[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 173 (Tuesday, September 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53914-53915]
[FR Doc No: 2015-22573]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2015-0074; Notice 1]

Baby Jogger, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Baby Jogger, LLC (Baby Jogger), has determined that certain
Baby Jogger rear-facing infant seats and bases do not fully comply with
paragraphs S5.5, S5.6, S5.8, and S8.1 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. Baby Jogger has
filed an appropriate report dated June 4, 2015, pursuant to 49 CFR part
573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is October 8,
2015.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), Baby Jogger submitted a petition for an exemption
from the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301
on the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety.
    This notice of receipt of Baby Jogger's petition is published under
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.

II. Child Restraints Involved

    Affected are approximately 15,103 of the following Baby Jogger
rear-facing infant seats and bases manufactured between November 3,
2014 and April 30, 2015:
     City GO Infant Car Seat/Model No. BJ64510
     City GO Infant Car Seat/Model No. BJ64529
     City GO Base for Infant Car Seat/Model No. BJ80400
     City GO Base for Infant Car Seat/Model No. BJ61500
     City Mini Infant Cars Seat/Stroller Travel System/Model
No.BJ72510
     Vue Lite Infant Car Seat/Stroller Travel System/Model No.
BJ70411
     Vue Lite Infant Car Seat/Stroller Travel System/Model No.
BJ70424
     Vue Lite Infant Car Seat/Stroller Travel System/Model No.
BJ70431

III. Noncompliances

    Baby Jogger explains that the affected child restraints do not
fully comply with the numerous paragraphs of FMVSS No. 213 for the
following reasons:

    Paragraph S5.5.2--The required information in English is no
smaller than 10 point type, but the Spanish information is smaller
at about 7 point type. This only applies to models BJ64510 and
BJ64529.
    Paragraph S5.5.2(d)--The ``manufactured in address'' on the
label is in about 8 font which is smaller than the required 10 point
type.
    Paragraph S5.5.2(m)--The required ``Child restraints could be
recalled for safety reasons . . .'' text is on a black background
with white text instead of black text on a white background.
    Paragraph S5.5.2(g)(1)--The label has the ``Follow all
instructions. . .'' ahead of the ``Secure this child restraint
statement . . .'' instead of the reverse order as required. This
noncompliance only affects models BJ64510 and BJ64529.
    Paragraph S5.5.2(n)--The label has ``This child restraint is
certified for use in motor vehicles and aircraft.'' Other than the
first word, no words other words are capitalized.
    Paragraph S5.5.2.(k)(3)(ii)--The message area measures 23.4
square cm on models BJ70411, BJ70424 and BJ70431 which is less than
the minimum required message area of 30 square cm.
    Paragraph S5.5.2.(k)(3)(iii)--On models BJ70411, BJ70424 and
BJ70431 the red circle on the required pictogram is 29mm in diameter
which is less than the required 30mm in diameter.
    Paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>--The instruction manuals do not include
reference to the required Web site in the section regarding child
restraint recalls.
    Paragraph S5.6.3--The instruction manuals do not include the
required statement ``A snug strap should not allow any slack . . .''
    Paragraph S5.8.2(a)(1)--The electronic registration form does
not have the required statement ``FOR YOUR CHILD'S CONTINUED SAFETY
. . .''
    Paragraph S5.8.1(b)(2)--Figure 9a requires minimum 10% screen
tint on the lower half of the form. The form is missing the required
tinting.
    Paragraph S8.1--No instructions for installing the system in an
aircraft passenger seat were provided.

IV. Summary of Baby Jogger's Analyses

    Baby Jogger organized its reasoning to substantiate
inconsequentiality into the following five groupings that it believes
are similar issues between the numerous noncompliances:
    a. Information Type Size/Capitalization/Presentation order
    b. Background color
    c. On-Product Label Message Area and Pictogram Sizes
    d. Omitted Information
    e. Spanish Language Type Size
    Refer to Baby Jogger's petition for their complete reasoning and
associated

illustrations. To view the petition and all supporting documents log
onto the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ``NHTSA-2015-0074.''
    Baby Jogger additionally informed NHTSA that they have corrected
all labeling noncompliances and that all future productions of the
infant car seat/stroller systems and stand-alone units will be in full
compliance with FMVSS No. 213.
    In summation, Baby Jogger believes that the described noncompliance
of the subject infant car seat/stroller systems and standalone units is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its petition, to
exempt Baby Jogger from providing recall notification of noncompliance
as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance
as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject child restraints that Baby
Jogger no longer controlled at the time it determined that the
noncompliance existed. However, any decision on this petition does not
relieve child restraint distributors and dealers of the prohibitions on
the sale, offer for sale, or introduction or delivery for introduction
into interstate commerce of the noncompliant child restraints under
their control after Baby Jogger notified them that the subject
noncompliance existed.

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

Jeffrey Giuseppe,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2015-22573 Filed 9-4-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 52 (Wednesday, March 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14185-14187]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06109]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74491; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-025]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule

March 12, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 2, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule, effective March
2, 2015. Currently, the Exchange assesses a $0.60 per contract fee for
electronic executions by broker-dealers, non-Trading Permit Holders
(``non-TPHs'') Market-Makers, Professionals/Voluntary Professionals and
Joint Back-Offices (``JBOs'') in non-Penny Pilot equity, ETF, ETN and
index options (excluding Underlying Symbol List A \3\) classes. The
Exchange proposes increasing this transaction fee from $0.60 to $0.65
per contract. The Exchange notes that this increase is in line with the
amount assessed by another exchange for similar transactions.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Underlying Symbol List A consists of OEX, XEO, SPX
(including SPXW), SPXpm, SRO, VIX, VXST, Volatility Indexes and
binary options.
    \4\ See NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC (``PHLX'') Pricing Schedule, Section
II, Multiply Listed Options Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also seeks to append Footnote 16 to ``Clearing Trading
Permit Holder Proprietary'' rows in the equity, ETF, ETN, Index,
Specified Proprietary Index Options and Mini-Options rate tables.
Footnote 16 of the Fees Schedule provides that ``Broker-Dealer
transaction fees apply to broker-dealer orders (orders with ``B''
origin code), non-Trading Permit Holder market-maker orders (orders
with ``N'' origin code), orders from specialists in the underlying
security (orders with ``Y'' origin code) and certain orders with ``F''
origin code (orders from OCC members that are not CBOE Trading Permit
Holders).'' The Exchange believes appending Footnote 16 to the row in
which the ``F'' origin code is listed clarifies that, in some
instances, orders with the ``F'' origin code designation will be
assessed Broker-Dealer transaction fees if the orders are from the
Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') members that are not CBOE
Trading Permit Holders (``TPHs''). The Exchange notes no substantive
changes are being made by this change, rather the Exchange merely seeks
to add further clarification and alleviate potential confusion.
    On January 2, 2015, the Exchange established an FBW fee for an
updated version of FBW (``FBW2''), which the Exchange had anticipated
making

