35616 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2001 / Notices NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; and to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For a copy of the ICR contact Sandy Farmer at EPA by phone at ( 202) 260   2740, by E Mail at Farmer. Sandy@ epamail. epa. gov or download off the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr and refer to EPA ICR No. 1063.08. For technical questions about the ICR contact Kelli A. Smith at ( 202) 564   2257.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Title: New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS) for Sewage Treatment Plants, Subpart O ( OMB Control No. 2060   0035; EPA ICR No. 1063.08) expiring June 30, 2001. This is a request for extension of a currently approved collection. Abstract: This ICR contains recordkeeping and reporting requirements that are mandatory for compliance with 40 CFR part 60.150, et. seq., Subpart O, New Source Performance Standards for sewage sludge treatment plant incinerators. The control of emissions of particulate matter from sewage treatment plant incinerators requires not only the installation of properly designed equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment. Particulate matter emissions from sewage treatment plant incinerators are the result of the physical and chemical characteristics of the sludge feed and fuel use, the excess air rate, the temperature profile within the incinerator, the pressure drop across the control device, and operating procedures. These standards rely on the reduction of particulate matter emissions by wet scrubbers. In order to ensure compliance with these standards, adequate recordkeeping is necessary. In the absence of such information, enforcement personnel would be unable to determine whether the standards, that are protective of public health, are being met on a continuous basis, as required by the Clean Air Act. These standards require initial notification reports with respect to construction, modification, reconstruction, startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. The standards also require reports on initial performance tests and semiannual reports of noncompliance. Under the standard, the data collected by the affected industry is retained at the facility for a minimum of two ( 2) years and made available for inspection by the Administrator. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. The Federal Register document required under 5 CFR 1320.8( d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on September 15, 2000 ( 65 FR 55955); no comments were received. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 31 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Respondents/ Affected Entities: Owners/ Operators Sewage Sludge Treatment Plants. Estimated Number of Respondents: 154. Frequency of Response: semiannually Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 9,089. Estimated Total Annualized Capital, O & M Cost Burden: $ 5,845,000. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the following addresses. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1063.08 and OMB Control No. 2060   0035 in any correspondence.

Dated: June 27, 2001. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 01   16946 Filed 7   5   01; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL   7007   9]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Application for Reimbursement to Local Governments for Emergency Response to Hazardous Substance Releases Under CERCLA Section 123 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act ( 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq.), this document announces that the following Information Collection Request ( ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) for review and approval: Application for Reimbursement to Local Governments for Emergency Response to Hazardous Substance Releases Under CERCLA Section 123, EPA ICR # 1425.05, OMB Control # 2050   0077, expiring June 30, 2001. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected burden and cost; where appropriate, it includes the actual data collection instrument. DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 6, 2001. ADDRESSES: Send comments, referencing EPA ICR No. 1425.05 and OMB Control No. # 2050   0077, to the following addresses: Sandy Farmer, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Collection Strategies Division ( Mail Code 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; and to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget ( OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For a copy of the ICR, call Sandy Farmer at EPA, ( 202) 260   2740, or download off the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr/ icr. htm and refer to EPA ICR No. 1425.05. For technical questions about the ICR contact Lisa Boynton on ( 703) 603   9052.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Title: Application for Reimbursement to Local Governments for Emergency Response to Hazardous Substance Releases Under CERCLA Section 123, OMB Control # 2050   0077, EPA ICR # 1425.05, expiring June 30, 2001. This is a request for extension of a currently approved ICR. Abstract: The Agency requires applicants for reimbursement under this VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 15: 11 Jul 05, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 06JYN1. SGM pfrm07 PsN: 06JYN1 35617 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 130 / Friday, July 6, 2001 / Notices program authorized under Section 123 of CERCLA to submit an application that demonstrates consistency with program eligibility requirements. This is necessary to ensure proper use of the Superfund. EPA reviews the information to ensure compliance with all statutory and program requirements. The applicants are local governments who have incurred expenses, above and beyond their budgets, for hazardous substance response. Submission of this information is voluntary and to the applicant's benefit. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. The Federal Register Notice required under 5 CFR 1320.8( d), soliciting comments on this collection of information was published on November 11, 2000, ( 65 FR 69510) and the comment period was extended on March 19, 2001, ( 66 FR 15427). No comments were received. Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 9 hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Respondents/ Affected Entities: State, Local, or Tribal Government. Estimated Number of Respondents: 200. Frequency of Response: When costs are incurred. Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 1800 hours. Estimated Total Annualized Capital, Operating/ Maintenance Cost Burden: $ 0. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the following addresses. Please refer to EPA ICR No. 1425.05 and OMB Control No. # 2050   0077 in any correspondence.

