
    Nonetheless, in an effort to address the commenters concerns, we
have revised the list of questions we initially proposed to modify
those for which information can be obtained through other means, such
as through discussions at our meetings and conferences with grant
recipients. We have also reconfigured the questions to provide a more
user-friendly format. We believe these adjustments will help to
minimize the impact of the information collection burden on grantees.
We have also identified two additional grantees and have revised the
total number of respondents. Subsequently, we reviewed the burden hours
and have re-calculated the information collection burden associated
with responding to the questions. The revised questions and information
collection burden estimates are detailed under the ``Revised HMEP
Questions and Information Collection Burden'' section of this notice.

III. Revised HMEP Questions and Information Collection Burden

    Beginning with the application for FY 2008 funds, applicants will
be asked to respond to the following additional questions:
Hazardous Materials Fees
    1. Does your state or tribe assess a fee or fees in connection with
the transportation of hazardous materials?
    2. If the answer to question 1 is ``yes,''
    a. What state agency administers the fee?
    b. What is the amount of the fee and the basis on which the fee is
assessed? Examples of the bases on which fees may be assessed include:
(1) An annual fee for each company which transports hazardous materials
within your state or tribal territory; (2) a fee for each truck or
vehicle used to transport hazardous materials within your state or
tribal territory; (3) a fee for certain commodities or quantities of
hazardous materials transported in your state or tribal territory; or
(4) a fee for each hazardous materials shipment transiting your state
or tribal territory.
    c. Is company size considered when assessing the fee? For instance,
do companies meeting the Small Business Administration's (SBA)
definition of a small business pay the same or lesser fee amount than
companies that do not meet the SBA definition?
    d. For what purpose(s) is the revenue from the fee used? For
example, is the revenue used to support hazardous materials
transportation enforcement programs? Is the fee used to support
planning, developing, and maintaining an emergency response capability?
    e. What is the total annual amount of the revenue collected for the
last fiscal year or 12-month accounting period?
Planning Grants
    1. Of the total amount of HMEP planning grant funds, what amount
was used to assist Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs)? How
many were assisted using HMEP funds?
    a. Did the LEPCs complete or update assessments of commodity flow
patterns in their jurisdictions? If so, how many? What was the total
amount of HMEP planning grant funds devoted to this effort?
    b. Did the LEPCs complete or update assessments of the emergency
response capabilities in their jurisdictions? If so, how many? What was
the total amount of HMEP planning grant funds devoted to this effort?
    c. Did the LEPCs develop or improve emergency plans for their
jurisdictions? If so, how many plans were either developed or updated?
What was the total amount of HMEP planning grant funds devoted to this
effort?
    d. Did the LEPCs conduct exercises to support their emergency
plans? If so, how many exercises were conducted? Did any of these
exercises include shipper or carrier participation? What was the total
amount of HMEP planning grant funds devoted to emergency response
drills or exercises of all types?
    e. What was the total amount of HMEP planning grant funds devoted
to other authorized activities by LEPCs (e.g., providing technical
staff in support of emergency response planning efforts)?
    2. Other than to assist LEPCs as addressed in Question 1, of the
total amount of HMEP planning grant funds, what amount was used by the
grantee (state or tribal government) to improve emergency response
planning within the grantee's jurisdiction?
    a. Did the grantee complete or update an assessment of commodity
flow patterns in its entire jurisdiction? What was the total amount of
HMEP planning grant funds devoted to this effort?
    b. Did the grantee complete or update an assessment of emergency
response capabilities in its entire jurisdiction? What was the total
amount of HMEP planning grant funds devoted to this effort?
    c. Did the grantee develop or improve an emergency plan for its
entire jurisdiction? What was the total amount

