 SIP SUBMITTAL COMPLETENESS CRITERIA CHECKLIST ( in accordance with 40 CFR Part 51  App. V)

SIP Submitted by: Maryland Department of the Environment Date Submitted: October 31, 2005 Subject: Amendments to Regulations .01 and .0 under COMAR 26.11.08 Control of Incineerators.

Completeness Review Completed by: LaKeshia Robertson Date Completed: November 14, 2005 Administrative Materials ACCEPTABLE EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL ( X)

1. A formal letter of submittal from the Governor or his designee, requesting EPA approval of the plan or revision thereof. 1. October 31, 2005 submittal letter from Kendl P. Philbrick,

Secretary of Maryland Department of Environment. Mr. Philb rick is the Governor's designee. X 2. Evidence that the State has adopted the plan in the State code or body of regulations; or issued the permit, order,

consent agreement in final form. That evidence shall include the date of adoption or final issuance as well as the effective date of the plan, if different from the adoption/ issuance date. 2. The submittal contains a certification of publication and compliance with State adminstrative procedure. The rules were adopted amendments on August 11, 2005, which became effective on September 12, 2005 as evidenced by Marland Register of Regulations. X 3. Evidence that the State has the necessary legal authority under State law to adopt and implement the plan. 3. The revision was adopted in accordance with COMAR 26.11.08 of Maryland's Control of Incinerators Rule. X Administrative Materials EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL ( X)

2 4. A copy of actual regulation, or document submitted for approval and incorporation by reference into the plan,

including indication of the changes made to the existing approved plan, where applicable. The submittal shall be a copy of the official State regulation/ document signed, stamped,

dated by the appropriate State official indicating that it is fully enforceable by the State. The effective date of the regulation/ document shall, whenever possible, be indicated in the document itself. 4. A copy of the actual regulation as published in the Maryland Register of Regulations was provided, including the indications of changes made to the existing regulations. The adoption and effective dates are clearly annotated. X 5. Evidence that the State followed all of the procedural requirements of the State's laws and constitution in conducting and completing the adoption/ issuance of the plan. 5. Maryland Department of the Environment provided certification that it complied with all the State administrative procedures during the adoption of the plan revision. X 6. Evidence that public notice was given of the proposed change consistent with procedures approved by EPA, including the date of publication of such notice. 6. A copy of the newspaper advertisement providing public notice of the revision, including the date of publication is provided in the submittal. X 7. Certification that public hearings were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice and the State's laws and constitution, if applicable. 7. Maryland Department of the Environment provided certification that all public participation procedures were complied with during the adoption of the plan revision. X 8. Compilation of public comments and the State's response thereto. 8. A complication pf public comments and the State's responses is provided in the submittal. X Technical Materials EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL ( X)

3 1. Identification of all regulated pollutants affected by the plan. 1. The rule addressed revisions to COMSR 26.11.08 Control of Incinerators. X 2. Identification of the locations of affected sources including the EPA attainment/ nonattainment designation of the locations and the status of the attainment plan for the affected area( s). 2. The plan revision is a state wide regulation that identifies that affected source. X 3. Quantification of the changes in plan allowable emissions from the affected sources; estimates of changes in current actual emissions from affected sources or, where appropriate,

quantification of changes in actual emissions from affected sources through calculations of the differences between certain baseline levels and allowable emissions anticipated as a result of the revision. 3. The revision includes amendments to definitions and establishing limitations on particulate matter emissions for incinerators. X 4. The State's demonstration that the national ambient air quality standards, prevention of significant deterioration increments, reasonable further progress demonstration, and visibility, as applicable, are protected if the plan is approved and implemented. 4. The revision includes amendments to definitions and establishing limitations on particulate matter emissions for incinerators. X 5. Modeling information required to support the proposed revision, including input data, output data, models used,

ambient monitoring data used, meteorological data used,

justification for use of offsite data ( where used), modes of models used, assumptions, and other information relevant to the determination of adequacy of the modeling analysis. 5. Not applicable. X 6. Evidence, where necessary, that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology. 6. Not applicable. X Technical Materials EPA REQUIREMENT STATE SUBMITTAL ( X)

4 7. Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, work practice standards and recordkeeping/ reporting requirements,

where necessary, to ensure emission levels. 7. Not applicable. X 8. Compliance/ enforcement strategies, including how compliance will be determined in practice. 8. Not applicable. X 9. Special economic and technological justifications required by any applicable EPA policies. ( If a policy is not appropriate,

explain why.) 9. Not applicable. X 10. A Section 107 request must be accompanied by a maintenance plan demonstrating maintenance to the relevant NAAQS for at least 10 years after redesignation. 10. Not applicable. X


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 21, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3008-3010]
[FR Doc No: 2015-00810]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0126]

Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comment on proposed collection of
information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatements of previously approved collections.
    This document describes one collection of information for which
NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number
NHTSA-[docket number] using any of the following methods:
    Electronic submissions: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
    Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
Docket number for this Notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov including any
personal information provided.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Amanda M. Kelley, Contracting
Officer's Representative, Office of Behavioral Safety Research (NTI-
132), National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W46-495, Washington, DC 20590. Dr. Kelley's phone number is
202-366-7394 and her email address is<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulations (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
    (iv) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks public comment on
the following proposed collection of information:
    Title: Evaluation of Correct Child Restraint System Installations.
    Type of Request: New information collection requirement.
    OMB Clearance Number: None.
    Form Number: NHTSA Forms 1265, 1266, 1267.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: 3 years from date of
approval.
    Summary of the Collection of Information--The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) proposes to conduct individual
data collection session with 150 participants. Each session will
require participants to complete a set of questionnaires including: A
risk appraisal assessment tool specific to motor vehicle crash and
injury risks; a measure of invincibility beliefs; and a demographics
questionnaire. Then each participant will be instructed to install a
CRS (rear-facing, forward facing, high-back booster, no-back booster)
for each of the four child-size dummies (16-month-old, 3-year-old, 6-
year-old, and 8-year-old) into one of the four vehicle types (SUV,
compact SUV, mini-van, sedan) provided. By providing the participant
with the age, height, and weight of the child, and asking the
participant to select the appropriate CRS to install, NHTSA will
immediately address whether the parent has selected the best restraint
type for each child's age and physical dimensions. No verbal
instructions on how to use the CRS features or vehicle features will be
provided. Participants will be instructed to complete each installation
by securing a child-size doll in the CRS. Participants will complete a
total of 4 installations.
    The order of installations for a given participant will be
randomized with respect to CRS type, vehicle type, and child's age/
weight/height in order to preclude any effects of sequence and control
for any learning or fatigue that might take place. In addition, the CRS
within each CRS type (easier, more challenging) and the vehicle type
will vary across participants.
    After each installation, various types of objective and subjective
measures will be collected. Together, these measures will describe how
the participant used the CRS system, what problems were encountered,
errors identified, how acceptable the system was to the user, and the
degree of confidence each participant exhibited with correctly
installing the CRS to the vehicle and securing the child in the CRS.
Participants will convey this information by responding to a series of
ratings and open-ended questions regarding the ease of installation and
challenges related to usability of the CRS system, the CRS manual, and
the vehicle features and vehicle manual.
    Each CRS installation will be video-taped using electronic
equipment. Any and all personally identifiable information will be
separated from data collected. Also, all identifying information
collected during initial scheduling will be separated from collected
information, kept on a secure server in password protected files, and
discarded when no longer needed. Access to this information will be
limited. All information collected during the sessions will be
summarized using generic categories and summary statistics.
    Description of the Need for the Information and Proposed Use of the
Information--The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
was established by the Highway Safety Act of 1970 (23 U.S.C. 101) to
carry out a Congressional mandate to reduce the mounting number of
deaths, injuries, and economic losses resulting from motor vehicle
crashes on the Nation's highways. As part of this statutory mandate,
NHTSA is authorized to conduct research as a foundation for the
development of motor vehicle standards and traffic safety programs.
    Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death to children in
the United States. In 2012 a total of 952 children younger than 13
years died in motor vehicle traffic crashes, and two-thirds of these
fatalities occurred among children riding in passenger vehicles. The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), recommends that
all children ages 12 and under be properly buckled in an age- and size-
appropriate car seat, booster seat, or seat belt in the rear seat.
Currently, there are four types of child restraint systems designed for
children: Infant, convertible, combination, and belt-positioning
booster seats. Each system is designed to protect a child within a
given height and weight category in the event of a crash. Child safety
seat (CSS) use reduces the risk for death to infants (aged <1 year) by
71%; and to toddlers (aged 1-4 years) by 54% in passenger vehicles.
Booster seat use reduces the risk for serious injury by 45% for
children aged 4-8 years when compared with seat belt use alone. Infant,
convertible, and combination seats are secured to the vehicle seat
using the vehicle's seat belt system or the vehicle's LATCH system, and
the child is secured to the seat using the CRS's harness system.
Conversely, combination and booster seats provide a transition from the
child safety seat with its internal harness to the vehicle lap/shoulder
belt by repositioning the child so that the vehicle's seat belt system
holds both the child and the booster in place.
    While child restraint use has increased over the years, many
children are still fatally injured as a result of motor vehicles
crashes. One possible explanation for this occurrence could be the
large number of child passengers

who are either riding unrestrained in vehicles, improperly placed in a
CRS, or prematurely graduated to an adult vehicle seat belt system. A
NHTSA survey, the National Child Restraint Use Special Study, conducted
in 2011, observed and interviewed a nationally representative sample of
drivers with child passengers (NHTSA, 2012). The most prevalent
installation errors identified in this survey were: Incorrect harness
routing slot used, improper harness clip position, loose CRS
installation, loose harness straps, and improper lap belt placement.
Other potential installation errors may include: Improper routing of
the vehicle's seat belt system or lower LATCH straps, and twisting of
the seat belt or LATCH. While these errors can be classified as
improper installation and/or securement errors, researchers have also
identified errors related to caregivers selecting the correct CRS for
the children's ages, heights, and weights.
    Evaluating the causes of the various selection and installation
errors can be challenging. That is, one or more factors may contribute
to any one type of installation error. There are numerous CRS makes and
models marketed to the consumer, each with its own installation
procedures/manual. In addition, vehicle manufacturers design vehicle
restraint systems and vehicle seats that are incompatible with various
CRSs. New vehicles are continually introduced to the fleet, and CRSs
continue to evolve each year. Finally, there is a never-ending flow of
new parents/caregivers who need to be educated on child passenger
safety. Despite their inexperience, new parents may overestimate their
own accuracy in selecting and securely installing a CRS to the vehicle
and securing the child in the CRS.
    While it might be hard to control for some factors, such as the
continuing flow of new parents, and the number and variety of vehicles
and CRSs, others might be more easily examined. For example, among the
large variety of CRS designs, CRS and vehicle labeling, vehicle seating
attachments, and manual designs and instructions, there may be ways to
better convey information to the caregivers. In addition, specific
features or designs that minimize installation errors could improve the
ease of use for CRS for the parent or caregiver. In an effort to reduce
the number of errors, NHTSA is undertaking a study to gain some insight
into the causes of errors related to selecting and installing CRSs. To
accomplish this, NHTSA will evaluate installation performance and
caregiver confidence in both experienced and novice CRS users and
determine which factors contribute to both installation and securement
errors and to determine what factors related to the CRS, vehicle, and
user confidence contribute to errors. Identifying these causal factors
that contribute to errors related to selecting and installing CRSs, as
well as those factors that contribute to accurately selecting and
properly installing CRSs for both novice and experienced users, will be
the first step in increasing the safety of child passengers in moving
vehicles. In addition, overall findings can be made available to CRS
manufacturers and vehicle manufacturers related to improvements to
specific CRS and vehicle design features that may foster a better fit
in the vehicles and securement for children.
    Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number,
and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information)--
Under this proposed effort, a total of 150 individuals evenly
distributed among experienced and novice CRS users. ``Experienced''
users will be defined as individuals who regularly care for a child
under the age of 4 years, transport the child in a vehicle at least
twice a week, and also have installed any CRS a minimum of five times
in the past 6 months. ``Novice'' users are defined as individuals who
do not regularly transport children and have not installed a CRS in the
past 6 months.
    NHTSA estimates that each session will last 120 minutes. Each
participant will complete four installations, resulting in 600 total
installations distributed across vehicle type, CRS type, and child's
age, weight, and height. Each CRS installation will be video recorded.
Prior to installing the CRS's, participants will complete a set of
questionnaires including a risk appraisal assessment tool specific to
motor vehicle crash and injury risks, an invincibility beliefs index,
and demographics.
    Throughout the project, the privacy of all participants will be
protected. Personally-identifiable information (names, telephone
numbers, email addresses, etc.) will be kept separate from the data
collected, and will be stored in restricted folders on secure password
protected servers that are only accessible to study staff who have need
to access such information. In addition, all data collected from
participants will be reported in aggregate, and participant names will
not be used in any reports resulting from this project. Rigorous de-
identification procedures will be used during summary and feedback
stages to ensure no officers will be identified through reconstructive
means.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Record Keeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of Information--NHTSA estimates that the
total time for each respondent to participate in the data collection
effort will likely not be more than 2 hours. Staff estimates that the
travel time for participants will not be more than 30 minutes one-way.
Therefore, a maximum of 3 hours of burden will be placed on any one
participant. The duration of the study for each participant will be 3
hours, or a total of 450 hours for the 150 participants. The
participants will not incur any reporting cost from the information
collection. The participants also will not incur any record keeping
burden or record keeping cost from the information collection.