Dated: June 20, 2001. Oscar Morales, Director, Collection Strategies Division. [ FR Doc. 01   16948 Filed 7   5   01; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ ER   FRL   6619   7]

Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental Review Process ( ERP), under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102( 2)( c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at ( 202) 564   7167. An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements ( EISs) was published in FR dated April 14, 2000 ( 65 FR 20157).

DRAFT EISs ERP No. D   AFS   J08025   CO Rating EC2, Nucla Telluride Transmission Line Project, Permit Approval and Funding for Construction and Operation of a 115 kV Transmission Line between the Nucla Substation in Montrose County and either the Telluride or Sunshine Substations in San Miguel County, CO. Summary: EPA expressed environmental concern regarding impacts to wetlands and waters of the United States. ERP No. D   AFS   J65336   MT Rating EC2, Lolo National Forest, Big Game Winter Range and Burned Area Management, Restoration, Prevention and Cooperation, Implementation, Missoula, Lake, Mineral, Sanders, Granite, Powell, Lewis and Clark, Flathead and Ravalli Counties, MT. Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding potential herbicide transport to surface and ground waters. EPA recommended a monitoring plan for herbicides in sensitive waters to assess effectiveness of mitigation measures and that the FEIS include information regarding ground water depths in areas to be treated. ERP No. D   AFS   J65341   MT Rating EC2, Little Bear Wilson Timber Sale and Road Decommission Project, Implementation, Gallatin Range, Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman Ranger District, Gallatin County, MT. Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding the inclusion of timber harvest units in the degraded Wilson Creek Drainage, and recommended that additional mitigation be provided for reduction in sediment production or that these harvest units be dropped. EPA also believes additional information should be presented regarding aquatic monitoring, and impacts to the threatened lynx to fully assess and mitigate all potential impacts of the management actions. ERP No. D   COE   G39033   LA Rating EC2, West Bay Sediment Diversion Channel Project, Construction, Funding, Plaquemines Parish, LA. Summary: EPA has expressed environmental concerns and has requested additional information on project site selection, water quality, CWA Section 404b1 assessment, cost, comparative impact analysis, cumulative benefits, and cost sharing requirements. ERP No. D   EDA   B99003   CT Rating EC2, Adriaen's Landing Project, Development from Columbus Boulevard south of the Founders Bridge and Riverfront Plaza, City of Hartford, CT. Summary: EPA expressed concerns about the air quality analysis, and suggested measures to control construction vehicle emissions, traffic, odor, and requested a more comprehensive analysis of neighborhood noise impacts. ERP No. D   FHW   F40391   IL Rating EC2, Illinois Route 3 ( FAP   14) Relocation, Improved Transportation from Sauget to Venice, Funding, NPDES Permit and COE Section 404 Permit, Madison and St. Clair Counties, IL. Summary: EPA agreed with the project's purpose and need, range of alternatives, and selection of a preferred alternative. EPA expressed concerns that the existing wetlands compensation site falls approximately 20 acres short of providing the full amount of compensatory wetlands needed to account for the project's anticipated wetland impacts. ERP No. D   TVA   E65057   00 Rating EC2, Guntersville Reservoir Land Management Plan, Implementation, Proposal to Update a 1983 Land Allocation Plan, Jackson and Marshall Counties, AL and Marion County, TN. Summary: EPA expressed concerns regarding the potential use and effects of timber harvesting on TVA reservoir lands and the potential for TVA's selection of Alternative B1 as their preferred alternative. EPA environmentally prefers B2 since it proposes less reservoir development.

