[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 74 (Thursday, April 16, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21159-21161]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08015]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

49 CFR Part 299

[Docket No. FRA-2019-0068, Notice No. 4]
RIN 2130-AC84

Texas Central Railroad High-Speed Rail Safety Standards

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Proposed rule; announcement of telephonic public hearings and
comment period extension.

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

SUMMARY: On March 10, 2020, FRA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) that would establish safety standards for the Texas
Central Railroad (TCRR) high speed rail system. On March 12, 2020, FRA
announced three public hearings to provide members of the public an
opportunity to provide oral comments on the proposed safety
requirements, which were subsequently postponed on March 30, 2020. FRA
is now announcing the rescheduling of the public hearings.
Additionally, FRA is extending the comment period to May 26, 2020, to
afford members of the public time to comment on opinions and views
expressed during these hearings, that will be captured in a transcript
of the proceedings and placed in the rulemaking docket.

DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published on March 10,
2020 (85 FR 14036), is extended and now closes on May 26, 2020. Written
comments in response to views or information provided at the public
hearings must be received by May 26, 2020.
    The public hearings will be conducted on the following dates at the
following times (members of the public will be able to call into each
telephonic hearing 30 minutes prior to the start of each hearing):
     Hearing 1: May 4, 2020, from 5 p.m. (EDT) to 10 p.m.
(EDT).
     Hearing 2: May 5, 2020, from 6 p.m. (EDT) to 10 p.m.
(EDT).
     Hearing 3: May 6, 2020, from 6 p.m. (EDT) to 10 p.m.
(EDT).

ADDRESSES: Written comments in response to views or information
provided at the public hearings may be submitted by any of the methods
listed in the NPRM. See 85 FR 14036.
    The public hearings will be held telephonically. For more
logistical information on the public hearings please visit https://railroads.dot.gov/legislation-regulations/TCRR-NPRM. Please note that
participation in each hearing will be limited to the first 300 callers.
    Dial-in phone numbers and participant access codes for each hearing
are as follows:
     Hearing 1: Phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; participant access
code: 6322460.
     Hearing 2: Phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; participant access
code: 6441451.
     Hearing 3: Phone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; participant access
code: 8976262.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Kenton Kilgore, Program Analyst,
Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Railroad Safety (telephone:
(202) 493-6286; email: Kenton.Kilgore@dot.gov); or Mr. Michael Hunter,
Attorney Adviser, Federal Railroad Administration, Office of Chief
Counsel, (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: Michael.Hunter@dot.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Prior Public Engagement as Part of the Environmental Review Process

    In its March 12, 2020, announcement of the public hearings, FRA
briefly discussed prior public engagement that was part of the
environmental review process. See 84 FR 14449. While not repeating that
discussion here, FRA still wishes to draw attention to those prior
opportunities, reiterate that it is considering all comments received,
and make clear that it will provide responses to the comments submitted
during the public comment period for the draft environmental impact
statement (EIS) in the final EIS. FRA anticipates releasing the final
EIS in late Spring of this year.

Public Hearings To Receive Oral Comment on the NPRM--Purpose and Scope

    As stated above, FRA published the NPRM proposing safety
requirements specific to the TCRR high-speed rail system, and opened
the public comment period on March 10, 2020. See 85 FR 14036. On March
12, 2020, FRA

announced it had scheduled three public hearings to be conducted in
Dallas, Navasota, and Houston, Texas, between March 31 and April 2,
2020. See 85 FR 14449.
    However, in light of the President's March 13, 2020, Proclamation
on Declaring a National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus
Disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency, and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance to cancel mass gatherings
of people,\1\ FRA postponed the three public hearings in a March 30,
2020 Federal Register publication (85 FR 17527). FRA is now announcing
the rescheduling of those hearings to provide an opportunity for
additional public participation. Consistent with CDC guidelines
advising against in-person gatherings,\2\ FRA has decided to convene
three telephonic public hearings. The choice to conduct these hearings
telephonically represents merely a change in the manner of public
engagement. As the medium of these hearings is telephonic (there is no
web-based application being used as part of these hearings), members of
the public, regardless of phone technology used, will be able to
participate.\3\ FRA anticipates being able to accommodate the same
number of participants at each telephonic hearing as during the in-
person hearings, and does not believe there will be any degradation in
the quality of the opinions and views expressed during a telephonic
hearing, as compared to an in-person hearing. Further, FRA will
consider all comments received during these telephonic hearings just as
it would if the comments were received at an in-person hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/large-events/mass-gatherings-ready-for-covid-19.html.
    \2\ Id.
    \3\ Please note that FRA is not making any representations about
the connection of any one member of the public's individual phone.
Technical issues that arise between a member of the public and their
individual phone provider are outside of FRA's control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with the in-persons hearings, members of the public are invited
to present oral statements, and to offer information and views about
the technical safety requirements proposed in the NPRM at the upcoming
hearings. Unlike the public hearings conducted for the environmental
review, the purpose and scope of these hearings is to receive oral
comments only on the technical safety requirements proposed in the NPRM
and its associated economic analysis. The NPRM public hearings are not
a forum for debate on the merits of the project as a whole, or to
provide comment on proceedings outside of the NPRM, such as the
environmental review process. Rather, the NPRM hearings are meant to
help inform FRA's decisions regarding the technical safety requirements
proposed in the NPRM and its associated economic analysis. The hearings
on the NPRM will be conducted by representatives of FRA designated
under FRA's Rules of Practice (49 CFR 211.25). The rules of evidence
will not apply. The hearings will be informal, which means that they
are non-adversarial proceedings and there will be no cross examination
of persons presenting statements or offering evidence. These hearings
are an opportunity to provide relevant technical information to FRA
regarding the proposed requirements and associated economic analysis,
and a mechanism to place that information in the record for review and
consideration by FRA.