available shortly thereafter to all TPHs.\5\ The Exchange at that time
also proposed adopting a fee waiver for the months of January and
February 2015, as well as provide that, after March 1, 2015, the
monthly fee for FBW2 login IDs would be waived for the first month.\6\
The Exchange notes that FBW2 has not yet become available to TPHs, but
that it intends to make it available shortly. In light of this delay,
the Exchange proposes to delete the now outdated language and extend
the fee waiver for the months of March and April 2015. Additionally,
the Exchange will provide that after May 1, 2015 (instead of March 1,
2015) the monthly fee for FBW2 login IDs will be waived for the first
month.\7\ The purpose of the proposed fee waivers is to give new users
time to become familiar with and fully acclimated to the new FBW
workstation functionality. The Exchange notes that after May 2015 (and
absent an applicable fee waiver noted above), TPHs will be charged each
of $400 for FBW and FBW2 (i.e., total of $800) if such users continue
to use both FBW and FBW2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74134 (January 26,
2015), 80 FR 20 (January 30, 2015) (SR-CBOE-2015-005). The adopted
fee for FBW2 is the same as the existing FBW fee (i.e., $400 per
month (per login ID).
    \6\ For example, if a user added a new login ID in March 2015,
the user would have received a fee waiver for that login ID for
March 2015.
    \7\ For example, if a user adds a new login ID in May 2015, the
user would receive a fee waiver for that login ID for May 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\8\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitation
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\10\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Increasing the fee for electronic executions by broker-dealers,
non-TPHs, [sic] Market-Makers, Professionals/Voluntary Professionals
and JBOs in non-Penny Pilot equity, ETF, ETN and Index options
(excluding Underlying Symbol List A) classes is reasonable because the
proposed fee amount is in line with the amount assessed by another
exchange for similar transactions.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See PHLX Pricing Schedule, Section II, Multiply Listed
Options Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that this proposed change is equitable and
not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will assess broker-
dealers, non-TPH Market-Makers, Professionals/Voluntary Professionals
and JBOs the same electronic options transaction fees in non-Penny
Pilot options classes. The Exchange notes that it does not assess
Customers the electronic options transaction fees in non-Penny Pilot
options because Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange
for the benefit of all market participants. Specifically, Customer
liquidity benefits all market participants by providing more trading
opportunities, which attracts Market-Makers. An increase in the
activity of these market participants in turn facilitates tighter
spreads, which may cause an additional corresponding increase in order
flow from other market participants. The Exchange notes that Market-
Makers are assessed lower electronic options transaction fees in non-
Penny Pilot options as compared to Professionals, JBOs, Broker Dealers
and non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Makers because they have
obligations to the market and regulatory requirements, which normally
do not apply to other market participants (e.g., obligations to make
continuous markets). Further, Market-Makers pay a $0.65 per contract
Marketing Fee for many non-Penny Pilot transactions, which broker-
dealers, non-Trading Permit Holder Market-Makers, Professionals/
Voluntary Professionals and JBOs do not pay.\12\ Clearing Trading
Permit Holder Proprietary orders are assessed lower options transaction
fees in non-Penny Pilot options because they also have obligations,
which normally do not apply to other market participants (e.g., must
have higher capital requirements, clear trades for other market
participants, must be members of OCC). Accordingly, the differentiation
between electronic transaction fees for Customers, Market-Makers,
Clearing Trading Permit Holders and other market participants
recognizes the differing obligations and contributions made to the
liquidity and trading environment on the Exchange by these market
participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See CBOE Fees Schedule, Marketing Fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assessing higher fees for transactions in electronic, non-Penny
Pilot classes is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because in
non-Penny Pilot classes the spreads are naturally larger than in Penny
Pilot classes, and these wider spreads allow for greater profit
potential. Limiting this fee increase to electronic transactions is
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because electronic trading
requires constant system development and maintenance.
    The Exchange always strives for clarity in its rules and Fees
Schedule, so that market participants may best understand how rules and
fees apply. The Exchange believes appending Footnote 16 to ``Clearing
Trading Permit Holder Proprietary'' in the rates tables alleviates
potential confusion. The alleviation of potential confusion will remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system, and, in general, protect investors and the
public interest.
    Finally, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to provide a waiver
for the months of March and April 2015 because it allows new users time
to become familiar with and fully acclimated to the new FBW
functionality and incentivizes the users to begin this process as soon
as the new functionality becomes available. The Exchange believes it is
reasonable to provide a waiver for the first month for a new login ID
beginning May 1, 2015, because it allows a new user after April 2015 to
fully acclimate to the new FBW functionality. Additionally, the
Exchange notes it is merely extending existing waivers to correspond
with a delayed launch of FBW2.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because, while the fee
increase will apply only to certain market participants, market
participants have different obligations and different circumstances (as
described in the ``Statutory Basis'' section above). The Exchange does
not believe that the proposed rule change relating to the FBW 2 fee
waivers will impose any burden on competition that

is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the
Act, because it applies to all Trading Permit Holders. The Exchange
believes this proposal will not cause an unnecessary burden on
intermarket competition because the electronic non-Penny Pilot
transaction fee and fee amount is similar to fees assessed at other
exchanges.\13\ Additionally, the proposal relating to the FBW2 fee
waivers only affect trading on CBOE. To the extent that the proposed
changes make CBOE a more attractive marketplace for market participants
at other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become CBOE
market participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See e.g., PHLX Pricing, Section II, Multiply Listed Options
Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \14\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \15\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2015-025 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-025. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-025 and should be
submitted on or before April 8, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06109 Filed 3-17-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