    Authority:  44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A)

    Dated: January 15, 2015.
Jeff Michael,
Associate Administrator, Research and Program Development.
[FR Doc. 2015-00810 Filed 1-20-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 6, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60961-60963]
[FR Doc No: 2023-19131]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2023-0586]

National Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee; September
2023 Meetings

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice of Federal advisory committee meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The National Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee
(Committee) will conduct a series of meetings over three days to
discuss and make recommendations to the Secretary on matters related to
reducing casualties and fatalities in the commercial fishing industry.
See task statements included in this notice below for specifics. The
meetings will be open to the public.

DATES:
    Meetings: The Committee will hold a meeting on Tuesday, September
26, 2023, from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT),
Wednesday, September 27, 2023, from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. PDT, and
Thursday, September 28, 2023, from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. PDT. The

Committee meeting on Tuesday, September 26, 2023, from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m.
will be dedicated to an administrative meeting (Committee members
only). Please note these meetings may close early if the Committee has
completed its business.
    Comments and supporting documentation: To ensure your comments are
received before the meeting, please submit your written comments no
later than September 20, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Federal Courthouse, 700
Stewart Street, Seattle, Washington 98101.
    The National Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee is
committed to ensuring all participants have equal access regardless of
disability status. If you require reasonable accommodation due to a
disability to fully participate, please email Mr. Jonathan Wendland at
[email protected] or call at<PHONE_NUMBER> as soon as
possible.
    Instructions: You are free to submit comments at any time,
including orally at the meeting as time permits, but if you want your
comment reviewed before the meeting, please submit your comments no
later than September 20, 2023. We are particularly interested in
comments regarding the topics in the ``Agenda'' section below. We
encourage you to submit comments through Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be submitted using
https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the individual in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. You must include the docket number [USCG-2023-0586].
Comments received will be posted without alteration at https://www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided. You
may wish to review the Privacy and Security notice available on the
homepage of https://www.regulations.gov, and DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020). If you encounter
technical difficulties with comment submission, contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.
    Docket Search: Documents mentioned in this notice as being
available in the docket, and all public comments, will be in our online
docket at https://www.regulations.gov, and can be viewed by following
that website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online
docket and sign-up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments
are posted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jonathan Wendland, Alternate
Designated Federal Officer (ADFO) of the National Commercial Fishing
Safety Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. SE, Stop
7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is in compliance with
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (Pub. L. 117-286, 5 U.S.C., ch.
10). The National Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee is
authorized by section 601 of the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard
Authorization Act of 2018, (Pub. L. 115-282, 132 Stat. 4190), and is
codified in 46 U.S.C. 15102. The Committee operates under the
provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 46 U.S.C. 15109.
The National Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee provides
advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security
through the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), on matters
relating to the safe operation of vessels including the matters of:
    (A) navigation safety;
    (B) safety equipment and procedures;
    (C) marine insurance;
    (D) vessel design, construction, maintenance, and operation; and
    (E) personnel qualifications and training.
    Additionally, the Committee will review regulations proposed under
chapter 45 of Title 46 of U.S. Code (during preparation of the
regulations) and review marine casualties and investigations of vessels
covered by chapter 45 of Title 46 U.S. Code and make recommendations to
the Secretary of Homeland Security to improve safety and reduce vessel
casualties.

Agenda

Day 1

    The agenda for the National Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory
Committee meeting is as follows:
I. Opening
    a. Call to Order and Designated Federal Officer (DFO) Remarks
    b. Roll Call and Determination of Quorum
    c. Swear in New Members
    d. USCG Leadership Remarks
II. Administration
    a. Old Business
    b. Review and Adoption of Meeting Agenda
    c. Meeting Goals
    d. Roberts Rules Simplified
III. General Updates
    a. Regulatory Status
IV. Information Session
    a. USCG District Presentations
    b. Office of Investigations and Casualty Analysis (CG-INV) Drug
Presentation
    c. Marine Casualty Case Familiarization
V. Public Comment Period
VI. Meeting Recess

Day 2

    VII. New Business
    a. Task Statement #04-23: Review the multi-year statistics
(provided by the USCG) regarding commercial fishing vessels of less
than 200 gross ton accidents or losses that resulted in fatalities,
injuries, or property damage. Major marine casualties such as the loss
of the DESTINATION, NO LIMITS, and other fishing vessels with multiple
fatalities and vessel losses should be reviewed to provide the
background information necessary to other supplementary taskings in
best efforts to make informed recommendations to the USCG.
    b. Task Statement #05-23: Examine and make recommendations to the
USCG on best practices to reduce and mitigate the negative consequences
caused by the misalignment of state and federal regulations regarding
drug laws legalizing the recreational and/or medical use for drugs also
classed as dangerous drugs by federal law and applicable transportation
related statutes. This is critical for the safety of operations and
creating an environment for vessel personnel to work in a drug-free
workplace, with special emphasis on critical safety sensitive jobs such
as navigation and engineering duties to bring fishing vessels into
alignment with other commercial vessels. Develop recommendations that
include testing for pre-employment, routine, and reasonable cause.
Submit recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
    c. Task Statement #06-23: Examine and effectively disseminate
recommendations for best practices to ensure full crew access to all
parts of a vessel to allow for safe vessel operation. This task should
address and examine things like a means to access all areas of the
vessel and allow the crew to safely move fore and aft to remove ice,
inspect the vessel, and operate critical equipment like the vessel's
anchors and similar gear that does not require the crew to climb over
the pot stack (for example, in the case of a vessel carrying pots, nets
or similar devices to create pathways for access). Submit
recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security.