VerDate 11< MAY> 2000 15: 11 Jul 05, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 06JYN1. SGM pfrm07 PsN: 06JYN1


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60169-60170]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24266]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Safety Advisory 2012-04; Worn Rail Conditions

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

ACTION: Notice of Safety Advisory.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing Safety Advisory 2012-04 to remind track owners,
railroads, and their track inspectors of the importance of complying
with the applicable rail management programs and engineering procedures
that address rail with severe rail head wear and rolling contact
fatigue (RCF) conditions. FRA is issuing this notice in response to a
July 11, 2012, derailment in Ohio that a preliminary investigation
indicates was likely caused by the failure of multiple defects
involving detail fractures in rail exhibiting significant vertical head
loss (rail head wear) and gage-side-oriented RCF. This notice contains
recommendations to track owners to ensure that their employees and
other entities performing track inspections comply with the
requirements of the applicable engineering procedures that address
critical rail head wear, particularly if the track under inspection
exhibits significant RCF or a sudden increase in localized rail
failure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carlo M. Patrick, Staff Director, Rail
and Infrastructure Integrity Division, Office of Railroad Safety, FRA,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone (202) 493-
6399; or Elisabeth Galotto, Trial Attorney, Office of Chief Counsel,
FRA, 1200 New Jersey