Following a single foliar application to immature plants, parent ( 65 75% TRR) was the only component detected in foliage at 14 DAT. Following a single postemergence soil application, 14C residues in tubers were too low for analysis, and the major component detected in foliage ( 90 DAT) was the sugar conjugate Metabolite 1 ( 28 30% TRR). Parent also accounted for 10 11% of the TRR in foliage and Metabolites 2, 3, and 6 each accounted for 3 17% of the TRR ( 0.001 0.011 ppm). Following the last of six broadcast foliar applications, the primary component identified in foliage at 14 DAT was parent ( 88 90% TRR), along with minor amounts of Metabolites 1, 2, and 6 ( 0.8 3.2% TRR). Treatment with   glucosidase and LC/ MS analysis identified Metabolites 1, 2, and 6 as sugar conjugates of ring hydroxylated metabolites. In tubers, the primary metabolites detected were Unknown Metabolites 4 ( 40% TRR) and 5 ( 23% TRR), along with trace amounts of parent ( 4.7% TRR). Treatment with   glucosidase suggests that Metabolites 4 and 5 are also sugar conjugates; however, concentrations of these metabolites were too low (< 0.006 ppm) for additional analysis.

In each test, the metabolism of the two 14C labels was qualitatively and quantitatively similar, indicating that the parent molecule remains relatively intact on foliage. In tubers, two major metabolites (> 10%) were observed, but at very low absolute levels (< 0.006 ppm). In potatoes, the metabolism of benthiavalicarb occurs primarily via direct hydroxylation of the phenyl ring or defluorination and hydroxylation of the phenyl ring. The hydroxylated metabolites are subsequently conjugated with sugars. In addition, chiral analysis of foliage extracts indicates that there is no isomeric conversion of the active R L isomer to other stereoisomers ( SL, RD, or SD).

2.1.6. Tabular Summary of Plant Study No. 3 TABLE A. 4. Distribution of the 14C Residues in Potato Foliage Harvested 90 Days After a Single Soil Application of [ 14C] Benthiavalicarb at ~ 0.089 lb ai/ A.

[ Val 14C] label [ Bz 14C] label TRR = 0.0619 ppm TRR = 0.0488 ppm Metabolite Fraction 1 % TRR ppm % TRR ppm ACN extract 84.8 0.0525 84.4 0.0412 Water extract ( combined with ACN extract) 5.1 0.0032 4.5 0.0022 EtOAc ( HPLC analysis) 61.4 0.0380 60.9 0.0297 Parent 10.9 0.0067 8.9 0.0043 Met 1 20.8 0.0128 20.5 0.0100 Met 2 10.7 0.0067 7.4 0.0036 Met 3 5.2 0.0032 2.6 0.0013 Met 6 8.8 0.0055 8.1 0.0040 Other Unknowns ( each   7.2% TRR) 4.6 0.0029 13.2 0.0064 Page 84 of 87 TABLE A. 4. Distribution of the 14C Residues in Potato Foliage Harvested 90 Days After a Single Soil Application of [ 14C] Benthiavalicarb at ~ 0.089 lb ai/ A.

[ Val 14C] label [ Bz 14C] label TRR = 0.0619 ppm TRR = 0.0488 ppm Metabolite Fraction 1 % TRR ppm % TRR ppm Unallocated background 0.4 0.0003 0.2 0.0001 Aqueous ( HPLC analysis) 28.4 0.0176 28.0 0.0137 Parent ND  1.3 0.0006 Met 1 8.7 0.0054 7.4 0.0036 Met 2 3.9 0.0024 3.2 0.0015 Met 3 0.5 0.0003 ND

Met 6 8.4 0.0052 7.8 0.0038 Other Unknowns ( each   1.7% TRR) 6.7 0.0041 8.1 0.0040 Unallocated background 0.1 0.0001 0.2 0.0001 Acetone 1.3 0.0008 1.4 0.0007 Residual Solids 8.8 0.0055 9.8 0.0048 1 Metabolites were quantified by HPLC and identified by LC/ MS. Structures for the parent and metabolites are presented in Table C. 3.1 ND = not detected.

3.0 Nature of the Residue in Livestock No significant animal feed items are associated with grape and tomato commodities, as a result, the nature of the residue in livestock is not relevant to this assessment.

4.0 Confined Rotational Crop Studies As all proposed uses in this tolerance petition are on imported commodities, confined rotational crop studies are not relevant to this assessment. Page 85 of 87 5.0 Analytical Methodology Table A. 5. Analytical Methodology Method Name Applicable Commodities Analytes Extraction Solvent( s) Clean up Step( s) Determinative Step LLMV* ppm LOD, ppm RCC 665943 Grapes R L and S L isomers Acetone, Hexane Amino SPE Cartridge GC/ NPD 0.01 0.001 RCC 665943 Grape juice, raisins, wine R L and S L isomers Acetone, Hexane Amino SPE Cartridge GC/ NPD 0.01 0.002 RCC 665943 Tomatoes and all processed tomato commodities R L and S L isomers Acetone, Hexane Amino SPE Cartridge GC/ NPD 0.01 0.002 * Although the submitted reports state that the LOQ was 0.01 ppm, an inspection of the chromatograms indicates that the LOQ would probably be in the range of 0.002 0.003 ppm for the various grape and tomato commodities. In many cases residue values were reported as being between 0.001 and 0.01 ppm ( i. e., actual values were reported as 0.002 ppm, 0.003 ppm, etc.). The reporting of such values is further evidence that the LOQ is indeed below 0.01 ppm.