    d. Task Statement #07-23: Establish best practices for standard
procedures and guidance for crew standing navigation watches. This
should include a detailed crew orientation for each unique vessel,
including the operation of critical equipment and establish clear and
easily understood watchstanding orders to protect the safety of the
vessel during its applicable operations. This could be accomplished as
a standardized form or checklist. Submit recommendations to the
Secretary of Homeland Security.
    e. Task Statement #08-23: Evaluate and provide a comprehensive list
of recommendations to the USCG, in the form of best practices (NVICs,
policies, training), or amended or new regulations, regarding stability
considerations which may pose severe risk to the safety of a fishing
vessel such as icing, loading, the need for stability instructions, and
vessel modifications. As part of this task, review the USCG's current
level of oversight, provide recommendations on its adequacy, and
specify needed changes to areas of the fishing safety program that need
additional attention. Submit recommendations to the Secretary of
Homeland Security.
    f. Task Statement #09-23: Evaluate and provide recommendations to
the USCG for best practices to address the high degree of risk
associated with fishing vessel operations and how the acceptance of
risk is prevalent and accepted in the fishing industry. Specifically,
the Marine Board recommends the committee focus on topics including
icing, heavy weather avoidance in voyage planning, and formalizing the
navigation watch duties via onboard familiarization and written
standard orders to ensure the safety of vessel during its transit and
during fishing operations. Submit recommendations to the Secretary of
Homeland Security.
    g. Task Statement #10-23: Evaluate and provide recommendations to
the USCG to ensure the most effective means to widely disseminate
critical safety information for the commercial fishing industry. Submit
recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
    h. Task Statement #11-23: Review and provide recommendations on the
development of a publicly accessible website that contains all
information related to fishing industry activities, including vessel
safety, inspections, enforcement, hazards, training, regulations
(including proposed regulations), outages of the Rescue 21 system in
Alaska and similar outages, and any other fishing-related activities.
Submit recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
    i. Task Statement #12-23: Discuss and make recommendations
requiring watch alarms on specific types of commercial fishing vessels.
Submit recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
    j. Task Statement #13-23: Examine and make recommendations to the
USCG on a way to widely distribute personal location beacons at minimal
expense. Ensure availability and access for crewmembers of these
critical lifesaving devices which could be acquired by consortiums,
associations, or other organizations for distribution to vessel crews
through federally funded grant programs or other programs. Submit
recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security.

VIII. Subcommittee(s) Break Out and Discussions
    a. Action Items by Task
IX. Public Comment Period
X. Committee Discussion and Actions
XI. Meeting Recess

Day 3

XII. Subcommittee Break Out and Discussions
    a. Action Items by Task
XIII. Recommendations and Committee Actions
XIV. Full Committee Open Discussion
XV. Public Comment Period
XVI. Present Recommendations on Taskings to the USCG
XVII. Plans for Next Meeting
XVIII. Closing Remarks (Committee and USCG)
XIX. Adjournment of Meeting

    A copy of pre-meeting documentation will be available at https://www.dco.uscg.mil/NCFSAC2023/no later than September 14, 2023.
Alternatively, you may contact Mr. Jonathan Wendland as noted in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.
    There will be a public comment period scheduled each day of the
meeting. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes.
Please note that the public comment period may end before the period
allotted, following the last call for comments. Please contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT SECTION to
register as a speaker.

    Dated: August 30, 2023.
Amy M. Beach,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of Inspections and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2023-19131 Filed 9-5-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 14 (Monday, January 25, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 6951]
[FR Doc No: 2021-01421]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2021-0003]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    Under part 235 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49
U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that on
January 5, 2021, Norfolk Southern Corporation (NS) petitioned the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval to discontinue
or modify a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-
2021-0003.

Applicant: Norfolk Southern Corporation, Tommy A. Phillips, Senior
Director--C&S Engineering, 1200 Peachtree Street NE, Atlanta, GA 30309

    Specifically, NS requests permission to discontinue an automatic
block signal (ABS) and traffic control system (TCS) on the S line from
milepost (MP) S25.7, Statesville, North Carolina, to MP S145.0, control
point (CP) Craggy, on the Coastal Division. This includes CPs at
Biltmore, Mitchell, Russell, and Murphy Junction slide fences, and 52
automatic signals. The main track between S25.7 and S145.0 will be
converted to NS Rule 171 operation. An automatic signal at MP S26.2
will be converted to an operable approach signal. The signaled sidings
within the application limits will be made non-controlled, other than
main track.
    NS states the reason for the proposed discontinuance is that
operations no longer require ABS or TCS.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by March 11, 2021 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2021-01421 Filed 1-22-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 61 (Thursday, April 1, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17065-17066]
[FR Doc No: 2021-06681]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 821

[Docket No. FDA-2021-N-0246]

Medical Devices; Technical Amendments

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

ACTION: Final rule; technical amendments.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is
amending its medical device regulations to make an editorial
nonsubstantive change and replace a reference to an obsolete office
with updated information. The rule does not impose any new regulatory
requirements on affected parties. This action is editorial in nature
and is intended to improve the accuracy of the Agency's regulations.

DATES: This rule is effective April 1, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madhusoodana Nambiar, Office of
Policy, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, 10903 New Hampshire
Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5519, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) has
reorganized to create an agile infrastructure that can adapt to future
organizational, regulatory, and scientific needs (84 FR 22854, May 20,
2019; 85 FR 18439, April 2, 2020). The newly formed Office of Product
Evaluation and Quality (OPEQ) combined the former Office of Compliance,
the Office of Device Evaluation, the Office of Surveillance and
Biometrics, and the Office of In Vitro Diagnostics and Radiological
Health, with a focus on a Total Product Lifecycle (TPLC) approach to
medical device oversight. Within OPEQ there are Offices of Health
Technology that focus on the TPLC review of specific types of medical
devices as well as cross-cutting offices focusing on specific policy
and programmatic needs including the Office of Regulatory Programs and
the Office of Clinical Evidence and Analysis. As part of this technical
amendment, we are making changes to correct a reference to an obsolete
office and to correctly identify the positions with authority to make
decisions on exemptions and variances from tracking orders. This change
is nonsubstantive and editorial in nature.

II. Description of the Technical Amendments

    The regulations specified in this rule have been revised to make a
non-substantive editorial change to correct ``Director of the Office of
Regulatory Program'' to ``Director or Principal Deputy Director of the
Office of Product Evaluation and Quality'' and replace a reference to
``Director, Office of Compliance'' with ``Director or Deputy Directors,
CDRH, or the Director or Principal Deputy Director of the Office of
Product Evaluation and Quality.'' The rule does not impose any new
regulatory requirements on affected parties. The amendments are
editorial in nature and should not be construed as modifying any
substantive standards or requirements.

III. Notice and Public Comment

    Publication of this document constitutes final action of these
changes under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553). Section
553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) exempts ``rules of agency
organization, procedure, or practice'' from proposed rulemaking (i.e.,
notice and comment rulemaking) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A)). Rules are also
exempt when an Agency finds ``good cause'' that notice and comment
rulemaking procedures would be ``impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest'' (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B)).
    FDA has determined that this rulemaking meets the notice and
comment exemption requirements in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A) and (B). FDA's
revisions make technical or non-substantive changes that pertain solely
to the CDRH reorganization and do not alter any substantive standard.
FDA does not believe public comment is necessary for these minor
revisions.
    The APA allows an effective date less than 30 days after
publication as ``provided by the agency for good cause found and
published with the rule'' (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). A delayed effective
date is unnecessary in this case because the amendments do not impose
any new regulatory requirements on affected parties. As a result,
affected parties do not need time to prepare before the rule takes
effect. Therefore, FDA finds good cause for the amendments to become
effective on the date of publication of this action.