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    A recent accident has highlighted the need for additional action by
track owners and other entities and individuals responsible for
compliance with the Track Safety Standards (49 CFR part 213). The
following discussion provides a brief summary of the circumstances
surrounding a recent train derailment, which appears to have involved a
rail with severe rail head wear. Information regarding this incident is
based on FRA's preliminary investigation and findings to date. The
probable causes and contributing factors, if any, have not yet been
determined by FRA. Therefore, nothing in this safety advisory is
intended to attribute a cause to this incident or place responsibility
for this incident on the acts or omissions of any person or entity.
    On July 11, 2012, an eastbound Norfolk Southern Railway Company
(NS) freight train, traveling at 23 mph, derailed in Columbus, OH. Of
the 13 cars that derailed, 3 contained hazardous materials. Two of the
cars, which contained ethanol, a flammable liquid, were compromised,
causing a fire near the Columbus Fairgrounds. Residents and businesses
within a 1-mile radius of the accident were evacuated. In addition to
the damages to the track and to equipment in the train, CSX
Transportation, Inc.'s Columbus Line (which runs parallel to the NS
track in this area) was shut down due to heat from the fire.
    FRA's preliminary investigation indicates that the derailment may
have occurred because of accelerated defect development in the rail.
During the derailment investigation process, FRA discovered that five
rail failures had occurred on various portions of the track subsequent
to the last nondestructive rail inspection at this location. FRA
believes that this accelerated defect development was possibly
influenced by the significant rail head wear, and attributed to the
presence of the RCF.
    Given this accident, FRA recommends that each entity responsible
for the inspection and maintenance of track review, reemphasize, and
adhere to the requirements of the track owner's (1) engineering
instructions concerning rail wear limits that address inspecting track
to identify internal rail flaws; and (2) programs for the management of
rail that exhibits severe rail head wear and RCF. As the discussion
above indicates, this is especially critical for track over which large
quantities of hazardous materials or passengers are transported due to
the potential catastrophic impacts that can result from a derailment of
these types of trains.
    Rail head wear occurs primarily on the gage-side face when the rail
is located on the high side of a curve, due to the exertion of wheel
flange forces. Vertical rail head wear occurs on the rail head running
surface from wheel/rail interaction during cyclical loading. The
development of internal rail defects is an inevitable consequence of
the accumulation and effects of fatigue under repeated loading. In
practice, the growth rate of rail defects is considered highly variable
and unpredictable. Moreover, heavy axle loading on worn rail can lead
to the accelerated development of rail surface fatigue, and this may
prevent detection of an underlying rail flaw by test equipment during
the rail inspection process.
    Under 49 CFR 213.237(a), FRA requires all Class 4 and 5 track, as
well as Class 3 track over which passenger trains operate, to be tested
for internal rail defects at least once after every accumulation of 40
mgt of traffic or once a year, whichever is shorter. Class 3 track,
over which passenger trains do not operate, is required to be tested at
least once after every accumulation of 30 mgt of traffic or once a
year, whichever is longer. However, as a result of the unpredictability
of defect development, many railroads test for internal rail defects
using a performance-based method that focuses on the rate of defect
development, which typically results in testing for internal defects at
a frequency shorter than required by FRA regulation. Yet, a
nondestructive test system is typically designed to perform optimally
on an ideal test specimen surface. Conditions, such as extreme cyclical
loading, can result in rail head wear and RCF and thus affect the
integrity of these rail flaw inspections.
    Recommended Action: In light of the above, FRA recommends that each
track owner:
    1. Review with its employees the circumstances of the derailment
identified above and ensure that the employees report any incidents
where a sudden increase of rail failure occurs in a localized area.
    2. Discuss with its employees the requirements of its own
engineering instructions and ensure that the employees can identify
locations that exhibit excessive rail head wear and RCF.
    3. Review its current engineering instructions to ensure that the
procedures are consistent with the industry standard for rail
replacement.
    4. Ensure that its employees responsible for the rail inspection
process have been adequately trained and are capable of performing
proper inspection procedures.
    5. Consider and use, as appropriate, recently developed rail
inspection technology that is more capable of identifying transverse-
oriented defects under RCF.
    6. Review recent rail inspection records to identify any incidents
involving sudden or accelerated broken rail for future inspection or
replacement focus.
    7. Apply appropriate slow orders at locations that exhibit rail
head wear approaching the limits specified in its own respective
engineering instructions until the rail is replaced.
    8. Develop an internal software program on rail management that
will assist in the identification of sudden or accelerated rail failure
incidents, if such a program is not already in place.
    FRA encourages railroad industry members and other track owners to
take actions that are consistent with the preceding recommendations and
to take other actions to help ensure the safety of the Nation's
railroads, its employees, and the general public. FRA may modify this
Safety Advisory 2012-04, issue additional safety advisories, or take
other appropriate actions it deems necessary under its rail safety
authority to ensure the highest level of safety on the Nation's
railroads.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 26, 2012.
Jo Strang,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety/Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-24266 Filed 10-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 188 (Thursday, September 27, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48719-48721]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21013]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2018-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8549]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates
listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not
occur and a notice of this will be provided by publication in the
Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying
the current participation status of a community can be obtained from
FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-community-status-book.

DATES: The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is
the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third column of the following
tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact Adrienne L. Sheldon, PE, CFM, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from
private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer
local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new
construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale
of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts
adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that
statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR
part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the
effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of
these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of
legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is
published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities
will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of
NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such
communities will be published in the Federal Register.
    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that
identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities.
The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the
fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance
(except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be
provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified
SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for
more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having
flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act
of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against
certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the
communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The
Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5
U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities
listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has determined that the
community suspension(s) included in this rule is a non-discretionary
action and therefore the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) does not apply.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless
an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management
measures with effective

enforcement measures. The communities listed no longer comply with the
statutory requirements, and after the effective date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the communities unless remedial action
takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6   [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Effective date
                                                 authorization/
                                   Community    cancellation of    Current effective map   Date certain Federal
       State and location             No.        sale of flood             date            assistance no longer
                                                  insurance in                              available in SFHAs
                                                   community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Region IV