Exemption for Technological Improvements--Proceedings Under 49 U.S.C.
20306

    As a part of only Hearing 1, FRA will conduct proceedings under 49
U.S.C. 20306 to determine whether to invoke its discretionary authority
to provide relief to TCRR from certain requirements of 49 U.S.C. ch.
203 for its planned operation of new high-speed trainsets built to the
proposed requirements contained in the NPRM. FRA will conduct these
proceedings during the first hour of the hearing.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 20306, FRA may exempt TCRR from the above-
identified statutory requirements based on evidence received and
findings developed at a hearing demonstrating that the statutory
requirements ``preclude the development or implementation of more
efficient railroad transportation equipment or other transportation
innovations under existing law.'' Accordingly, to receive such evidence
and develop findings to determine whether FRA should invoke its
discretionary authority under 49 U.S.C. 20306 in this instance,
proceedings will be conducted as part of Hearing 1 scheduled for
Monday, May 4, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. (EDT). Interested parties are invited
to present oral statements at the hearing regarding the technical
information presented in the NPRM addressing the application of 49
U.S.C. ch. 203. Again, as mentioned above, this part of the proceedings
will be an informal hearing limited in scope to the technical
information presented regarding the proposed requirements concerning
safety appliances, and is not a forum to generally debate the project
or other proceedings outside of the rulemaking.
    In its rulemaking petition, submitted April 16, 2016, TCRR
requested FRA exercise its authority under 49 U.S.C. 20306 to exempt
its high-speed passenger rail trainsets from the requirements of 49
U.S.C. 20302, mandating that railroad vehicles be equipped with (1)
secure sill steps and efficient hand brakes; (2) secure grab irons or
handholds on vehicle ends and sides for greater security to individuals
coupling and uncoupling vehicles; and (3) the standard height of
drawbars. See 49 U.S.C. 20302(a)(1)(B), (a)(2), and (a)(3).
    In support of its request for an exemption, TCRR noted in its
petition that safety appliances such as sill steps or end or side
handholds are typically used in conventional North American practice by
maintenance personnel who ride the side of trainsets in yards or
maintenance facilities for marshalling operations. The N700 series
trainset, as proposed in the NPRM, is a fixed-consist trainset where
trainset make-up only occurs in defined locations where maintenance
personnel can safely climb on, under, or between the equipment,
consistent with the protections afforded under 49 CFR part 218.
Additionally, the leading and trailing ends of the N700 series trainset
are equipped with an automatic coupler located behind a removable
shroud. These couplers, as proposed by TCRR, will only be used for
rescue operations in accordance with TCRR's operating rules, and
provide for the safe coupling of one trainset to another (i.e., each
end will have automatic self-centering couplers that couple to other
trainsets on impact and uncouple by mechanisms that do not require a
person to go between trainsets or the activation of a traditional
uncoupling lever). Further, as proposed, level boarding will be
provided at all locations in trainset maintenance facilities where crew
and maintenance personnel are normally required to access or disembark
trainsets. Moreover, because the equipment is a fixed-consist trainset
in which individual vehicles are semi-permanently coupled and, as noted
above, individual vehicles can only be disconnected in repair
facilities where personnel can work on, under, or between units under
protections consistent with 49 CFR part 218, TCRR asserts that having
drawbars at the statutorily prescribed height is unnecessary.
    As such, TCRR believes there is not a functional need to equip the
ends of the trainsets with sill steps, end or side handholds, or
uncoupling levers. As this technology is intended to operate at

high-speeds, the inclusion of these appurtenances would have a
significant and detrimental impact on the aerodynamics of the trainset.
This increase in the aerodynamic footprint would negatively impact both
efficiency and aerodynamic noise emissions according to TCRR.
    TCRR also noted that trainset securement will be provided using
wheel chocks in addition to stringent operating rules and procedures,
which will be consistent with the service-proven procedures utilized on
the Tokaido Shinkansen. Additionally, as proposed in the NPRM, TCRR
will be required to demonstrate, as part of its vehicle qualification
procedures, that the procedures effectively secure the trainset (see
proposed Sec.  299.607).
    In sum, TCRR asserted that requiring compliance with the identified
statutory requirements would serve to preclude the development or
implementation of more efficient railroad transportation equipment or
other transportation innovations under existing law.

Procedures for Public Participation in the Hearings on the NPRM

    At each NPRM hearing, FRA representatives will make opening
statements reiterating the scope of the hearing as described above, and
any relevant procedures to be followed at the hearing. Following FRA's
opening statements, there will be an opportunity for members of the
public to present a brief oral comment on the record. Time permitting,
FRA will allow everyone who desires to provide an oral comment at a
hearing the opportunity to do so. Those members of the public wishing
to make a statement at the hearing will be required to follow those
procedures announced at the hearings to indicate a desire to make a
statement.
    FRA will generally limit the duration of individual presentations,
as necessary, to afford all persons who wish to speak the opportunity
to do so. However, during the proceedings under 49 U.S.C. 20306,
conducted as part of Hearing 1, TCRR may be afforded additional time to
present information to support its request for FRA to invoke its
discretionary authority under 49 U.S.C. 20306.
    At each hearing, FRA will announce additional procedures that may
be necessary for the conduct of the hearing, including the specific
time limit for individual presentations. FRA reserves the right to
limit participation in the hearing of persons who exceed their allotted
time, or who discuss topics or issues outside the scope of the proposed
rulemaking.
    The proceedings will be recorded, with transcripts prepared. FRA
will add the transcripts of the hearings to the public docket in this
rulemaking proceeding.
    For information on services for persons with disabilities, please
contact FRA Program Analyst, Mr. Kenton Kilgore, at least 5 working
days before the date of the hearing by one of the means listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Extension of Comment Period

    As the comment period for the NPRM published on March 10, 2020,
closes on May 11, 2020, and the public hearings are scheduled for May
4-6, 2020, FRA is extending the comment period so that it now closes on
May 26, 2020. FRA is extending the comment period so that members of
the public have adequate time to review and provide written comments on
the transcripts of the three public hearings conducted. All written
comments must now be submitted by May 26, 2020. Written comments
submitted after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
    FRA notes that it received numerous requests not to hold ``virtual
hearings,'' due to concerns over the lack of reliable high-speed
internet access, and/or to indefinitely postpone hearings until they
can be safely held in person. In response, FRA has shifted these
hearings to telephone-only hearings, which will be able to accommodate
the same number of participants as the previously scheduled in-person
hearings, in a manner that is consistent with ensuring public health,
and that does not require any technology beyond a telephone. We have
also extended the comment period to ensure the opportunity to comment
on any safety issues raised in the hearing. However, given the
extensive public outreach already conducted related to this proposed
rule, and the supplementary nature of the public hearings as related to
the opportunity to provide detailed written comments on the proposed
rule, in consultation with Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, FRA has determined that there is no need to further postpone
the public hearings or further extend the comment period.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 13, 2020.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-08015 Filed 4-13-20; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 218 (Thursday, November 10, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78944-78947]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26813]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 218 / Thursday, November 10, 2016 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0084; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-181-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM); reopening
of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier proposed airworthiness directive
(AD) for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes;
and Model A300 B4-600 and A300 B4-600R series airplanes. This action
revises the NPRM by adding additional inspections for cracking, and
related investigative and corrective actions if necessary, and adding
airplanes to the applicability. We are proposing this SNPRM to detect
and correct cracking on the frame (FR) 40 forward fittings, which could
result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. Since these
actions impose an additional burden over those proposed in the NPRM, we
are reopening the comment period to allow the public the chance to
comment on these proposed changes.