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 821

    Imports, Medical devices, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 CFR
part 821 is amended as follows.

PART 821--MEDICAL DEVICE TRACKING REQUIREMENTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 821 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 21 U.S.C. 331, 351, 352, 360, 360e, 360h, 360i, 371,
374.

0
2. In Sec.  821.2, revise paragraphs (b) introductory text and (c) to
read as follows:

Sec.  821.2  Exemptions and variances.

* * * * *
    (b) A request for an exemption or variance shall be submitted in
the form of a petition under Sec.  10.30 of this chapter and shall
comply with the requirements set out therein, except that a response
shall be issued in 90 days. The Director or Deputy Directors, CDRH, or
the Director or Principal Deputy Director of the Office of Product
Evaluation and Quality, CDRH, shall issue responses to requests under
this section. The petition shall also contain the following:
* * * * *
    (c) An exemption or variance is not effective until the Director or
Deputy Directors, CDRH, or the Director or Principal Deputy Director of
the Office of Product Evaluation and Quality,

CDRH, approves the request under Sec.  10.30(e)(2)(i) of this chapter.

    Dated: March 25, 2021.
Xavier Becerra,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2021-06681 Filed 3-31-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


                                Presentation of
                        Jack Gillis, Executive Director
                          Mark Cooper, Senior Fellow
                        Consumer Federation of America
            Before the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
                                      on
            Freeze and Rollback of the Light Duty Vehicle Standards
                         New Executive Office Building
                                 Washington DC

                                 June 22, 2018

For the first five years after the passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act we would come to OMB during the rulemakings to explain why a 3% discount rate is the correct discount rate.  Our mission today is different.  We would like to help you and the administration avoid a catastrophic mistake.  If the administration does a bad job of writing a new rule, which recent experience and glimpses of what the EPA intends suggest is a high probability, it will get tossed out and a very important consumer, economic and environmental program will be thrown into chaos.
We do this by starting at a very high level with three observations.
          Policy makers, neither Congress nor agencies, cannot repeal the law of nature.
          The agencies cannot violate the substantive and procedural laws enacted by Congress.
          Neither the Congress nor the agencies should want to ignore the laws of economics.
Laws
NHTSA and EPA, in particular, appear to be intent upon making all three mistakes.  The second and the third mistakes are what will get you into trouble in the courts, but at the current moment, the first sets the tone.  It also establishes the basis for our claim that the fuel emissions standards are, first and foremost, a consumer issue.
The Environmental Protection Agency is required to achieve maximum reductions in emissions of pollutants that are technically feasible and economically practicable.  In many cases, particularly those involving emissions from fossil fuels, the least cost approach is efficiency. By requiring technologies, for example, that get more miles per gallon, the agency can reduce the emission of pollutants per mile travelled.  NHTSA's legal obligation is to deliver maximum energy savings, subject to similar concerns about technological feasibility and economic practicability. There is a near perfect, one-to-one relationship between consumption and pollution.
This law of nature applies to the emission of carbon dioxide. The act of lowering the emission of carbon dioxide through reduced energy consumption has the effect of also reducing the emission of other pollutants, e.g. sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide.  EPA wants to ignore these other benefits, in the benefit/cost calculation, even though they are a certainty in nature.  At the same time, however, EPA and NHTSA want to make the much less inevitable (in fact inconsequential) harms of reducing pollution  -  vehicle safety  -  the centerpiece of its analysis.
As a general proposition, such hypocrisy tends to get the court's attention, and in this instance a good case can, and will be made that the underlying substantive statute requires the agencies to take both economic and safety issues into account.  The procedural statute requires that the rule bear a reasonable relationship to reality through the record before the agency and the laws of nature are part of that reality.
The three agencies built a massive record to adopt the National Program and two of the three agencies involved reached the technically correct, evidence-based conclusion that the standards should remain in force.  The radical hatchet job that the administration seems headed toward simply will not fly.  A new record might support some tweaks to 2022-2025, but not the rollback and freeze.  If anything, the evidence on the performance of the standards under the National Program supports a strengthening, not weakening, of the standards.
Consumer Benefits
When pollution reduction is accomplished by efficiency, it has the beneficial effect of lowering the cost of operating equipment to meet human needs.  The costs of operating a vehicle, for example, are significantly reduced when fuel economy improves.  There is a consumer pocketbook saving to offset the increase in the more environment-friendly equipment.
The consumer pocketbook savings have another major economic benefit. When the total cost of driving goes down (vehicle ownership plus operating costs), consumers have more money to spend on other goods and services.  That consumer spending has a large stimulating effect on the economy.  This effect is widely recognized and modeled.
Our research shows that the consumer pocketbook and macroeconomic benefits combine to create over 80% of the total benefits of the standard.  Falling costs increase the net benefit by as much as another 30%.
Our research also shows that one group of consumers enjoy disproportionately large benefits from standards.  Standards benefit low income consumers disproportionately for three reasons.  First, because they tend to buy used cars, not new ones. This means operating costs are more important to them. Second, because the market for efficiency is very imperfect, the full value of fuel efficiency is not reflected in the used vehicle price.  Low income consumers get the benefit of capturing the value of efficiency not reflected in the price of used vehicles.  Third, since their incomes are lower and gasoline is a necessity, fuel cost savings are a larger part of their household budget.
Our review of the literature also shows that low income consumers benefit disproportionately from the reduction of pollution.  Because they live closer to roadways and have less structurally sound residences, they suffer more exposure to pollution and the resulting health problems.
Command-But-Not-Control Approach to Standards
In fact, because efficiency has not been a focus of the auto industry (for example) and the social cost of pollution has never been included in the market transaction of buying and operating a vehicle, the auto market has never invested enough in efficiency.  Historically and now, when the EPA adopts a rule that pushes vehicle manufacturers to include more energy saving technology, the cost of the technology has always been far below the operating cost savings it delivers to consumers. This effect has been observed throughout the history of fuel economy standards in the U.S., remains in effect today, and is linked to another strong economic effect.
Once agencies adopt standards that require energy saving technology, the automakers set about meeting the standard in the least cost manner possible.  The ultimate cost of standards has generally been a fraction of the initial estimates because capitalists are allowed to do what they are good at  -  finding least cost ways to deliver goods in the market. Well-crafted standards are technology and product neutral, long term, progressive, inframarginal, and consumer-friendly in terms of cost and choice, and balance producer needs. We call this a "command-but-not-control" approach.   The reforms in the fuel economy program signed into law by President Bush (The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007) were particularly strong in unleashing those market forces.  It required attribute based standards that recognized the difference between types of vehicles.
Automaker Response to the National Program
      The elegance of the fuel economy standards, agreed to by 13 automakers, unions, consumers and environmentalists, is that it benefits both consumers and the industry. Rolling back the standards would serve only to give the Asian manufacturers, who are fully capable of meeting the standards, another marketing advantage over the American car companies. The current standards also provide flexibility for automakers, as CAFE compliance for vehicles is determined by its overall footprint, allowing larger vehicles to have lower fuel economy, compared to smaller vehicles. This allows automakers latitude to produce vehicles to match consumer preferences.
          Automaker Progress  -  Automakers are capable of meeting the standards. In 2018, 11 companies exceeded the average percentage (24%) of CAFE compliance for automakers as a whole.