Georgia:
    Acworth, City of, Cobb             130053  March 14, 1974,    Oct. 5, 2018..........  Oct. 5, 2018.
     County.                                    Emerg; February
                                                15, 1978, Reg;
                                                October 5, 2018,
                                                Susp.
    Adairsville, City of,              130235  January 5, 1979,   ......do *............   Do.
     Bartow County.                             Emerg; July 30,
                                                1982, Reg;
                                                October 5, 2018,
                                                Susp.
    Bartow County,                     130463  May 10, 1979,      ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; September
                                                29, 1989, Reg;
                                                October 5, 2018,
                                                Susp.
    Cartersville, City of,             130209  April 17, 1974,    ......do..............   Do.
     Bartow County.                             Emerg; June 25,
                                                1982, Reg;
                                                October 5, 2018,
                                                Susp.
    Cobb County, Unincorporated        130052  June 12, 1973,     ......do..............   Do.
     Areas.                                     Emerg; January
                                                3, 1979, Reg;
                                                October 5, 2018,
                                                Susp.
    Emerson, City of, Bartow           130276  April 19, 1976,    ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; October
                                                8, 1982, Reg;
                                                October 5, 2018,
                                                Susp.
    Euharlee, City of, Bartow          130570  N/A, Emerg;        ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    August 2, 1999,
                                                Reg; October 5,
                                                2018, Susp.
    Kennesaw, City of, Cobb            130055  July 25, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; August 1,
                                                1980, Reg;
                                                October 5, 2018,
                                                Susp.
    Kingston, City of, Bartow          130277  N/A, Emerg;        ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    November 13,
                                                2002, Reg;
                                                October 5, 2018,
                                                Susp.
    Marietta, City of, Cobb            130226  September 5,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1974, Emerg;
                                                February 15,
                                                1978, Reg;
                                                October 5, 2018,
                                                Susp.
    Smyrna, City of, Cobb              130057  December 17,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    1973, Emerg;
                                                December 15,
                                                1977, Reg;
                                                October 5, 2018,
                                                Susp.
    White, City of, Bartow             130278  June 18, 1976,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; June 4,
                                                1982, Reg;
                                                October 5, 2018,
                                                Susp.

           Region VI

Louisiana:
    Baskin, Village of,                220072  May 15, 1973,      ......do..............   Do.
     Franklin Parish.                           Emerg; September
                                                1, 1986, Reg;
                                                October 5, 2018,
                                                Susp.
    Epps, Village of, West             220283  July 28, 1995,     ......do..............   Do.
     Carroll Parish.                            Emerg; March 1,
                                                2010, Reg;
                                                October 5, 2018,
                                                Susp.
    Forest, Village of, West           220286  N/A, Emerg;        ......do..............   Do.
     Carroll Parish.                            February 6,
                                                2009, Reg;
                                                October 5, 2018,
                                                Susp.
    Franklin Parish,                   220071  May 2, 1973,       ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; November
                                                1, 1985, Reg;
                                                October 5, 2018,
                                                Susp.
    Gilbert, Village of,               220073  May 2, 1973,       ......do..............   Do.
     Franklin Parish.                           Emerg; September
                                                3, 1980, Reg;
                                                October 5, 2018,
                                                Susp.
    Oak Grove, Town of, West           220342  N/A, Emerg;        ......do..............   Do.
     Carroll Parish.                            August 18, 1997,
                                                Reg; October 5,
                                                2018, Susp.
    Pioneer, Village of, West          220244  N/A, Emerg; July   ......do..............   Do.
     Carroll Parish.                            11, 1997,
                                                Reg;October 5,
                                                2018, Susp.
    West Carroll Parish,               220243  March 14, 1975,    ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; March 1,
                                                1987, Reg;
                                                October 5, 2018,
                                                Susp.
    Winnsboro, City of,                220074  May 2, 1973,       ......do..............   Do.
     Franklin Parish.                           Emerg; September
                                                1, 1978, Reg;
                                                October 5, 2018,
                                                Susp.
    Wisner, Town of, Franklin          220075  May 2, 1973,       ......do..............   Do.
     Parish.                                    Emerg; July 16,
                                                1980, Reg;
                                                October 5, 2018,
                                                Susp.