6.0 Summary of Magnitude of Residue Studies 6.1 Plants Table A. 6. Summary of Magnitude of Residue Studies for Benthiavalicarb R L Isomer S L Isomer Combined Residues Commodity App Rate x # of App ( total)

( lb ai/ A) PHI days No of trials Range of Residues ( ppm) Avg. ( ppm) Range of Residues ( ppm) Avg. ( ppm) Range of Residues ( ppm) Avg. ( ppm)

Grapes 0.031x6 ( 0.188) 0 22 0.020 0.226 0.081 < 0.001 0.023 0.0068 0.031 0.243 0.088 Grapes 0.031x6 ( 0.188) 3 4 0.044 0.073 0.060 0.006 0.014 0.0090 0.050 0.081 0.069 Grapes 0.031x6 ( 0.188) 7 22 0.023 0.158 0.0654 < 0.001 0.021 0.0043 0.024 0.168 0.070 Grapes 0.031x6 ( 0.188) 14 22 < 0.001 0.170 0.0515 < 0.001 0.025 0.0034 < 0.002 0.195 0.055 Grapes 0.031x6 ( 0.188) 21 22 0.007 0.138 0.0459 < 0.001 0.019 0.0029 0.008 0.157 0.049 Page 86 of 87 Table A. 6. Summary of Magnitude of Residue Studies for Benthiavalicarb R L Isomer S L Isomer Combined Residues Commodity App Rate x # of App ( total)

( lb ai/ A) PHI days No of trials Range of Residues ( ppm) Avg. ( ppm) Range of Residues ( ppm) Avg. ( ppm) Range of Residues ( ppm) Avg. ( ppm)

Grapes* 0.031x6 ( 0.188) 28 18 0.011 0.140 0.0424 < 0.001 0.008 0.0036 0.012 0.161 0.046 Grapes ( Total)** 0.031x6 ( 0.188) 28 34 0.011 0.208 0.0621 < 0.001 0.061 0.0077 0.012 0.269 0.070 Greenhouse Tomatoes 0.067x6 ( 0.402) 0 4 0.050 0.156 0.110 < 0.002 < 0.002 0.002 0.052 0.158 0.11 Greenhouse Tomatoes 0.067x6 ( 0.402) 1 4 0.023 0.161 0.0893 < 0.002 < 0.002 0.002 0.025 0.163 0.091 Greenhouse Tomatoes 0.067x6 ( 0.402) 3 9 0.039 0.254 0.108 < 0.002 0.014 0.0049 0.041 0.268 0.11 Greenhouse Tomatoes 0.067x6 ( 0.402) 7 4 0.041 0.135 0.0898 < 0.002 < 0.002 0.002 0.043 0.137 0.092 Outdoor Tomatoes 0.067x6 ( 0.402) 0 3 0.017 0.058 0.0367 < 0.002 < 0.002 0.002 0.019 0.060 0.039 Outdoor Tomatoes 0.067x6 ( 0.402) 1 3 0.019 0.049 0.0293 < 0.002 < 0.002 0.002 0.021 0.051 0.031 Outdoor Tomatoes 0.067x6 ( 0.402) 3 3 < 0.002 0.022 0.0127 < 0.002 < 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.024 0.015 Outdoor Tomatoes 7 3 < 0.002 0.013 0.0057 < 0.002 < 0.002 0.002 0.004 0.015 0.0077 Grapes*: Grape samples from the residue decline studies only. Grapes ( Total)**: Grape samples from all studies including the residue decline studies. Trials in bold print are those performed at a 1x application rate and the proposed PHI.

6.2 Livestock As no significant animal feed items are associated with grape and tomato commodities, livestock feeding studies are not relevant to this assessment.

7.0 International Considerations There are currently no Canadian, Mexican, Codex, or EU MRLs for benthiavalicarb. The registrant has proposed EU MRLs of 0.2 ppm for grapes, 0.3 ppm for tomatoes, and 0.01 ppm for potatoes. The MRL status sheet is attached. Page 87 of 87 8.0 Environmental Degradation As all proposed uses in this tolerance petition are on imported commodities, environmental degradation is not relevant to this assessment.

INTERNATIONAL RESIDUE LIMIT STATUS Chemical Name: Isopropyl[( S) 1 {[( 1R) 1( 6 fluoro 1,3 benzothiazol 2 yl) ethyl] carbamoyl} 2 methylpropyl] carbamate Common Name: Benthiavalicarb Isopropyl   Proposed tolerance  Reevaluated tolerance  Other Date: 10/ 18/ 2005 Codex Status ( Maximum Residue Limits) U. S. Tolerances XNo Codex proposal step 6 or above  No Codex proposal step 6 or above for the crops requested Petition Number: 3E6545 DP Barcode: D Other Identifier:

Reviewer/ Branch: Doug Dotson/ RAB2 Residue definition ( step 8/ CXL): Not applicable Residue definition: parent benthiavalicarb isopropyl Crop ( s) MRL ( mg/ kg) Crop( s) Tolerance ( ppm)

Grape 0.20 Grape, Raisin 1.0 Tomato 0.45 Tomato Paste 0.45 Limits for Canada Limits for Mexico X No Limits  No Limits for the crops requested XNo Limits  No Limits for the crops requested Residue definition: N/ A Residue definition: N/ A Crop( s) MRL ( mg/ kg) Crop( s) MRL ( mg/ kg)

Notes/ Special Instructions: S. Funk, 10/ 19/ 2005.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 215 (Monday, November 7, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78080-78083]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26520]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9304; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-028-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11 airplanes.
This proposed AD was prompted by reports of aileron and rudder control
cables which may have tensions that are beyond allowable limits. This
proposed AD would require revising the maintenance or inspection
program to incorporate certification maintenance requirement tasks that
introduce functional tests of the control cable tension. We are
proposing this AD to detect and correct out-of-tolerance tension in the
control cables, which, with certain system failures and environmental
conditions, could result in reduced controllability of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by December 22,
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
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec
H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.bombardier.com. You
may view this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9304; 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
Operations office (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will

be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cesar Gomez, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe and Mechanical Systems Branch, ANE-171, FAA, New York Aircraft
Certification Office (ACO), 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury,
NY 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-9304;
Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-028-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 based on 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

    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian Airworthiness Directive CF-
2016-06R1, dated July 25, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory
Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ''the MCAI''), to correct an
unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-
700-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Recent in-service inspections have shown that aileron and rudder
control cables may have tensions beyond allowable limits. Review of
the technical documentation found that there are no maintenance
tasks to detect and rectify out-of-tolerance tensions on these
cables. Out of tolerance cables in combinations with certain system
failures and environmental conditions could result in the degraded
aircraft controllability.
    * * * [This Canadian] AD was issued to mandate a revision to the
approved maintenance schedule [maintenance or inspection program, as
applicable] to introduce cable tension check [e.g., functional
test,] as [certification maintenance requirement] tasks.