DATES: The comment period for the NPRM published in the Federal
Register on February 13, 2015 (80 FR 7992) is reopened.
    We must receive comments on this SNPRM by December 27, 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: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this SNPRM, contact Airbus
SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice Bellonte, 31707
Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96; fax +33 5 61 93 44
51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.airbus.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
425-227-1221.

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-2015-
0084; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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-2015-0084;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-181-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

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Model A300
B4-2C, B4-103, and B4-203 airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600 and A300 B4-
600R series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
February 13, 2015 (80 FR 7992) (``the NPRM''). The NPRM was prompted by
reports indicating that, on airplanes that received a certain repair
following crack findings, cracks can re-initiate. The NPRM proposed to
require repetitive inspections for cracking of the FR 40 forward
fittings for airplanes previously repaired.

Actions Since the NPRM Was Issued

    Since we issued the NPRM, we have determined that additional
inspections for cracking are necessary and that additional airplanes
are affected by the identified unsafe condition.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2015-0232R1, dated December 16, 2015 (referred
to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or
``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus Model
A300 series airplanes; and Model A300 B4-600, B4-600R and F4-600R
series airplanes, and Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes
(collectively called Model A300-600 series airplanes). The MCAI states:

    Cracks were found on the lower outboard radius of the centre
wing frame 40 forward fitting on in-service aeroplanes.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to
reduced structural integrity of the aeroplane.
    To address this unsafe condition, Airbus issued several
inspection Service Bulletins (SB) and repair instructions.
Consequently, EASA issued AD 2009-0094, which was later superseded
by EASA AD 2011-0163 [which

corresponds to FAA AD 2012-25-06, Amendment 39-17287 (77 FR 75833,
December 26, 2012) (``AD 2012-25-06'')] and [EASA] AD 2014-0199
[which corresponds to the FAA NPRM], to require repetitive
inspections and corrective actions on the affected areas.
    Since those [EASA] ADs were issued, additional in-service
findings induced Airbus to do a new fatigue analysis, using a
detailed Finite Element Model study, which resulted in defining new
inspection methods. Prompted by these results, Airbus issued SB
A300-57-0261, SB A300-57-6117 and SB A300-57-9034 to introduce these
inspections. These new inspection SBs supersede and render obsolete
inspection SB A300-53-0268 and SB A300-57-6052 and the All Operators
Transmissions (AOT) A300-53A0391, AOT A300-57A6111, AOT A300-53W002-
14 and AOT A300-57W003-14.
    For the reasons described above, EASA issued AD 2015-0232,
superseding [Direction G[eacute]n[eacute]rale de l'Aviation Civile]
DGAC France AD 1998-038-010(B) R1 [which corresponds to FAA AD 98-
25-07, Amendment 39-10933 (63 FR 68167, December 10, 1998) (``AD 98-
25-07'')] and [DGAC France] AD 2003-189(B), and EASA AD 2011-0163
and [EASA] AD 2014-0199, to require the new inspections of the
affected areas within new thresholds and intervals.
    This [EASA] AD is revised to clarify the compliance time(s),
introducing a Note after paragraph (1), and to alleviate the
reporting requirements of paragraph (3).

    Required actions include repetitive rototest, ultrasonic, high
frequency eddy current, special detailed, and liquid penetrant
inspections, as applicable, of the center wing FR 40 lower outboard
radius for cracking, and related investigative and corrective actions
if necessary. Related investigative actions include rototest,
ultrasonic, high frequency eddy current, and liquid penetrant
inspections following repairs of cracking.
    Corrective actions include oversizing fastener holes and installing
new fasteners, doing spotfacing, doing crack-stop holes, and repairing
cracking.
    The compliance times vary depending on airplane configuration. The
initial compliance times range from 3 months to 56,300 flight cycles or
76,000 flight hours (whichever occurs first) after accomplishing
certain actions. Repetitive intervals range from 1,400 flight cycles or
3,000 flight hours (whichever occurs first) to 37,500 flight cycles or
50,600 flight hours (whichever occurs first).
    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-
0084.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Airbus has issued Service Bulletin A300-57-6117, dated May 28,
2015; and Service Bulletin A300-57-0261, dated June 11, 2015. The
service information describes procedures for repetitive ultrasonic
inspections, rototest inspections, high frequency eddy current
inspections, special detailed inspections, and liquid penetrant
inspections, and related investigative and corrective actions. These
documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.
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.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this proposed AD. We considered the comment received.

Request To Suspend Activities on the NPRM Pending New Service
Information

    United Parcel Service (UPS) requested that we suspend activities on
the NPRM pending the issuance of new service information. UPS stated
that the new service information will address airplanes that were not
identified in the NPRM and will include new inspections.
    We acknowledge the commenter's request. We have reviewed the new
service information (Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6117, dated May
28, 2015; and Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0261, dated June 11,
2015) and have revised this SNPRM accordingly. We have updated
paragraph (c) of this proposed AD to include all affected airplanes,
and we have revised paragraphs (g) and (h) of this proposed AD to refer
to the new service information.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This SNPRM

    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 proposing this AD because we
evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition
exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of these
same type designs.
    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the NPRM. As a
result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen the comment
period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on
this SNPRM.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this SNPRM affects 26 airplanes of U.S. registry.
We estimate the following costs to comply with this SNPRM.