          Fuel Economy vs Sales  -  SUV's, crossovers and light trucks that increased their fuel economy by more than 10% from 2011 to 2016 saw almost a 20% higher increase in sales, compared to those vehicles which increased their fuel economy by less than 10%. Over the past five years, an average of 16.9 million vehicles have entered the fleet, more than any other period of time in U.S. history. Sales have gone from 14.5 million in 2012, to a high of 17.6 million in 2016, for an overall increase of 19% by 2017.  Looking at 2018, first quarter vehicle sales have set a new record of 4.1 million, exceeding the previous first quarter record set in the first quarter of 2016 by over 20,000 vehicles.

          Gas Guzzlers vs Misers  -  58.3% of vehicles now get over 23 MPG, while only 3.4% of vehicles get under 16 MPG, a ten-fold decrease since 2006.

          Consistent Public Support  -  Over the last five years, consumer support for the standards was an average of 81%, with consistent support as the vehicle fleet has steadily increased in fuel efficiency, with 79% of consumers supporting the standards last year.
Vehicle Safety
Our recent report on vehicle safety shows that vehicles have become both more fuel efficient and safer under the National Program. While many vehicles have significantly increased their fuel efficiency over the past five years, the average fleet fuel efficiency has increased from 24.2 to 25.2.  At the same time, the average number of 15 high-tech safety features present in vehicles has increased from 19.5 percent to over 64 percent. Looking at "all-new" vehicles, which are the best indication of manufacturers' ability to improve fuel efficiency, 19 "all-new" 2018 vehicles contained an average of 12.3 important safety features out of 15 possible.  This is significantly more than the average of 7.4 safety features available in their 2011 versions. These same vehicles increased their fuel efficiency by 15% from an average of 21.8, to an average of 25.1 MPG. The bottom line  -  fuel efficiency is up and vehicles are safer.
This recent finding that fuel efficiency does not detract from vehicle safety is supported by long term evidence which we've shown in earlier testimony in support of higher standards.  Fuel economy and safety are distinct attributes of vehicles in which automakers invest simultaneously.  Technology makes it possible to improve both simultaneously, which they do because they understand that buyers value both safety and fuel economy.  The automakers also invest in other attributes of vehicles, like power and trim, which cost much more than safety and fuel economy.  Fuel economy has the unique quality of directly paying for itself by lowering the total cost of driving, making it possible to sell more fuel efficient, safer vehicles.  In fact, not only does increased fuel efficiency more than cover the cost of needed technological improvement, but it also covers the cost of new safety features and other manufacturer design improvements.
Denying the Facts Will Not Pass Judicial Scrutiny
The Trump administration can pretend that the laws of nature and economics do not apply, but that will impose a huge, inevitable and unjustified burden on consumers and the economy.  Our analysis of freeze and rollback concludes that it has a NEGATIVE benefit cost ratio  -  for every one dollar of costs saved by automakers  -  consumers, the economy and the environment lose 8 dollars.
Fortunately, in our view, the statutes that govern these standards require maximum feasible improvements and clearly recognize the economic issues.  The fact that the sector specific laws require a realistic approach that balances industry, consumer and the public interest is reinforced by the general laws governing administrative process (the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946).  The APA requires a reasonable link to reality and the record before the agency establishes a rulemaking.  For almost forty years, executive guidance from four presidents (Reagan, Clinton, Bush and Obama) has sought to refine and improve the analysis by requiring that all costs and benefits be rigorously identified and carefully measured for inclusion in the calculation.   The benefits we have identified cannot be ignored.
Rather than suffer another huge defeat in court, the agencies should:
 Identify a specific set of modifications that would allow automakers to comply with the standards;

 Stress that compliance of individual vehicles with their attribute-based standards is far more important than a national average goal;

 Declare that it was not obligated to write new standards for the post 2025 period and will refrain from doing so; and,

 Leave the Clean Car States to continue to play their leadership role in innovation, as they have done for almost two decades, demonstrating American federalism at its best, rather than engage in another hypocritical debate in which the administration favors state and local action, only when the states and localities do what the federal government wants.

U:\CFA Gillis Folder\Statements Testimonies\Gillis & Cooper OIRA NPRM Presentation 6-22-18.docx


Comment: We heard from one commenter that the requirement for the last rail carrier to get a copy of the signed manifest does not seem to have a purpose, other than to place an additional requirement on the rail carrier to maintain another copy (Commenter No. 19).  The commenter suggested that the requirement for the designated facility to provide a signed copy of the manifest to the last rail transported be eliminated. The commenter stated, for example, that the railroads will have a record that they transported the hazardous waste electronically under the new proposed electronic system.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its input.  However, at this time, the Agency is not considering regulatory changes that are outside the scope of the e-Manifest project.  In any case, EPA notes that the e-Manifest will significantly streamline users' transmittal and retention of manifest records.  For example, once a transporter signs the electronic manifest, that copy would be retained in the system and serve as the transporter's official copy.  The transporter could then transmit a copy to the next waste handler via the central system or portable device.

Comment: We heard from one commenter that asked if the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) paperwork needs to be completed and transmitted in hardcopy for an automated shipment (Commenter No. 22).  The commenter also asked for clarification on whether the manifest can be initiated by a broker on behalf of a generator customer.

Response: EPA thanks the commenter for its questions.  EPA envisions that the first generation e-Manifest would not integrate LDR paperwork.  We believe it is important first to successfully develop the core functions of the system.  Hence, during this initial phase, waste handlers would be required to comply with the LDR requirements using hardcopies.  After the core functions are in good shape, EPA intends to gradually integrate other collections into the system as appropriate.  This could include, for example, LDR paperwork.

Comment: We heard from one commenter on its desire for the system to integrate greater functionality with existing reporting requirements, such as the LDR paperwork requirements (Commenter No. 24).