    You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9304.
    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections).
Compliance with these actions is required by 14 CFR 91.403(c). For
airplanes that have been previously modified, altered, or repaired in
the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator may not be able
to accomplish the actions described in the revisions. In this
situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must request
approval for an alternative method of compliance according to paragraph
(j)(1) of this proposed AD. The request should include a description of
changes to the required actions that will ensure the continued
operational safety of the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed the following Bombardier, Inc. service information:
     Temporary Revision (TR) 5-2-10, dated November 24, 2015,
to Part 2, Section 5-10-40, of Bombardier Global Express XRS BD-700
Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
     TR 5-2-15, dated November 24, 2015, to Part 2, Section 5-
10-40, of Bombardier Global 6000 GL 6000 Time Limits/Maintenance
Checks.
     TR 5-2-15, dated November 24, 2015, to Part 2, Section 5-
10-40, of Bombardier Global 5000 GL 5000 Featuring Global Vision Flight
Deck--Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
     TR 5-2-16, dated November 24, 2015, to Part 2, Section 5-
10-40, of Bombardier Global 5000 BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks.
     TR 5-2-47, dated November 24, 2015, to Part 2, Section 5-
10-40, of Bombardier Global Express BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance
Checks.
    The service information identifies airworthiness limitation tasks
for functional tests of the cable tension of the aileron and rudder
control cables. 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 and Requirements of This AD

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 60 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance or Inspection Program     1 work-hours x $85 per               $0              $85           $5,100
 Revision.                             hour = $85 per
                                       airplane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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):

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2016-9304; Directorate Identifier
2016-NM-028-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 22, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc. Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-
700-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, serial numbers
9002 through 9743 inclusive, and 9998.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of aileron and rudder control
cables which may have tensions that are beyond allowable limits. We
are issuing this AD to detect and correct out-of-tolerance tension
in the control cables, which, with certain system failures and
environmental conditions, could result in reduced controllability of
the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (TLMC)--Maintenance or Inspection
Program Revision

    Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate
certification maintenance requirement (CMR) tasks 27-11-35-101, 27-
11-35-102, and 27-21-27-101 (for functional tests of the control
cable tension) as specified in the applicable service information in
paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(5) of this AD. The initial compliance
time for doing the tasks is specified in paragraph (h) of this AD.
When the applicable temporary revision (TR) has been included in
general revisions of the TLMC, the general revisions may be inserted
in the maintenance or inspection program, and the applicable TR may
be removed, provided the relevant information in the general
revision is identical to that in the applicable TR.
    (1) TR 5-2-10, dated November 24, 2015, to Part 2, Section 5-10-
40, of Bombardier Global Express XRS BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance
Checks (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).
    (2) TR 5-2-15, dated November 24, 2015, to Part 2, Section 5-10-
40, of Bombardier Global 6000 GL 6000 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks
(for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).
    (3) TR 5-2-47, dated November 24, 2015, to Part 2, Section 5-10-
40, of Bombardier Global Express BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance
Checks (for Model BD-700-1A10 airplanes).
    (4) TR 5-2-15, dated November 24, 2015, to Part 2, Section 5-10-
40, of Bombardier Global 5000 GL 5000 Featuring Global Vision Flight
Deck--Time Limits/Maintenance Checks (for Model BD-700-1A11
airplanes).
    (5) TR 5-2-16, dated November 24, 2015, to Part 2, Section 5-10-
40, of Bombardier Global 5000 BD-700 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks
(for Model BD-700-1A11 airplanes).

(h) Initial Compliance Times for CMR Tasks

    The initial compliance times for doing the CMR tasks identified
in paragraph (g) of this AD are at the applicable times specified in
paragraphs (h)(1), (h)(2), and (h)(3) of this AD, or within 30 days
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.
    (1) For airplanes having serial numbers (S/Ns) 9002 through 9694
inclusive, and 9998: Within 15 months after the effective date of
this AD; or within 30 months since the date of issuance of the
original Canadian airworthiness certificate or the date of issuance
of the original Canadian export certificate of airworthiness;
whichever occurs first.
    (2) For airplanes having S/Ns 9695 through 9743 inclusive that
have had aileron and/or rudder control cable replacement and the
aileron and rudder control cables were rigged as specified in any
applicable Bombardier aircraft maintenance manual (AMM) revision
earlier than the revision date shown in paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through
(h)(2)(v) of this AD or the AMM revision date is unknown: Within 15
months after the effective date of this AD; or within 30 months
since the date of issuance of the original Canadian airworthiness
certificate or the date of issuance of the original Canadian export
certificate of airworthiness; whichever occurs first.
    (i) GL 700 AMM, Revision 67, dated August 6, 2015 (for Model BD-
700-1A10 airplanes).
    (ii) GL XRS AMM, Revision 45, dated August 6, 2015 (for Model
BD-700-1A10 airplanes).
    (iii) GL 6000 AMM, Revision 15, dated August 6, 2015 (for Model
BD-700-1A10 airplanes).
    (iv) GL 5000 AMM, Revision 48, August 6, 2015 (for Model BD-700-
1A11 airplanes).
    (v) GL 5000 GVFD AMM, Revision 15, August 6, 2015 (for Model BD-
700-1A11 airplanes).
    (3) For airplanes other than those identified in paragraphs
(h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD: Within 30 months since the date of
issuance of the original Canadian airworthiness certificate or the
date of issuance of the original Canadian export certificate of
airworthiness.

(i) No Alternative Actions and Intervals

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

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York ACO, ANE-170, 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 ACO, send it to ATTN: Program
Manager, Continuing Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600
Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone: 516-228-
7300; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, FAA; or TCCA; or Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval
Organization (DAO). If approved by the DAO, the approval must
include the DAO-authorized signature.