of HMEP planning grant funds devoted to this effort?
    d. Did the grantee conduct exercises to support its emergency plan?
How many exercises were conducted? Did any of these exercises include
shipper or carrier participation? What was the total amount of HMEP
planning grant funds devoted to emergency response drills or exercises
of all types?
    e. What was the total amount of HMEP planning grant funds devoted
to other authorized planning activities by the grantee (e.g., providing
technical staff in support of emergency response planning efforts)?
    3. Based on the activities outlined above, how well has the HMEP
grants program met emergency response planning needs within your
jurisdiction? Does your current ability to provide planning enable you
to meet the needs you have identified? Do you have any recommendations
for additional activities or programs that could further enhance your
emergency response planning capabilities?
Training Grants
    1. What was the total amount of HMEP training grant funds utilized
to assess training needs and provide training for emergency response
personnel in your jurisdiction?
    a. Did you complete or update an assessment of the training needs
of the emergency response personnel in your jurisdiction? What was the
total amount of HMEP training grant funds devoted to this effort?
    b. How many individuals were trained in whole or in part using HMEP
training grant funds? You should include separate totals for numbers of
fire, police, emergency medical services (EMS) or other personnel who
were trained and the type of training provided. (Note that ``other''
personnel include public works employees, accident clean-up crews, and
liaison and support officers. Note also that if HMEP training grant
funds were used in any way to support the training, such as for books
or equipment, you should show that the training was partially funded by
HMEP training grant funds.) What was the total amount of HMEP training
grant funds devoted to this effort?
    c. Did you provide incident command systems training? If so,
provide separate indications for the numbers of fire, policy, EMS, or
other personnel who were trained. What was the total amount of HMEP
training grant funds devoted to this effort?
    d. Did you develop new training using HMEP training grant funds in
whole or in part, such as training in handling specific types of
incidents of specific types of materials? If so, briefly describe the
new programs. Did a commodity flow assessment influence the development
of new training programs? Was the program qualified using the HMEP
Curriculum Guidelines process? What was the total amount of HMEP
training grant funds devoted to this effort?
    e. What was the total amount of HMEP planning grant funds devoted
to other authorized training activities (e.g., activities necessary to
monitor training, including examinations, critiques, and instructor
evaluations; management activities to increase the benefits,
proficiency, and rapid deployment of emergency responders)?
    2. Do you have a system in place for measuring the effectiveness of
emergency response to hazardous materials incidents in your
jurisdiction? Describe the criteria you use (total response time, total
time at an accident scene, communication among different agencies or
jurisdictions, or other criteria). How many state and local response
teams are located in your jurisdiction? What is the estimated coverage
of these teams (e.g., the percent of state jurisdictions covered)?
    3. Based on the activities outlined above, how well has the HMEP
grants program met emergency response training needs within your
jurisdiction? Does your current ability to provide training enable you
to meet the needs you have identified? Do you have any recommendations
for additional activities or programs that could further enhance the
effectiveness of emergency response to hazardous materials incidents in
your jurisdiction?
    The total revised information collection budget for the HMEP grants
program follows:
    Title: Hazardous Materials Public Sector Training and Planning
Grants.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0586.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information
collection.
    Abstract: Part 110 of 49 CFR sets forth the procedures for
reimbursable grants for public sector planning and training in support
of the emergency planning and training efforts of states, Indian tribes
and local communities to manage hazardous materials emergencies,
particularly those involving transportation. Sections in this part
address information collection and recordkeeping with regard to
applying for grants, monitoring expenditures, and reporting and
requesting modifications.
    Affected Public: State and local governments, Indian tribes.
    Recordkeeping:
    Number of Respondents: 68.
    Total Number of Responses: 68.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,428.
    Frequency of collection: On occasion.

    Issued in Washington, DC on November 15, 2007.
Edward T. Mazzullo,
Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards.
 [FR Doc. E7-22689 Filed 11-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 46 (Monday, March 9, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13475-13477]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04729]