Response:  EPA thanks the commenter for its questions.  As stated in the response above, EPA envisions that the first generation e-Manifest would not integrate LDR paperwork.  We believe it is important first to successfully develop the core functions of the system.  After the core functions are in good shape, EPA intends to gradually integrate other collections into the system as appropriate, such as LDR paperwork.

Table of Organizations Commenting on the Notice and Commenter Numbers
Commenter Number
Name of Organization Commenting on the Notice
1
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2
New Mexico Environment Department
3
API
4
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
5
Wisconsin Department of Environmental Resources
6
IT Inc
7
Graphic Arts Coalition
8
National Federation of Independent Business
9
IPC
10
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
11
Safety-Kleen Systems Inc.
12
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
13
National Paint and Coatings Association
14
The Dow Chemical Company
15
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
16
American Trucking Association
17
National Automobile Dealers Association
18
U.S. Department of Defense
19
Association of American Railroads
20
Environmental Technology Council
21
Waste Management
22
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
23
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
24
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
25
Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition
26
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
27
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
28
U.S. Department of Energy
29
Onyx Environmental Services, L.L.C.
30
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
31
Alcoa


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 58120]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23025]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 4362-000]

Inman Mills; Notice of Authorization for Continued Project
Operation

    The Riverdale Hydroelectric Project No. 4362 is located on the
Enoree River, in Spartanburg County, South Carolina. The minor license
for Project No. 4362 was issued in September 1982 for a period ending
August 31, 2012. The deadline for filing applications for a subsequent
license was August 31, 2010. Inman Mills, the licensee for Project No.
4362, did not file an application for a subsequent license.\1\ On
August 31, 2010, Lockhart Power Company filed an application for a
subsequent license for the project.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 2006, Commission staff approved transfer of the license
from Inman Mills to Riverdale Development Venture, LLC. 115 FERC ]
62,076 (2006). However, the 2006 order was rescinded in 2008 because
the requirements for the transfer were never completed. 122 FERC ]
62,204 (2008).
    \2\ The application, docketed Project No. 13590, is pending
before the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1) (2006), requires
the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue from
year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee under the terms and
conditions of the prior license until a new license is issued, or the
project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section 15 or any other
applicable section of the FPA. If, as is the case here, the project's
prior license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then,
based on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.
558(c) (2006), and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(b), if, as is also the
case here, the licensee of such project has not filed an application
for a subsequent license, the licensee may be required to continue to
operate the project in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
license after the minor license expires, until the Commission issues
someone else a license for the project or otherwise orders disposition
of the project.
    Notice is hereby given that Inman Mills is authorized to continue
operation of the Riverdale Hydroelectric Project, until such time as
the Commission issues someone else a license for the project or
otherwise orders disposition of the project.

    Dated: September 12, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-23025 Filed 9-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 22, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14793-14794]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05629]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0354]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Extension of a
Currently-Approved Information Collection: Accident Recordkeeping
Requirements

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

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
approval and invites public comment. FMCSA requests approval to extend
the ICR entitled ``Accident Recordkeeping Requirements.'' This ICR
relates to Agency requirements that motor carriers maintain a record of
accidents involving their commercial motor vehicles (CMVs). Motor
carriers are not required to report this data to FMCSA, but must
produce it upon inquiry by authorized Federal, State or local
officials.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before May 22, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System Number FMCSA-2016-0354 by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments see the
Public Participation heading below. Note that all comments received
will be posted without change to www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to www.regulations.gov, and follow the online
instructions for accessing the dockets, or go to the street address
listed above.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket Management System
published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or
you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdfE8-794.pdf.
    Public participation: The Federal eRulemaking Portal is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can obtain electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``help'' section
of the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site. If you want us to notify
you that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope or postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that
appears after submitting comments online. Comments received after the
comment closing date will be included in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Thomas Yager, Chief, Driver and
Carrier Operations Division, Department of Transportation, Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 390.15(b),
requires motor carriers to make certain specified records and
information pertaining to CMV accidents available to an authorized
representative or special agent of the FMCSA upon request or as part of
an inquiry. Motor carriers are required to maintain an ``accident
register'' consisting of information concerning all ``accidents''
involving their CMVs (49 CFR 390.15(b)(see ``Definition: Accident''
below). The following information must be recorded for each accident:
Date, location, driver name, number of injuries, number of fatalities,
and whether certain dangerous hazardous materials were released. In
addition, the motor carrier must maintain copies of all accident
reports required by insurers or governmental entities. Motor carriers
must maintain this information for three years after the date of the
accident. Section 390.15 does not require motor carriers to submit any
information or records to FMCSA or any other party.
    This ICR supports the DOT strategic goal of safety. By requiring
motor carriers to gather and record information concerning CMV
accidents, FMCSA is strengthening its ability to assess the safety
performance of motor carriers. This information is a valuable resource
in Agency initiatives to prevent, and reduce the severity of, CMV
crashes.
    The Agency increases its estimate from 26,700 to 36,157 burden
hours. The regulation has not changed; the increase in burden hours
does not

reflect changes in the requirements for accident recordkeeping. The
increase is due to two revised estimates: (1) The population of motor
carriers subject to the regulation, from 520,000 to 886,122, and (2)
the number of reportable accidents, from 89,000 to 120,522. The Agency
has amended the population of motor carriers to include the accident
recordkeeping burden of intrastate motor carriers. In past estimates,
the Agency had taken the position that the accident recordkeeping of
intrastate carriers occurred as a result of State law. However, the OMB
has directed FMCSA to include such intrastate activities in its IC
estimates, so we do so in this burden estimate statement for the first
time. The Agency estimates that 886,122 interstate and intrastate motor
carriers are subject to accident register requirements (508,367
interstate and 377,755 intrastate motor carriers). The Agency further
estimates that the number of accidents that must be reported by
intrastate or interstate motor carriers is 120,522.
    Title: Accident Recordkeeping Requirements.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0009.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information
collection.
    Respondents: Motor Carriers.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 886,122 motor carriers.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 120,522.
    Estimated Time per Response: 18 minutes.
    Expiration Date: July 31, 2017.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 36,157 hours [120,522 accidents x 18
minutes per response/60 minutes in an hour].
    Definition: ``Accident'' is an occurrence involving a CMV operating
on a public road which results in: (1)A fatality, (2) bodily injury to
a person who, as a result of the injury, receives medical treatment
away from the scene of the accident, or (3) one or more motor vehicles
being towed from the scene (49 CFR 390.5).
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the collection is
necessary for the FMCSA's performance; (2) the accuracy of the
estimated burden; (3) ways for the FMCSA to enhance the quality,
usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4) ways that
the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of the
collected information. The Agency will summarize or include your
comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87 on: March 16, 2017.
G. Kelly Regal,
Associate Administrator for Office of Research and Information
Technology.
[FR Doc. 2017-05629 Filed 3-21-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 4, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68376-68378]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23939]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9183; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-059-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
The Boeing Company Model 707 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted
by analysis of the cam support assemblies of the main cargo door that
indicated the repetitive high frequency eddy current (HFEC) inspections
required by the existing maintenance program are not adequate to detect
cracks before two adjacent cam support assemblies of the main cargo
door could fail. This proposed AD would require repetitive ultrasonic
inspections for cracking of the cam support assemblies of the main
cargo door and replacement if necessary. We are proposing this AD to
detect and correct cracking of the cam support assemblies of the main
cargo door. Such cracking could result in reduced structural integrity
of the main cargo door and consequent rapid decompression of the
airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 18,
2016.