(k) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2016-06 R1, dated July 25, 2016, for related
information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket
No. FAA-2016-9304.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 514-
855-7401; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet: http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on October 26, 2016.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-26520 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 136 (Monday, July 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42795-42796]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15252]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2022-0052 (Notice No. 2022-11)]

Hazardous Materials: Information Collection Activities

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA
invites comments on information collections pertaining to hazardous
materials transportation for which PHMSA intends to request renewal and
extension from the Office of Management and Budget. Additionally, we
note that on May 3, 2022, a notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on these information collections was published in
the Federal Register, and PHMSA did not receive any comments on it.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
August 17, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the information
collections should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice
to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find these particular information
collections by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
    We invite comments on: (1) whether the collections of information
are 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 information collections; (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.
    Docket: For access to the Dockets to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Andrews or T. Glenn Foster,
Standards and Rulemaking Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 1320.8 (d), title 5, Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 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
information collection requests PHMSA previously published in a 60-day
notice \1\ seeking comments and is now submitting to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for renewal and extension.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See the 60-day notice published under Docket No. PHMSA-2022-
0052 (Notice No. 2022-09), on May 3, 2022 [87 FR 26259] at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/05/03/2022-09408/hazardous-materials-information-collection-activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These information collections are contained in 49 CFR 171.6 of the
Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171 through 180).
PHMSA has revised burden estimates, where appropriate, to reflect
current reporting levels or adjustments based on changes in proposed or
final rules published since the information collection was last
approved. The following information is provided for each information
collection: (1) title of the information collection, including former
title if a change is being made; (2) OMB control number; (3) summary of
the information collection activity; (4) description of affected
public; (5) estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping
burden; and (6) frequency of collection. PHMSA will request a 3-year
term of approval for the information collection activity and will
publish a notice in the Federal Register alerting the public to OMB's
approval.
    PHMSA requests comments on the following information collection:
    Title: Radioactive (RAM) Transportation Requirements.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0510.
    Summary: This information collection consolidates and describes the
information collection provisions in the HMR involving the
transportation of radioactive materials in commerce. Information
collection requirements for RAM include: documenting testing and
engineering evaluations for packages, documenting DOT 7A packages,
revalidating foreign competent authority certifications, providing
specific written instruction of exclusive use shipment controls,
providing written instructions for exclusive use shipment controls,
obtaining U.S. competent authority for package design, registering with
U.S. competent authority as user of a package, and requesting a U.S.

competent authority for a special form of radioactive material. The
following information collections and their burdens are associated with
this OMB Control Number:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Total annual      Hours per     Total annual
             Information collection                 Respondents      responses       response      burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document Test and Engineering Evaluation or                   50             100              40           4,000
 Comparative Data for Packaging--Reporting......
DOT Specification 7A Package Documentation--                  50             100              80           8,000
 Reporting......................................
DOT Specification 7A Package Documentation--                  50             500          0.0833           41.67
 Recordkeeping..................................
Revalidation of Foreign Competent Authority                   25              25              80           2,000
 Certification--Reporting.......................
Offeror Providing Specific Written Instruction               100           2,000             0.5           1,000
 of Exclusive Use Shipment Controls to the
 Carrier--Reporting.............................
Offeror Obtaining U.S. Competent Authority for                10              40               2              80
 Package Design--Reporting......................
Register with U.S. Competent Authority as User                25              50             0.5              25
 of a Package--Reporting........................
Request for a U.S. Competent Authority as                     10             100               2             200
 Required by the IAEA Regulations for Special
 Form--Reporting................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected Public: Shippers and carriers of radioactive materials in
commerce.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden

    Number of Respondents: 320.
    Total Annual Responses: 2,915.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 15,346.67.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.
    Title: Subsidiary Hazard Class and Number/Type of Packagings.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0613.
    Summary: The HMR require that shipping papers and emergency
response information accompany each shipment of hazardous materials in
commerce. Shipping papers serve as a principal means of identifying
hazardous materials during transportation emergencies. Firefighters,
police, and other emergency response personnel are trained to obtain
the DOT shipping papers and emergency response information when
responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies. The
availability of accurate information concerning hazardous materials
being transported significantly improves response efforts in these
types of emergencies.
    In addition to the basic shipping description information on
shipping papers, we also require the subsidiary hazard class or
subsidiary division number(s) to be entered in parentheses following
the primary hazard class or division number on shipping papers. This
requirement was originally required only by transportation by vessel.
However, the lack of such a requirement posed problems for motor
carriers regarding compliance with segregation, separation, and
placarding requirements, as well as posing a safety hazard. For
example, in the event the motor vehicle becomes involved in an
accident, when the hazardous materials being transported include a
subsidiary hazard such as ``dangerous when wet'' or a subsidiary hazard
requiring more stringent requirements than the primary hazard, there is
no indication of the subsidiary hazards on the shipping papers and no
indication of the subsidiary risks on placards. Under circumstances
such as motor vehicles being loaded at a dock, labels are not
sufficient to alert hazardous materials employees loading the vehicles,
nor are they sufficient to alert emergency responders of the subsidiary
risks contained on the vehicles. Therefore, we require the subsidiary
hazard class or subsidiary division number(s) to be entered on the
shipping paper for purposes of enhancing safety and international
harmonization.
    The following information collection and burden is associated with
this OMB Control Number:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Total annual     Seconds per      Total annual
           Information collection               Respondents       responses         response       burden hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiary Hazard Class on Shipping Papers..         260,000       43,810,000                2           24,339
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Affected Public: Shippers and carriers of hazardous materials in
commerce.

Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden

    Number of Respondents: 260,000.
    Total Annual Responses: 43,810,000.
    Total Annual Burden Hours: 24,339.
    Frequency of Collection: On occasion.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 13, 2022.
Shane C. Kelley,
Director, Standards and Rulemaking,Office of Hazardous Materials
Safety,Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2022-15252 Filed 7-15-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2256-2257]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28985]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2020-0652]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Potomac River and Anacostia River, and Adjacent
Waters; Washington, DC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Enforcement of Regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce a security zone along the Potomac
River and Anacostia River, and adjacent waters at Washington, DC, for
activities associated with the 59th Presidential Inauguration. The zone
will be enforced on the days leading up to and through the cessation of
activities associated with the 59th Presidential Inauguration taking
place on January 20, 2021. This action is necessary to protect
government officials, mitigate potential terrorist acts and incidents,
and enhance public and maritime safety and security immediately before,
during, and after these activities. During the enforcement period,
entry into or remaining within the zone is prohibited unless authorized
by the Captain of the Port or his designated representative.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 165.508 will be enforced from 8 a.m.
on January 17, 2021, through 8 a.m. on January 25, 2021, for the zone
identified in 33 CFR 165.508(a)(6).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice of enforcement, call or email MST2 Shaun Landante, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region (Waterways Management
Division); telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 2, 2020, the Coast Guard was
notified by the event organizer that the anticipated dates for the
activities associated with the 59th Presidential Inauguration are
scheduled from January 17, 2021, to January 25, 2021. The Coast Guard
will enforce regulations in 33 CFR 165.508 for the zone identified in
paragraph (a)(6). This action is being taken to protect government
officials, mitigate potential terrorist acts and incidents, and enhance
public and maritime safety and security immediately before, during, and
after this event.
    Our regulations for Security Zone; Potomac River and Anacostia
River, and adjacent waters; Washington, DC, Sec.  165.508, specifies
the location for this security zone as an area that includes all
navigable waters described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3). This
zone includes (1) Security Zone 1; all navigable waters of the Potomac
River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by the Francis
Scott Key (US-29) Bridge, at mile 113, and bounded to the south by a
line drawn from the Virginia shoreline at Ronald Reagan Washington
National Airport, at 38[deg]51'21.3'' N, 077[deg]02'00.0'' W, eastward
across the Potomac River to the District of Columbia shoreline at Hains
Point at position 38[deg]51'24.3'' N, 077[deg]01'19.8'' W, including
the waters of the Boundary Channel, Pentagon Lagoon, Georgetown Channel
Tidal Basin, and Roaches Run. (2) Security Zone 2; all navigable waters
of the Anacostia River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the
north by the John Philip Sousa (Pennsylvania Avenue) Bridge, at mile
2.9, and bounded to the south by a line drawn from the District of
Columbia shoreline at Hains Point at position 38[deg]51'24.3'' N,
077[deg]01'19.8'' W, southward across the Anacostia River to the
District of Columbia shoreline at Giesboro Point at position
38[deg]50'52.4'' N, 077[deg]01'10.9'' W, including the waters of the
Washington Channel. (3) Security Zone 3 all navigable waters of the
Potomac River, from shoreline to shoreline, bounded to the north by a
line drawn from the Virginia shoreline at Ronald Reagan Washington
National Airport, at 38[deg]51'21.3'' N, 077[deg]02'00.0'' W, eastward
across the Potomac River to the District of Columbia shoreline at Hains
Point at position 38[deg]51'24.3'' N, 077[deg]01'19.8'' W, thence
southward across the Anacostia River to the District of Columbia
shoreline at Giesboro Point at position 38[deg]50'52.4'' N,
077[deg]01'10.9'' W, and bounded to the south by the Woodrow Wilson
Memorial (I-95/I-495) Bridge, at mile 103.8.
    As specified in Sec.  165.508 (b), during the enforcement period,
entry into or remaining in the zone is prohibited unless authorized by
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Maryland-National

Capital Region. Public vessels and vessels already at berth at the time
the security zone is implemented do not have to depart the security
zone. All vessels underway within the security zone at the time it is
implemented are to depart the zone at the time the security zone is
implemented. To seek permission to transit the zone, the Captain of the
Port Maryland-National Capital Region can be contacted at telephone
number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8
MHz). Coast Guard vessels enforcing this zone can be contacted on
Marine Band Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard may
be assisted by other Federal, state or local law enforcement agencies
in enforcing this regulation. If the Captain of the Port or his
designated on-scene patrol personnel determines the security zone need
not be enforced for the full duration stated in this notice, a
Broadcast Notice to Mariners may be used to suspend enforcement and
grant general permission to enter the security zone.
    This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR
165.508 and 5 U.S.C. 552(a). In addition to this notice of enforcement
in the Federal Register, the Coast Guard will provide notification of
this enforcement period via the Local Notice to Mariners and marine
information broadcasts.

    Dated: December 28, 2020.
Joseph B. Loring,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2020-28985 Filed 1-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 76 (Tuesday, April 21, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22144-22147]
[FR Doc No: 2015-09036]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0227]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone, Block Island Wind Farm; Rhode Island Sound, RI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a 500-yard safety zone
around each of five locations where the Block Island Wind Farm (BIWF)
wind turbine generator (WTG) foundations will be constructed in the
navigable waters of the Rhode Island Sound, RI, from July 1 to
September 30, 2015. These safety zones are intended to safeguard
mariners from the hazards associated with construction of the BIWF WTG
foundations. Vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting
through, mooring, or anchoring within these safety zones while
construction vessels and associated equipment are present, unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP), Southeastern New England
or the COTP's designated representative.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 21, 2015. Requests for public meetings must be
received by the Coast Guard on or before May 12, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2015-0227 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions
on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, contact Mr. Edward G. LeBlanc, Waterways Management Division at
Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New England, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

BIWF Block Island Wind Farm
FR Federal Register
NTM Notice To Mariners
WTG Wind Turbine Generator

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2015-0227), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number [USCG-2015-0227] in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2015-0227) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of 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 a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one, using one of the methods specified under ADDRESSES.
Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If
we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a
time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

B. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard has not promulgated a rule regarding construction
of the BIWF WTG foundations.

C. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the proposed rule is 33 U.S.C., 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; Public Law 107-295, 116
Stat. 2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1,
which collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish safety zones.
    This rule is necessary to provide for the safety of life and
navigation, for both workers and the boating public, within the
vicinity of the BIWF in Rhode Island Sound, RI.