           Region VII

Iowa:

    Jasper County,                     190880  February 23,       ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      1983, Emerg;
                                                January 1, 1987,
                                                Reg; October 5,
                                                2018, Susp.
    Kellogg, City of, Jasper           190164  June 3, 1977,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; June 1,
                                                1987, Reg;
                                                October 5, 2018,
                                                Susp.
    Lynnville, City of, Jasper         190165  N/A, Emerg;        ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    January 11,
                                                2018, Reg;
                                                October 5, 2018,
                                                Susp.
    Mingo, City of, Jasper             190166  N/A, Emerg;        ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    August 4, 2011,
                                                Reg; October 5,
                                                2018, Susp.
    Monroe, City of, Jasper            190621  N/A, Emerg; June   ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    18, 2010, Reg;
                                                October 5, 2018,
                                                Susp.
    Newton, City of, Jasper            190628  May 9, 1977,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; April 25,
                                                1980, Reg;
                                                October 5, 2018,
                                                Susp.
Missouri:
    Lincoln County,                    290869  June 9, 1980,      ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                      Emerg; March 15,
                                                1984, Reg;
                                                October 5, 2018,
                                                Susp.
    Troy, City of, Lincoln             290641  April 17, 1980,    ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                    Emerg; May 5,
                                                1981, Reg;
                                                October 5, 2018,
                                                Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* -do- and Do = Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp.--Suspension.

    Dated: September 14, 2018.
Eric Letvin,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-21013 Filed 9-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 203 (Tuesday, October 20, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66568-66569]
[FR Doc No: 2020-23135]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2020-N-1058]

Keith Komar: Final Debarment Order

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing an order
under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) debarring
Keith Komar for a period of 5 years from importing or offering for
import any drug into the United States. FDA bases this order on a
finding that Mr. Komar was convicted of one felony count under Federal
law for mail fraud. The factual basis supporting Mr. Komar's
conviction, as described below, is conduct relating to the importation
into the United States of a drug or controlled substance. Mr. Komar was
given notice of the proposed debarment and was given an opportunity to
request a hearing to show why he should not be debarred. As of 30 days
after receipt of the notice (July 22, 2020), Mr. Komar had not
responded. Mr. Komar's failure to respond and request a hearing
constitutes a waiver of his right to a hearing concerning this matter.

DATES: This order is applicable October 20, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit applications for termination of debarment to the
Dockets Management Staff, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaime Espinosa, Division of
Enforcement, Office of Strategic Planning and Operational Policy,
Office of Regulatory Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, 12420
Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20857,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 306(b)(1)(D) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(b)(1)(D))
permits debarment of an individual from importing or offering for
import any drug into the United States if FDA finds, as required by
section 306(b)(3)(C) of the FD&C Act, that the individual has been
convicted of a felony for conduct relating to the importation into the
United States of any drug or controlled substance. On November 7, 2019,
Mr. Komar was convicted, as defined in section 306(l)(1) of the FD&C
Act, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, when the court entered judgment against him for the
felony offense of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341.
    FDA's finding that debarment is appropriate is based on the felony
conviction referenced herein. The factual basis for this conviction is
as follows: As contained in count 3 of the indictment in Mr. Komar's
case, filed on November 29, 2017, to which Mr. Komar pleaded guilty, on
or about December 7, 2015, Mr. Komar, for the purpose of executing a
scheme and artifice to defraud, and in attempting to do so, knowingly
caused the U.S. mail to deliver from Mumbai, India, a parcel containing
misbranded drugs. Specifically, the parcel contained 30 tablets of the
unapproved new prescription drug bicalutamide and 30 gelcaps of the
unapproved new prescription drug isotretinoin. These drugs were
misbranded because, as contained in the indictment in Mr. Komar's case,
they were dispensed to consumers without a valid prescription from a
practitioner licensed by law to administer such drugs, and they did not
contain labeling bearing adequate directions for use. As detailed in
facts contained in counts 1, 2, and 4 of Mr. Komar's indictment (facts
which Mr. Komar acknowledged responsibility for in his plea agreement),
Mr. Komar was part of a criminal conspiracy. As part of this criminal
conspiracy, Mr. Komar's intent was to fraudulently import this
misbranded bicalutamide and isotretinoin and sell them in interstate
commerce to customers of Mr. Komar's websites. On these websites Mr.
Komar made a number of false statements to potential customers, such as
that he provided ``high quality, safe, and approved medications meeting
or exceeding the U.S. FDA standard.'' In addition, Mr. Komar later did
in fact cause the introduction and delivery for introduction of
misbranded drugs (bicalutamide and isotretinoin) into interstate
commerce with the intent to defraud and mislead by selling these
unapproved new prescription drugs to a