                             Estimated Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Cost per       Cost on U.S.
        Action            Labor cost        product         operators
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspection...........  Up to 91 work-   Up to $7,735     Up to $201,110
                        hours x $85      per inspection   per inspection
                        per hour =       cycle.           cycle.
                        $7,735 per
                        inspection
                        cycle.
Reporting............  1 work-hour x    $85............  $2,210
                        $85 per hour =
                        $85.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act

    A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for
failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of
information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control
number for the collection of information required by this proposed AD
is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this proposed AD has
been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and
includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting
associated with this proposed AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the
accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should
be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC
20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13   [Amended]

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

Airbus: Docket No. FAA-2015-0084; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-
181-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by December 27, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects AD 98-25-07, Amendment 39-10933 (63 FR 68167,
December 10, 1998) (``AD 98-25-07''); and AD 2012-25-06, Amendment
39-17287 (77 FR 75833, December 26, 2012) (``AD 2012-25-06'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the Airbus airplanes, certificated in any
category, identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(5) of this AD,
except airplanes on which Airbus Modification 10221 has been
embodied in production.
    (1) Model A300 B2-1A, B2-1C, B2K-3C, B2-203, B4-2C, B4-103, and
B4-203 airplanes.
    (2) Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, and B4-622 airplanes.
    (3) Model A300 B4-605R and B4-622R airplanes.
    (4) Model A300 F4-605R and F4-622R airplanes.
    (5) Model A300 C4-605R Variant F airplanes.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of cracks on the lower outboard
radius of the center wing frame (FR) 40 forward fitting. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct cracking on the FR 40 forward
fittings, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the
airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Repetitive Inspections

    Except as provided by paragraph (i)(1) of this AD, at the
applicable times specified in paragraph E.(2), ``Compliance,'' of
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0261, dated June 11, 2015; or Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-57-6117, dated May 28, 2015; accomplish
rototest, ultrasonic, high frequency eddy current, special detailed,
and liquid penetrant inspections, as applicable, of the center wing
FR 40 lower outboard radius for cracking, and do all applicable
related investigative actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0261, dated June 11,
2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6117, dated May 28, 2015;
as applicable. Do all applicable related investigative actions
before further flight. Repeat the inspections thereafter at the
applicable times specified in paragraph E.(2), ``Compliance,'' of
Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0261, dated June 11, 2015; or Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-57-6117, dated May 28, 2015.

(h) Corrective Actions

    If, during any inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD,
any crack is found, before next flight, accomplish the applicable
corrective actions, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-0261, dated June 11,
2015; or Airbus Service Bulletin A300-57-6117, dated May 28, 2015;
as applicable; except as required by paragraph (i)(2) of this AD.

(i) Service Information Exception

    (1) Where the service information specified in paragraph (g) of
this AD specifies a compliance time ``from this service bulletin
issuance date,'' this AD requires compliance within the specified
compliance time after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) Where the service information specified in paragraph (h) of
this AD specifies to contact Airbus for certain conditions, before
further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA;
or the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Airbus' EASA
Design Organization Approval (DOA).

(j) No Terminating Action for This AD

    Accomplishing a corrective action required by paragraph (h) of
this AD, or accomplishing a preventative action specified in Airbus
Service Bulletin A300-57-0260 or A300-57-6116, as applicable, does
not terminate the repetitive inspections required by paragraph (g)
of this AD.

(k) Terminating Action for Certain Requirements of Other ADs

    (1) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this
AD terminates the actions required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of AD
98-25-07.
    (2) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this
AD terminates the actions required by paragraphs (i) and (j) of AD
2012-25-06.

(l) Reporting Requirements

    Within 60 days after any inspection required by paragraph (g) of
this AD, or within 60 days after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs later, report any findings, positive or negative,
to Airbus Service Bulletin Reporting Online Application on Airbus
World (https://w3.airbus.com/).

(m) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN:

Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any
approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or
lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight
standards district office/certificate holding district office.
    (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, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA;
or Airbus's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the approval must
include the DOA-authorized signature.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a
person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a
collection of information subject to the requirements of the
Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information
displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number
for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for
this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5
minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
completing and reviewing the collection of information. All
responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments
concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing
the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave.
SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance
Officer, AES-200.

(n) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2015-0232R1, dated December 16,
2015, 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-2015-0084.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Airbus SAS, Airworthiness Office--EAW, 1 Rond Point Maurice
Bellonte, 31707 Blagnac Cedex, France; telephone +33 5 61 93 36 96;
fax +33 5 61 93 44 51; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.airbus.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 31, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-26813 Filed 11-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 151 (Tuesday, August 8, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37101-37103]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16648]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0588]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Exceptions or
Alternatives to Labeling Requirements for Products Held by the
Strategic National Stockpile

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by
September 7, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0614.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Domini Bean, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A63, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Exceptions or Alternatives to Labeling Requirements for Products Held
by the Strategic National Stockpile; OMB Control Number 0910-0614--
Extension

    Under the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), the Department of
Health and Human Services stockpiles medical products that are
essential to the health security of the Nation (see the PHS Act, 42
U.S.C. 247d-6b). This collection of medical products for use during
national health emergencies, known as the Strategic National Stockpile
(SNS), is to ``provide for the emergency health security of the United
States, including the emergency health security of children and other
vulnerable populations, in the event of a bioterrorist attack or other
public health emergency.'' It may be appropriate for certain medical
products that are or will be held in the SNS to be labeled in a manner
that would not comply with certain FDA labeling regulations given their
anticipated circumstances of use in an emergency. However,
noncompliance with these labeling requirements could render such
products misbranded under section 502 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 352).