D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a 500-yard safety zone around
each of five locations where the BIWF WTG foundations will be
constructed in the navigable waters of the Rhode Island Sound, RI, from
1 July to 30 September 2015. Locations of these platforms are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Platform                   Latitude            Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WTG 1...........................  41[deg] 7.544' N..  71[deg] 30.454' W.
WTG 2...........................  41[deg] 7.196' N..  71[deg] 30.837' W.
WTG 3...........................  41[deg] 6.886' N..  71[deg] 31.268' W.
WTG 4...........................  41[deg] 6.612' N..  71[deg] 31.747' W.
WTG 5...........................  41[deg] 6.383' N..  71[deg] 32.259' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These safety zones are intended to safeguard mariners from the
hazards associated with construction of the BIWF WTG foundations.
Vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting through,
mooring, or anchoring within these safety zones while construction
vessels and associated equipment are present unless authorized by the
COTP, Southeastern New England or the COTP's designated representative.

E. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking.

Below we summarize our analyses based on 13 of these statutes or
executive orders.

1. Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, and does not require an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it
under that Order.
    We expect the adverse economic impact of this proposed rule to be
minimal. Although this regulation may have some adverse impact on the
public, the potential impact will be minimized for the following
reasons: Although these safety zones will be in effect from 1 July 2015
to 30 September 2015, vessels will only be restricted from the zones
during periods of actual construction activity; the BIWF is located
approximately three miles offshore of Block Island and the safety zone
are only 500-yards in radius centered on the five BIWF WTG foundation
locations, allowing plenty of room for vessels to pass without having
to divert a long distance around the construction areas.
    Notification of BIWF construction activity and the effective
enforcement periods of the associated safety zones will be made to
mariners through the Rhode Island Port Safety Forum, and local and
broadcast NTMs.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: owners or operators of vessels intending
to enter, transit, moor, or anchor within 500 yards of the five BIWF
WTG foundation construction locations.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
(see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to
what degree this rulemaking would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
rulemaking would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this
proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not
result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not cause a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b) (2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rulemaking is not an economically significant rule and
would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that
might disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action appears to be
one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively
have a

significant effect on the human environment.
    A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting this
determination is available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. These safety zones are intended to safeguard mariners from
the hazards associated with wind farm construction activity. Vessels
will be prohibited from entering into, transiting through, mooring, or
anchoring within these safety zones while construction vessels and
associated equipment are present unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port (COTP), Southeastern New England or the COTP's designated
representative. It appears that this action will qualify for Coast
Guard Categorical Exclusion (34)(g), as described in figure 2-1 of the
Commandant Instruction.
    We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery
of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 165 reads as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T0227 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T0227  Safety Zone, Block Island Wind Farm; Rhode Island
Sound, RI.

    (a) Location. Areas within a 500-yard radius of the following five
positions are safety zones:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Platform                   Latitude            Longitude
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WTG 1..........................  41[deg] 7.544' N.    71[deg] 30.454' W.
WTG 2..........................  41[deg] 7.196' N.    71[deg] 30.837' W.
WTG 3..........................  41[deg] 6.886' N.    71[deg] 31.268' W.
WTG 4..........................  41[deg] 6.612' N.    71[deg] 31.747' W.
WTG 5..........................  41[deg] 6.383' N.    71[deg] 32.259' W.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Enforcement Period. From 1 July to 30 September 2015, vessels
will be prohibited from entering into any of these safety zones, when
enforced, during construction activity of five Block Island Wind Farm
(BIWF) wind turbine generators (WTG) located in the positions listed in
2(a) above.
    (c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
    Designated representative. A ``designated representative'' is any
Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the U.S. Coast
Guard who has been designated by the Captain of the Port, Sector
Southeastern New England (COTP), to act on his or her behalf.
    (d) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR
165.23 as well as the following regulations apply to the safety zones
established in conjunction with the construction of the Block Island
Wind Farm; Rhode Island Sound, RI. These regulations may be enforced
for the duration of construction.
    (2) Vessels may not enter into, transit through, moor, or anchor in
these safety zones during periods of enforcement unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port (COTP), Southeastern New England or the COTP's
designated representative. Vessels permitted to transit must operate at
a no-wake speed, in a manner which will not endanger construction
vessels or associated equipment.
    (3) Failure to comply with a lawful direction from the Captain of
the Port (COTP), Southeastern New England or the COTP's designated
representative may result in expulsion from the area, citation for
failure to comply, or both.

    Dated: April 1, 2015.
J.T. Kondratowicz,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Southeastern New
England.
[FR Doc. 2015-09036 Filed 4-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: April 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 70)]
[Notices]
[Page 18473-18474]
[DOCID:fr12ap07-53]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Motions
To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

April 6, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12781-000.
    c. Date Filed: February 27, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    e. Name of Project: Mendocino WaveConnect Project.
    f. Location: The project would be located in the Pacific Ocean in
Mendocino County, California.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contacts: Roy Kuga, Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
P.O. Box 770000, MC N13-1360, San Francisco, CA 94177, phone: (415)-
973-3806.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and
interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of
paper; see 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission
strongly encourages electronic filings. Please include the project
number (P-12770-000) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project would consist of:
(1) 40 to 200 wave generators having a total installed capacity of 40
megawatts, (2) a proposed 40 kilovolt transmission line, and (3)
appurtenant facilities. The project is estimated to have an average
annual generation of 100 gigawatt-hours, which would be sold to a local
utility.
    l. Locations of Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington, DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may
also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov

using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last
three digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Competing Preliminary Permit: Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR
4.30(b) and 4.36.
    o. Competing Development Application: Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30(b) and 4.36.
    p. Notice of Intent: A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective
applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to

submit, if such an application may be filed, either a preliminary
permit application or a development application (specify which type of
application). A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s)
named in this public notice.
    q. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit: A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    r. Comments, Protests, or Motions To Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210,
385.211, 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper; See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and
the instructions on the Commission's Web site under ``e-filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
    s. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filings must
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'', ``PROTEST'', ``COMPETING APPLICATION'' or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project Number of the
particular application to which the filing refers. Any of the above-
named documents must be filed by providing the original and the number
of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    t. Agency Comments: Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-6921 Filed 4-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P