========================================================================
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.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 46 / Monday, March 9, 2020 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0105; Product Identifier 2019-NM-172-AD; Amendment
39-19851; AD 2020-04-12]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directives (ADs) 2012-22-
05 and 2018-19-03, which applied to certain Fokker Services B.V. Model
F28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. AD 2012-22-05 required inspecting for
cracks of the pistons on the main landing gear (MLG), and replacing the
affected pistons if necessary. AD 2012-22-05 also required modifying
the MLG, and revising the airplane maintenance program. AD 2018-19-03
required an inspection of the MLG, and replacement if necessary. This
AD retains the requirements of AD 2012-22-05, expands the
applicability, and requires a new modification or replacement of the
MLG; as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD,
which is incorporated by reference. This AD was prompted by a
determination that the required heat treatment may not have been
applied to certain MLG pistons. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective March 24, 2020.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of March 24,
2020.
    The FAA must receive comments on this AD by April 23, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For the material incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD,
contact the EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany;
telephone +49 221 89990 1000; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet
www.easa.europa.eu. You may find this IBR material on the EASA website
at https://ad.easa.europa.eu. You may view this IBR material at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
206-231-3195. It is also available in the AD docket on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2020-0105.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2020-
0105; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriquez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, 2200 South
216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    The FAA issued AD 2012-22-05, Amendment 39-17241 (77 FR 68052,
November 15, 2012) (``AD 2012-22-05''), and AD 2018-19-03, Amendment
39-19403 (83 FR 46859, September 17, 2018) (``AD 2018-19-03''), which
applied to certain Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100
airplanes. AD 2012-22-05 required inspecting for cracks of the pistons
on the MLG, and replacing the affected pistons if necessary. AD 2012-
22-05 also required modifying the MLG, and revising the airplane
maintenance program. AD 2018-19-03 required an inspection of the MLG,
and replacement if necessary. The FAA issued these ADs to address MLG
failure during the landing roll-out, which could result in damage to
the airplane and injury to occupants.

Actions Since ADs 2012-22-05 and 2018-19-03 Were Issued

    Since ADs 2012-22-05 and 2018-19-03 were issued, the FAA has
received a report of a crack found in the lower portion of a left-hand
MLG piston; one possible factor was hydrogen-assisted cracking. The FAA
determined that the cracked piston was part of a batch of six MLG
pistons on which the required heat treatments may not have been applied
during overhaul. Another possible contributing factor is that the wire
harness port of the MLG piston is a highly stressed area, prone to
high-rate crack growth if small surface imperfections are present.
    The EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the
European Union, has issued EASA AD 2019-0224, dated September 6, 2019
(``EASA AD 2019-0224'') (also referred to as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070 and 0100
airplanes. EASA AD 2019-0224 supersedes EASA ADs 2011-0159 and 2017-
0163 (which correspond to FAA ADs 2012-22-05 and 2018-19-03).
    This AD was prompted by a report of a crack found in the lower
portion of a left-hand MLG piston, and a determination that the
required heat treatment may not have been applied to certain MLG
pistons. See the MCAI for additional background information.

Explanation of Retained Requirements

    Although this AD does not explicitly restate the requirements of AD
2012-22-05 this AD retains all of the requirements of AD 2012-22-05.
Those requirements are referenced in EASA AD 2019-0224, which, in turn,
is referenced in paragraph (g) of this AD. This AD retains none of the
requirements of AD 2018-19-03.

Related IBR Material Under 1 CFR Part 51

    EASA AD 2019-0224 describes procedures for repetitive inspections
of the MLG pistons for cracks, replacing cracked MLG pistons, and
modifying the MLG by replacing each affected part (MLG piston or MLG
unit) with a serviceable part or replacing each affected MLG unit with
a serviceable unit.
    This material is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to a bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA
has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD because the agency
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.

Requirements of This AD

    This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD
2019-0224 described previously, as incorporated by reference, except
for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of
this AD.

Explanation of Required Compliance Information

    In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD
process, the FAA initially worked with Airbus and EASA to develop a
process to use certain EASA ADs as the primary source of information
for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has
since coordinated with other manufacturers and civil aviation
authorities (CAAs) to use this process. As a result, EASA AD 2019-0224
is incorporated by reference in this AD. This AD, therefore, requires
compliance with EASA AD 2019-0224 in its entirety, through that
incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in
the regulatory text of this AD. Using common terms that are the same as
the heading of a particular section in the EASA AD does not mean that
operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD
requirement refers to ``all required actions and compliance times,''
compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section
titled ``Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)'' in the EASA AD.
Service information specified in EASA AD 2019-0224 that is required for
compliance with EASA AD 2019-0224 will be available on the internet at
https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2020-0105 after the FAA final rule is published.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    Since there are currently no domestic operators of these products,
notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing this AD are
unnecessary. In addition, for the reasons stated above, the FAA finds
that good cause exists for making this amendment effective in less than
30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and the FAA did not precede it by notice and opportunity for
public comment. The FAA invites 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-2020-0105;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-172-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
AD based on those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments received, without change, to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide.
The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    Currently, there are no affected U.S.-registered airplanes. If an
affected airplane is imported and placed on the U.S. Register in the
future, the FAA provide the following cost estimates to comply with
this AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                 Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retained actions from AD 2012-22-05...........  24 work-hours x $85 per hour =                $0          $2,040
                                                 $2,040.
New actions...................................  24 work-hours x $85 per hour =                 0           2,040
                                                 $2,040.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has received no definitive data that would enable the
agency to provide cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified
in this AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive (AD)
2012-22-05, Amendment 39-17241 (77 FR 68052, November 15, 2012), and AD
2018-19-03, Amendment 39-19403 (83 FR 46859, September 17, 2018), and
adding the following new AD:

2020-04-12 Fokker Services B.V.: Amendment 39-19851; Docket No. FAA-
2020-0105; Product Identifier 2019-NM-172-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective March 24, 2020.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2012-22-05, Amendment 39-17241 (77 FR 68052,
November 15, 2012) (``AD 2012-22-05''), and AD 2018-19-03, Amendment
39-19403 (83 FR 46859, September 17, 2018) (``AD 2018-19-03'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Fokker Services B.V. Model F28 Mark 0070
and 0100 airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 32, Landing
gear.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a crack found in the lower
portion of a left-hand main landing gear (MLG) piston, and a
determination that the required heat treatment may not have been
applied to certain MLG pistons. The FAA is issuing this AD to
address MLG failure during the landing roll-out, which could result
in damage to the airplane and injury to occupants.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Requirements

    Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all
required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2019-0224, dated September 6, 2019 (``EASA AD 2019-0224'').

(h) Exceptions to EASA AD 2019-0224

    (1) Where EASA AD 2019-0224 refers to its effective date, this
AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where EASA AD refers to the effective date of EASA AD 2011-
0159, this AD requires using December 20, 2012 (the effective date
of AD 2012-22-05).
    (3) The ``Remarks'' section of EASA AD 2019-0224 does not apply
to this AD.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Section, send it to the attention of
the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may
be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (i) 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.
    (ii) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2012-22-05 are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of EASA AD 2019-0224 that are
required by paragraph (g) of this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Section, Transport Standards Branch, FAA; or EASA; or Fokker
Services B.V.'s EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved
by the DOA, the approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact Tom Rodriquez,
Aerospace Engineer, International Section, Transport Standards
Branch, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone
and fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (3) The following service information was approved for IBR on
April 13, 2020.
    (i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2019-0224,
dated September 6, 2019.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (4) For information about EASA AD 2019-0224, contact the EASA,
Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221
89990 6017; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>internet www.easa.europa.eu.
You may find this EASA AD on the EASA website at https://ad.easa.europa.eu.
    (5) You may view this material at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. This
material may be found in the AD docket on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-
2020-0105.
    (6) You may view this material that is incorporated by reference
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on February 20, 2020.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2020-04729 Filed 3-6-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 67745]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24472]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No.: FAA-2022-1256; Summary Notice No. 2022-41]

Petition for Exemption; Summary of Petition Received; US Aviation
Training Solutions

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief
from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The
purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and
participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of
this notice nor the inclusion nor omission of information in the
summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its
final disposition.

DATES: Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket
number and must be received on or before November 29, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2022-1256
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
http://www.dot.gov/privacy.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140
of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590-0001, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Thai at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Office
of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue
SW, Washington, DC 20591.
    This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on 2 November 2022.
Brandon Roberts,
Executive Director, Office of Rulemaking.

Petition for Exemption

    Docket No.: FAA-2022-1256.
    Petitioner: US Aviation Training Solution.
    Section(s) of 14 CFR Affected: Sec. Sec.  91.313(c) and
91.313(d)(2).
    Description of Relief Sought: US Aviation Training Solution
requests an exemption in order to operate a restricted category civil
aircraft carrying persons or property for compensation and for
Portuguese Air Force (PoAF) personnel to be considered flight
crewmember trainees. US Aviation Training Solution intends to train and
qualify PoAF personnel in emergency response and humanitarian service
airborne missions utilizing UH-60 aircraft.

[FR Doc. 2022-24472 Filed 11-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P