    Under 21 CFR 201.26, 610.68, 801.128, and 809.11 (Sec. Sec.
201.26, 610.68, 801.128, and 809.11), the appropriate FDA Center
Director may grant a request for an exception or alternative to certain
regulatory provisions pertaining to the labeling of human drugs,
biological products, medical devices, and in vitro diagnostics that
currently are or will be included in the SNS if certain criteria are
met. The appropriate FDA Center Director may grant an exception or
alternative to certain FDA labeling requirements if compliance with
these labeling requirements could adversely affect the safety,
effectiveness, or availability of products that are or will be included
in the SNS. An exception or alternative granted under the regulations
may include conditions or safeguards so that the labeling for such
products includes appropriate information necessary for the safe and
effective use of the product given the product's anticipated
circumstances of use. Any grant of an exception or alternative will
only apply to the specified lots, batches, or other units of medical
products in the request. The appropriate FDA Center Director may also
grant an exception or alternative to the labeling provisions specified
in the regulations on his or her own initiative.
    Under Sec. Sec.  201.26(b)(1)(i) (human drug products),
610.68(b)(1)(i) (biological products), 801.128(b)(1)(i) (medical
devices), and 809.11(b)(1)(i) (in vitro diagnostic products for human
use), an SNS official or any entity that manufactures (including
labeling, packing, relabeling, or repackaging), distributes, or stores
such products that are or will be included in the SNS may submit, with
written concurrence from a SNS official, a written request for an
exception or alternative to certain labeling requirements to the
appropriate FDA Center Director. Except when initiated by an FDA Center
Director, a request for an exception or alternative must be in writing
and must:
     Identify the specified lots, batches, or other units of
the affected product;
     Identify the specific labeling provisions under the
regulations that are the subject of the request;
     Explain why compliance with the specified labeling
provisions could adversely affect the safety, effectiveness, or
availability of the product subject to the request;
     Describe any proposed safeguards or conditions that will
be implemented so that the labeling of the product includes appropriate
information necessary for the safe and effective use of the product
given the anticipated circumstances of use of the product;
     Provide copies of the proposed labeling of the specified
lots, batches, or other units of the affected product that will be
subject to the exception or alternative; and
     Provide any other information requested by the FDA Center
Director in support of the request.
    If the request is granted, the manufacturer may need to report to
FDA any resulting changes to the new drug application, biologics
license application, premarket approval application, or premarket
notification (510(k)) in effect, if any. The submission and grant of an
exception or an alternative to the labeling requirements specified in
the regulations may be used to satisfy certain reporting obligations
relating to changes to product applications under Sec. Sec.  314.70,
601.12, 814.39 and 807.81 (21 CFR 314.70 (human drugs), 21 CFR 601.12
(biological products), 21 CFR 814.39 (medical devices subject to
premarket approval), or 21 CFR 807.81 (medical devices subject to
510(k) clearance requirements)).
    The information collection provisions in Sec. Sec.  314.70, 601.12,
807.81, and 814.39 have been approved under OMB control numbers 0910-
0001, 0910-0338, 0910-0120, and 0910-0231, respectively. On a case-by-
case basis, the appropriate FDA Center Director may also determine when
an exception or alternative is granted that certain safeguards and
conditions are appropriate, such as additional labeling on the SNS
products, so that the labeling of such products would include
information needed for safe and effective use under the anticipated
circumstances of use.
    Respondents to this collection of information are entities that
manufacture (including labeling, packing, relabeling, or repackaging),
distribute, or store affected SNS products. Based on data from fiscal
years 2014 and 2015, FDA estimates an average of one request annually
for an exception or alternative received by FDA. FDA estimates an
average of 24 hours preparing each request. The average burden per
response for each submission is based on the estimated time that it
takes to prepare a supplement to an application, which may be
considered similar to a request for an exception or alternative. To the
extent that labeling changes not already required by FDA regulations
are made in connection with an exception or alternative granted under
the regulations, FDA is estimating one occurrence annually in the event
FDA would require any additional labeling changes not already covered
by FDA regulations. FDA estimates 8 hours to develop and revise the
labeling to make such changes. The average burden per response for each
submission is based on the estimated time to develop and revise the
labeling to make such changes.
    In the Federal Register of May 23, 2017 (82 FR 23584), we published
a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed extension of
this collection of information. No comments were received.
    We therefore estimate the burden of this collection of information
as follows:

                                 Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                    Average burden
         21 CFR Section              Number of     responses per   Total annual    per response     Total hours
                                    respondents     respondent       responses      (in hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
201.26(b)(1)(i),                               1               1               1              24              24
 610.68(b)(1)(i),
 801.128(b)(1)(i), and
 809.11(b)(1)(i)................
201.26(b)(1)(i),                               1               1               1               8               8
 610.68(b)(1)(i),
 801.128(b)(1)(i), and
 809.11(b)(1)(i)................
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............              32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Dated: August 2, 2017.
Anna K. Abram,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning, Legislation, and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-16648 Filed 8-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 28 (Friday, February 12, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9422-9423]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02850]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2020-0215]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Renewal of an Approved
Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for
the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery

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

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review and approval, and invites public comment. FMCSA requests
approval to extend an existing ICR titled, ``Generic Clearance for the
Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery.'' This
ICR allows for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communication
between FMCSA and its customers and stakeholders. It also allows
feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program
management. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public
comment before FMCSA submits its request to OMB.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before April 13, 2021.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2020-0215 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m.
and 5 p.m. E.T., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the exemption process, see the ``Public
Participation'' heading below. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the ``Privacy Act'' heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets, or go to the street
address listed above.
    Privacy Act: Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket Management System
published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or
you may visit https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-01-17/pdf/E8-785.pdf.
    Public Participation: The Federal eRulemaking Portal is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can obtain electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``help'' section
of the Federal eRulemaking Portal website. If you want us to notify you
that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope or postcard if you submitted your comments by mail or
hand delivery, or print the acknowledgement page that appears after
submitting comments online. Comments received after the comment closing
date will be included in the docket and will be considered to the
extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Dan Britton, FMCSA, Office of
Research. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mail Stop W63-312,
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: Executive Order 12862, ``Setting Customer Service
Standards,'' directs Federal agencies to provide service to the public
that matches or exceeds the best service available in the private
sector (58 FR 48257, Sept. 11, 1993). In order to work continuously to
ensure that our programs are effective and meet our customers' needs,
FMCSA seeks to extend OMB approval of a generic clearance to collect
qualitative feedback from our customers on our service delivery. The
surveys covered in this generic clearance provide a way for FMCSA to
collect this data directly from our customers.
    The proposed future information collection activity provides a
means to garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an
efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Administration's
commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback, we
mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and
opinions, but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative
results that can be generalized to the population of study. This
feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder
perceptions, experiences, and expectations, provide an early warning of
issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication,
training, or changes in operations might improve delivery of products
or services. The information collected from our customers and
stakeholders will help ensure that users have an effective, efficient,
and satisfying experience with FMCSA's programs.
    The solicitation of feedback will target areas such as: Timeliness,
appropriateness, accuracy of information, courtesy, efficiency of
service delivery, and resolution of issues with service delivery.
Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts to improve or
maintain the

quality of service offered to the public. If this information is not
collected, vital feedback from customers and stakeholders on the
Agency's services will be unavailable.
    The agency will only submit a collection for approval under this
generic clearance if it meets the following conditions:
     The collections are voluntary;
     The collections are low-burden for respondents (based on
considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents, or
burden-hours per respondent) and are low-cost for both the respondents
and the Federal Government;
     The collections are non-controversial and do not raise
issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
     Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions
from respondents who have experience with the program or may have
experience with the program in the near future;
     Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected
only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
     Information gathered will be used only internally for
general service improvement and program management purposes and is not
intended for release outside of the agency;
     Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of
substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
     Information gathered will yield qualitative information;
the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically
reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the
population of study.
    Feedback collected under this generic clearance provides useful
information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the
overall population. This type of generic clearance for qualitative
information will not be used for quantitative information collections
that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as
monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such
data uses require more rigorous designs that address: The target
population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame,
the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the
precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed
sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing
potential non-response bias, the protocols for data collection, and any
testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding
the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely
to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for
other generic mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative
results.
    As a general matter, information collections will not result in any
new system of records containing privacy information and will not ask
questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes,
religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered
private.
    Title: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback
on Agency Service Delivery.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-0049.
    Type of Request: Renewal of a currently-approved information
collection.
    Respondents: State and local agencies, the general public and
stakeholders, original equipment manufacturers and suppliers to the
commercial motor vehicle (CMV) industry, CMV fleet owners, CMV owner-
operators, state CMV safety agencies, research organizations and
contractors, news organizations, safety advocacy groups, and other
Federal agencies.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 9,270.
    Estimated Time per Response: Range from 5 to 30 minutes.
    Expiration Date: August 31, 2021.
    Frequency of Response: Generally, on an annual basis.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 2,233 hours.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2)
the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize or include your
comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.
    Issued under the authority of 49 CFR 1.87.