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 http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management, P.O. Box
3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
extension 1; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9183.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9183; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will
be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chandra Ramdoss, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification
Office (ACO), 3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:
562-627-5239; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-9183;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-059-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received a report indicating that the analysis of the cam
support assemblies of the main cargo door, part numbers 69-23588-5 and
69-23588-6, indicated that the repetitive HFEC inspections required by
the existing maintenance program are not adequate to detect cracks
before two adjacent cam support assemblies of the main cargo door could
fail. This condition, if not corrected, could result in reduced
structural integrity of the main cargo door and consequent rapid
decompression of the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3542, dated February
12, 2016. The service information describes procedures for an
ultrasonic inspection of the cam support assemblies of the main cargo
door for cracking, and replacement if necessary. This service
information is reasonably available because the interested parties have
access to it through their normal course of business or by the means
identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously, except as discussed
under ``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the Service
Information.'' For information on the procedures and compliance times,
see this service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9183.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3542, dated February 12, 2016,
only affects Model 707-300B and -300C airplanes. The applicability of
this proposed AD extends to all Model 707 airplanes. Boeing 707 Alert
Service Bulletin A3542, dated February 12, 2016, only affects certain
part numbers. We are extending the list of affected part numbers to
include 69-23588-1 and 69-23588-2, which are not referenced in Boeing
707 Alert Service Bulletin A3542, dated February 12, 2016. These
differences exist to ensure all affected parts are inspected in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing 707 Alert
Service Bulletin A3542, dated February 12, 2016. For all airplanes
affected by this AD, including airplanes not listed in the effectivity
of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3542, dated February 12, 2016,
compliance with paragraph (h) of this AD must be done using Boeing 707
Alert Service Bulletin A3542, dated February 12, 2016. Therefore, an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval is not necessary for
those airplanes if Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3542, dated
February 12, 2016, is used. This difference has been coordinated with
Boeing.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 12 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
             Action                    Labor cost         Parts cost      Cost per product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection......................  6 work-hours x $85               $0   $510 per inspection  $22,950 per
                                   per hour = $510                       cycle.               inspection cycle.
                                   per inspection
                                   cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

                                               On-Condition Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per
                    Action                                Labor cost               Parts cost        product
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement..................................  60 work-hours x $85 per hour =          $14,107         $19,207.
                                                $5,100.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

    The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2016-9183; Directorate
Identifier 2016-NM-059-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 18, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 707-100 Long
Body, -200, -100B Long Body, and -100B Short Body series airplanes;
and Model 707-300, -300B, -300C, and -400 series airplanes;
certificated in any category,

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 52, Doors.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by analysis of the cam support assemblies
of the main cargo door that indicated the repetitive high frequency
eddy current (HFEC) inspections required by the existing maintenance
program are not adequate to detect cracks before two adjacent cam
support assemblies of the main cargo door could fail. We are issuing
this AD to detect and correct cracking of the cam support assemblies
of the main cargo door. Such cracking could result in reduced
structural integrity of the main cargo door and consequent rapid
decompression of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection To Determine Part Numbers

    At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and
(g)(2) of this AD: Inspect the cam support assemblies of the main
cargo door to determine whether part number (P/N) 69-23588-1, 69-
23588-2, 69-23588-5, 69-23588-6, 69-23588-9, or 69-23588-10 is
installed. A review of airplane maintenance records is acceptable in
lieu of this inspection if the part number(s) of the cam support
assemblies of the main cargo door can be conclusively determined
from that review.
    (1) Before the accumulation of 18,000 total flight cycles.
    (2) Within 1,790 flight cycles or 24 months after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(h) Repetitive Inspections for the Cam Support Assemblies of the Main
Cargo Door and Corrective Actions

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
any cam support assembly of the main cargo door having P/N 69-23588-
1, 69-23588-2, 69-23588-5, 69-23588-6, 69-23588-9, or 69-23588-10 is
determined to be installed: Except as required by paragraph (i) of
this AD, at the applicable time specified in paragraph 1.E.,
``Compliance,'' of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3542, dated
February 12, 2016, do an ultrasonic inspection to detect cracking of
the affected cam support assemblies of the main cargo door, and do
all applicable replacements, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3542, dated
February 12, 2016. Do all applicable replacements before further
flight. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the applicable time
specified in paragraph 1.E., ``Compliance,'' of Boeing 707 Alert
Service Bulletin A3542, dated February 12, 2016.

(i) Service Information Exception

    Where Boeing 707 Alert Service Bulletin A3542, dated February
12, 2016, specifies a compliance time ``after the original issue
date of this service bulletin,'' this AD requires compliance within
the specified compliance time after the effective date of this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Los Angeles Aircraft Certification Office
(ACO), FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance
with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or
local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in paragraph (k)(1) of this AD.
Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Los Angeles ACO, to make those findings. To be approved,
the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation
must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval
must specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) For service information that contains steps that are labeled
as Required for Compliance (RC), the provisions of paragraphs
(j)(4)(i) and (j)(4)(ii) of this AD apply.
    (i) The steps labeled as RC, including substeps under an RC step
and any figures identified in an RC step, must be done to comply
with the AD. If a step or substep is labeled ``RC Exempt,'' then the
RC requirement is removed from that step or substep. An AMOC is
required for any deviations to RC steps, including substeps and
identified figures.
    (ii) Steps not labeled as RC may be deviated from using accepted
methods in accordance with the operator's maintenance or inspection
program without obtaining approval of an AMOC, provided the RC
steps, including substeps and identified figures, can still be done
as specified, and the airplane can be put back in an airworthy
condition.

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Chandra Ramdoss,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Branch, ANM-120L, FAA, Los Angeles ACO,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5239; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, WA 98124-2207; telephone: 206-544-
5000, extension 1; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; Internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind
Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on September 27, 2016.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-23939 Filed 10-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P