Thomas P. Keane,
Associate Administrator, Office of Research and Registration.
[FR Doc. 2021-02850 Filed 2-11-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


From:
Allen Dittenhoefer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Tuesday, December 22, 2020 11:46 AM
To:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Jeff Knight<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
Non-Category Emissions Spreadsheets/Burns Harbor Test Data

Dr. Jones,

Attached for your review are the five emissions spreadsheets dealing with non-category emissions.  Major comments on each spreadsheet are summarized below, and additional comments are in the spreadsheets.  Although Bluestone Coke is not a member of the COETF, they have provided their data inputs and corrections which we have included in the attached spreadsheets for ease of EPA's review.

We are also attaching a memo from Mostardi Platt that further supports using all of the Burns Harbor ICR pushing test data for semi-volatile compounds, dioxins/furans, and volatile organics (except for the Methylene Chloride results).

 Coke Ovens Method 303:  We concur with the emissions equations to be used for BSO emissions from charging, door leaks, and leaking lids and offtakes.  We have provided missing 2015 Method 303 data for Mountain State Carbon, Clairton, and Bluestone Coke, as well as data for EES Coke on the number of charges per year, and made a correction to Middletown's PLD.  We also made note of the fact that Batteries 2 and 3 at AKS-Follansbee were hot idled and did not operate in 2015.  As a result of these additions/corrections, EPA should have a complete set of Method 303 data and will not have to use industry averages for seconds/charge, PLD, PLL, and PLO for missing data.  Please let us know if you are missing any data.
 Coke Flare Emissions:  Because flares are control devices, COE should not be modeled from these emission units.  This is because flares alter the composition of the emission stream such that the stream can no longer be identified as COE, as EPA recognized in its MACT I analysis.
 Coke Fugitive Pushing:  In the SUM-Fug Push TPY tab, we provide 2015 coke production rates for batteries with missing or incorrect coke production data.  We recommend EPA use the battery-specific pushing capture efficiencies, based on actual pushing opacity data (which has been provided), not an assumed 95% efficiency for each battery.  In this spreadsheet, we reference the memo from Mostardi Platt regarding use of the Burns Harbor ICR pushing test data for semi-volatile compounds, dioxins/furans, and volatile organics (except for the Methylene Chloride results).
 Coke Ovens Example Emissions Calc Boiler-New Method:  In the EP-4 BP Boiler Stacks tab, we added missing boiler information for Plants A (Boilers 1-4) and H (Boilers 6, 7, 9, and 10 emitting through a single stack and Boiler 8 firing natural gas only).  We also added a note that Plant H has a Title V permit limit that limits the annual amount of COG that can be combusted in facility boilers, and that COG allocation should be based on that limit.
 Coke Byproduct Chemical Plant Emissions:  Our review of the 2017 NEI indicated that the NEI did not include all HAP emission estimates that were reported by the facilities in their annual emission inventory reports.  We have updated the Byproduct Chemical HAP tab with 2017 facility-reported HAP emissions, as well as supplemental emission calculations based on industry emission factors and 2017 coal charge/coke production quantities.  We also updated emissions for the Warren facility.  These emissions updates are highlighted in yellow in spreadsheet columns that we added adjacent to each facility column.  These revised emissions will require that EPA calculate new industry average HAP emissions in tab 2017 HAP EIS Sum.

Allen C. Dittenhoefer, Ph.D.
Principal

Environmental Planning Specialists, Inc.
45 U.S. Highway 46 East
Suite 601
Pine Brook, NJ 07058
Direct:<PHONE_NUMBER> (Ext. 12705)
Mobile<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.envplanning.com

<< Copy of CokeOvens-Method303_for Industry review_COETF Comments rev122220.xlsx >>
<< Coke_Flare_Emissions_for Industry review_COETF Comments rev122220.xlsx >>
<< Coke_Fugitive_Pushing_for Industry review_COETF Comments rev121820.xlsx >>
<< Copy of CokeOvens-Example_Emissions_Calc-Boiler-New-Method-11-25-2020-for-Industry-Review COETF Comments rev122220.xlsx >>
<< Coke_Byproduct_Chemical Plant_Emissions COETF Comments rev122120.xlsx >>
<< MostardiPlatt Coke ICR BH Pushing Methylene Chloride 12.16.20.pdf >>


EPA REGISTRATION DIVISION COMPANY NOTICE OF FILING FOR PESTICIDE
PETITIONS PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER (3/30/2015)

EPA Registration Division contact: [Hope Johnson (PM-21)<PHONE_NUMBER>]

INSTRUCTIONS:  Please utilize this outline in preparing the pesticide
petition.  In cases where the outline element does not apply, please
insert “NA-Remove” and maintain the outline. Please do not change
the margins, font, or format in your pesticide petition. Simply replace
the instructions that appear in green and brackets, i.e., “[insert
company name],” with the information specific to your action.

TEMPLATE:

Syngenta Crop Protection

5F8358

	EPA has received a pesticide petition (5F8358) from Syngenta Crop
Protection, P. O. Box 18300, Greensboro, NC  27409 proposing, pursuant
to section 408(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to amend 40 CFR part 180.532.

	1. by establishing the tolerances for residues of

	cyprodinil:  4-cyclopropyl-6-methyl-N-phenyl-2-pyrimidinamine in or on
the raw agricultural commodity

Vegetable, tuberous and corm, subgroup 1C; at 0.01 parts per million
(ppm)

Potato, wet peel; at 0.03 ppm

EPA has determined that the petition contains data or information
regarding the elements set forth in section 408 (d)(2) of  FDDCA;
however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted
data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the petition.
Additional data may be needed before EPA rules on the petition.

A. Residue Chemistry

1. Plant metabolism.  The metabolism of cyprodinil is adequately
understood for the purpose of the proposed tolerances.  The metabolism
of cyprodinil has been characterized in plants and animals. No
toxicologically significant metabolites have been identified. The
metabolism profile supports the use of an analytical enforcement method
that accounts for only parent cyprodinil.

2. Analytical method. Syngenta Crop Protection has developed and
validated analytical methodology for enforcement purposes. This method
(Syngenta Crop Protection Method AG-631B) has passed an Agency petition
method validation for several commodities and is currently the
enforcement method for cyprodinil. An extensive database of method
validation data using this method on various crop commodities is
available.

3. Magnitude of residues. Complete residue data to support the requested
tolerances have been submitted. The requested tolerances are adequately
supported.

In support of the requested tolerance, Syngenta has conducted the
necessary trials in accordance with the requirements of the EPA Residue
Chemistry Guidelines 860.1500 to determine the magnitude of residue of
cyprodinil in or on requested commodities.

B. Toxicological Profile

EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered its
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk.  EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of
major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children.  Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the toxic effects caused by cyprodinil as well as the
no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) from the toxicity studies can
be found at the following website:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2012/2012-20235.htm.  A summary of the
toxicological endpoints for cyprodinil used for human risk assessment is
discussed in Unit III.A and B. of the final rule published in the
Federal Register of August 17, 2012 (77 FR pages 49732-49738)
(FRL-9359-7).

1. Acute toxicity.

	2. Genotoxicty.

	3. Reproductive and developmental toxicity.

	4. Subchronic toxicity.

	5. Chronic toxicity.

	6. Animal metabolism.

	7. Metabolite toxicology.

	8. Endocrine disruption.

C. Aggregate Exposure

1. Dietary exposure. Tier II acute and chronic dietary exposure
evaluations were performed for cyprodinil using the Dietary Exposure
Evaluation Model (DEEM-FCID™ Version 3.16) from Exponent and
consumption data from the USDA NHANES “What We Eat in America”
survey, 2003-2008.  These cyprodinil exposure assessments included all
registered uses and pending uses, as well as a proposed new foliar use
for potatoes.  These assessments utilized residue data from field trials
where cyprodinil was applied at the maximum intended use rate and
samples were harvested at the minimum pre-harvest interval (PHI) to
obtain maximum residues.  Empirically derived processing factors were
used in these assessments when available; all other processing factors
used the DEEM-FCIDTM Version 7.87 defaults.  The percent of crop treated
value was assumed to be 100% for all commodities.  Secondary residues in
beef liver and kidney were estimated based on “maximum reasonably
balanced diets” and transfer information from feeding studies.
Drinking water estimates were incorporated directly into the acute and
chronic dietary exposure assessments using the highest estimated
drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for surface and ground water.

i. Food.  Acute exposure.  The acute dietary (food only) risk
assessments for cyprodinil were performed for all population subgroups
using an acute reference dose of 2.0 mg/kg-bw/day based upon an acute
neurotoxicity study in rats with a no observed adverse effect level
(NOAEL) of 200 mg/kg-bw/day and an uncertainty factor of 100X to account
for intra- and inter-species variations.  No additional FQPA safety
factor was applied.  For the purpose of the acute aggregate risk
assessments, the exposure values were expressed in terms of margin of
exposure (MOE), which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the
exposure for each population subgroup.  In addition, exposure was
expressed as a percent of the acute reference dose (%aRfD).  At the
99.9th percentile, acute (food only) exposure to the U.S. population
resulted in a MOE of 3,154 (3.2% of the aRfD of 2.0 mg/kg-bw/day).  The
most exposed sub-population was all infants <1 year old with a MOE of
1,536 (6.5% of the aRfD of 2.0 mg/kg-bw/day).  Since the Benchmark MOE
for this assessment was 100 and since the EPA generally has no concern
for exposures above the Benchmark MOE or below 100% of the aRfD,
Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will
result from dietary (food only) exposure to residues arising from all
current, pending, and proposed uses of cyprodinil.

Chronic exposure.  The chronic dietary (food only) risk assessments were
performed for all population subgroups using a chronic reference dose of
0.027 mg/kg-bw/day based upon a two year chronic
toxicity/carcinogenicity study in rats with a no observed adverse effect
level (NOAEL) of 2.7 mg/kg-bw/day and an uncertainty factor of 100X to
account for intra- and inter-species variations.  No additional FQPA
safety factor was applied.  For the purpose of aggregate risk
assessment, the exposure values were expressed in terms of margin of
exposure (MOE), which was calculated by dividing the NOAEL by the
exposure for each population subgroup.  In addition, exposure was
expressed as a percent of the chronic reference dose (%cRfD).  Chronic
(food only) exposure to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 796
(12.6% of the cRfD of 0.027 mg/kg-bw/day).  The most exposed
sub-population was children 1-2 years old with a MOE of 274 (36.6% of
the cRfD of 0.027 mg/kg-bw/day).  Since the Benchmark MOE for this
assessment was 100 and since the EPA generally has no concern for
exposures above the Benchmark MOE or below 100% of the cRfD, Syngenta
believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
from dietary (food only) exposure to residues arising from all current,
pending, and proposed uses of cyprodinil.

Cancer.  Cyprodinil is classified as “not likely” to be carcinogenic
to humans. Therefore, a cancer risk assessment was not performed for
cyprodinil.

ii. Drinking water. The Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs)
of cyprodinil and its degradate CGA249287, reported as combined total
residues (cyprodinil plus CGA249287), were determined for currently
registered uses (including almond and pistachio), all pending uses, and
proposed uses for representative crops of Tree Nut Crop Group 14-12.
The Tier l SCI-GROW (version 2.3) model was used to estimate ground
water concentrations, and the Tier II Surface Water Concentration
Calculator (v. 1.106) was used to estimate surface water concentrations.
For ground water, the currently registered uses on almond and grapes
provided a combined EDWC of 0.086 ppb (acute and chronic).   For surface
water, the registered use on grapes provided a combined acute EDWC of
48.2 ppb and a combined chronic EDWC of 25.5 ppb.  No Percent Cropped
Area adjustments were made to the surface water EDWCs.  Since the
surface water EDWCs exceed the ground water EDWC, surface water values
were used for risk assessment purposes and considered protective for any
ground water exposure concerns.

Acute Exposure from Drinking Water:  The acute surface water EDWC of
48.2 ppb was input directly into the DEEM-FCID™ software as “water,
direct and indirect, all sources” to model the acute drinking water
exposures. The acute drinking water exposure contributions at the 99.9th
percentile of exposures was determined by taking the difference between
the aggregate (food + drinking water) exposures and the food (only)
exposures for each population subgroup.  Acute drinking water exposure
to the U.S. population resulted in a MOE of 126,024 (0.1% of the aRfD of
2.0 mg/kg-bw/day). The most sensitive subpopulation was children 3-5
years old, with a MOE of 91,491 (0.1% of the aRfD of 2.0 mg/kg-bw/day).
Since the Benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since the EPA
generally has no concern for exposures above the Benchmark MOE or below
100% of the aRfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty
that no harm will result from acute drinking water exposure to residues
arising from all current, pending, and proposed uses of cyprodinil.

Chronic Exposure from Drinking Water:  The chronic surface water EDWC of
25.5 ppb was input directly into the DEEM-FCID™ software as “water,
direct and indirect, all sources” to model the chronic drinking water
exposures. Chronic drinking water exposure to the U.S. population
resulted in a MOE of 5,057 (2.0% of the cRfD of 0.027 mg/kg-bw/day).
The most sensitive subpopulation was all infants (<1 year old), with a
MOE of 1,961 (5.1% of the cRfD of 0.027 mg/kg-bw/day).  Since the
Benchmark MOE for this assessment was 100 and since the EPA generally
has no concern for exposures above the Benchmark MOE or below 100% of
the cRfD, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that no
harm will result from chronic drinking water exposure to residues
arising from all current, pending, and proposed uses of cyprodinil.

2. Non-dietary exposure.  Cyprodinil is not currently registered for any
uses that would result in residential handler (mixer/loader/applicator)
exposure.  The product label for Palladium®, containing cyprodinil and
fludioxonil, allows professional applications to ornamental plants in
residential settings.  No post-application residential exposure
assessment is required because post-application exposure to adults and
children from ornamental applications is negligible. Residential
exposure assessments were performed for cyprodinil to evaluate exposures
resulting from off-site drift of agricultural products into residential
areas; the most-exposed subgroup was children 1-6 years old via
hand-to-mouth incidental oral exposures from play activities on turf,
with a MOE of 1,472 (Benchmark MOE = 100).  Incidental exposure to
consumers from spray drift from non-residential uses were not included
in the aggregate consumer risk estimates in accordance with EPA’s
current policy and practice.

D. Cumulative Effects

Cumulative Exposure to Substances With a Common Mechanism of Toxicity.
Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) requires that, when considering whether to
establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the Agency consider
“available information” concerning the cumulative effects of a
particular pesticide’s residues and “other substances that have a
common mechanism of toxicity”.  The EPA does not have, at this time,
available data to determine whether cyprodinil has a common mechanism of
toxicity with other substances or how to include this pesticide in a
cumulative risk assessment.  For the purposes of this tolerance action,
the EPA has not assumed that cyprodinil has a common mechanism of
toxicity with other substances.

E. Safety Determination

1. U.S. population. The acute dietary exposure analysis (food plus
water) showed that exposure from all current, pending, and proposed uses
of cyprodinil would result in a MOE of 3,077 (3.3% of the aRfD of 2.0
mg/kg-bw/day) for the general U.S. population, which exceeds the
Benchmark MOE of 100. The chronic dietary exposure analysis (food plus
water) showed that exposure from all current, pending, and proposed uses
of cyprodinil resulted in a MOE of 688 (14.6% of the cRfD of 0.027
mg/kg-bw/day) for the general U.S. population, which also exceeds the
Benchmark MOE of 100.  A cancer exposure analysis was not performed,
since there is no evidence of human carcinogenic potential for
cyprodinil.  Based on the completeness and reliability of the toxicity
data supporting these petitions, Syngenta believes that there is a
reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to
residues arising from all current, pending, and proposed uses of
cyprodinil.

2. Infants and children. The acute dietary exposure analysis (food plus
water) showed that exposure from all current, pending, and proposed uses
of cyprodinil resulted in a MOE of 1,522 (6.6% of the aRfD of 2.0
mg/kg-bw/day) for the most sensitive population subgroup, all infants <1
year old, which exceeds the Benchmark MOE of 100.  The chronic aggregate
dietary (food plus water) exposure analysis showed that exposure from
all current, pending, and proposed uses of cyprodinil would result in a
254 (39.5% of the cRfD of 0.027 mg/kg-bw/day) for the most sensitive
population subgroup, children 1-2 years old, which exceeds the Benchmark
MOE of 100.  A cancer exposure analysis was not performed, since there
is no evidence of human carcinogenic potential for cyprodinil.  Based on
the completeness and reliability of the toxicity data supporting these
petitions, Syngenta believes that there is a reasonable certainty that
no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to
residues arising from all current, pending, and proposed uses of
cyprodinil.

F. International Tolerances

Codex Alimentarius Commission established Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs)
for cyprodinil in or on various agricultural commodities including
almond hulls, almonds, apple, barley, beans (except broad bean and soy
bean), cucumber, dried grapes (currants, raisins, and sultanas), edible
offal, eggplant, grapes, lettuce (head and leaf), bulb onion, pear,
sweet peppers, prunes, raspberries (red and black), summer squash, stone
fruits, straw and fodder of cereal grains, strawberry, tomato, wheat,
and various meat, milk, and egg commodities.

 PAGE

 PAGE   6


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 49 (Wednesday, March 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 13918]
[FR Doc No: 2017-05018]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property
at the South Texas Regional Airport at Hondo in Hondo, Texas

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the
release of land at the Sweetwater Municipal Airport under the
provisions of Section 125 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment
Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 14, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Mr. Ben Guttery, Manager, Federal
Aviation Administration, Southwest Region, Airports Division, Texas
Airports District Office, ASW-650, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth,
Texas 76177.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to Mr. Kirk Harris, City Services Director, at the
following address: 200 East 4th Street, P.O. Box 450, Sweetwater, Texas
79556.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mr. Anthony Mekhail, Program Manager,
Federal Aviation Administration, Texas Airports Development Office,
ASW-650, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177, Telephone: (817)
222-5663, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    The request to release property may be reviewed in person at this
same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release property at the South Texas Regional Airport at
Hondo under the provisions of the AIR 21.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    City of Sweetwater requests the release of 11.083 acres of non-
aeronautical airport property. The property is located along the
entrance/access road to the airport. This is a retroactive land release
that occurred in 1999. The Texas State Technical College (TSTC) has
provided over $140,000 of drainage improvements, widened and provided a
new roadway surface, and added curb and gutter improvements along the
roadway.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    In addition, any person may, upon request, inspect the application,
notice and other documents relevant to the application in person at the
Sweetwater Municipal Airport, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on January 12, 2017.
Ignacio Flores
Director, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-05018 Filed 3-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P