customer who did not have a prescription for them. A member of the
conspiracy caused the customs declaration on the parcel to falsely
report that the parcel contained a health product sample with no
declared value.
    As a result of this conviction, FDA sent Mr. Komar, by certified
mail on June 11, 2020, a notice proposing to debar him for a 5-year
period from importing or offering for import any drug into the United
States. The proposal was based on a finding under section 306(b)(3)(C)
of the FD&C Act that Mr. Komar's felony conviction for one felony count
under Federal law for mail fraud was for conduct relating to the
importation into the United States of any drug or controlled substance
because he illegally caused bicalutamide and isotretinoin to be
introduced in interstate commerce from Mumbai, India, by selling to a
consumer who did not have a prescription through the U.S. mail in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341.
    In proposing a debarment period, FDA weighed the considerations set
forth in section 306(c)(3) of the FD&C Act that it considered
applicable to Mr. Komar's offenses and concluded that this felony
offense warranted the imposition of a 5-year period of debarment. The
proposal informed Mr. Komar of the proposed debarment and offered Mr.
Komar an opportunity to request a hearing, providing him 30 days from
the date of receipt of the letter in which to file the request, and
advised him that failure to request a hearing constituted a waiver of
the opportunity for a hearing and of any contentions concerning this
action. Mr. Komar received the proposal and notice of opportunity for a
hearing on June 22, 2020. Mr. Komar failed to request a hearing within
the timeframe prescribed by regulation and has, therefore, waived his
opportunity for a hearing and waived any contentions concerning his
debarment (21 CFR part 12).

II. Findings and Order

    Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner, Office of Human and Animal
Food Operations, under section 306(b)(3)(C) of the FD&C Act, under
authority delegated to the Assistant Commissioner, finds that Mr. Keith
Komar has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct
relating to the importation into the United States of any drug or
controlled substance. FDA finds that the offense should be accorded a
debarment period of 5 years as provided by section 306(c)(2)(A)(iii) of
the FD&C Act.
    As a result of the foregoing finding, Mr. Komar is debarred for a
period of 5 years from importing or offering for import any drug into
the United States, effective (see DATES). Pursuant to section 301(cc)
of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 331(cc)), the importing or offering for
import into the United States of any drug or controlled substance by,
with the assistance of, or at the direction of Mr. Komar is a
prohibited act.
    Any application by Mr. Komar for termination of debarment under
section 306(d)(1) of the FD&C Act should be identified with Docket No.
FDA-2020-N-1058 and sent to the Dockets Management Staff (see
ADDRESSES). The public availability of information in these submissions
is governed by 21 CFR 10.20(j).
    Publicly available submissions will be placed in the docket and
will be viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets
Management Staff (see ADDRESSES) between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: October 13, 2020.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-23135 Filed 10-19-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64964-64966]
[FR Doc No: 2023-20419]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Submission Deadline for Schedule Information for
Chicago O'Hare International Airport, John F. Kennedy International
Airport, Los Angeles International Airport, Newark Liberty
International Airport, and San Francisco International Airport for the
Summer 2024 Scheduling Season

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

ACTION: Notice of submission deadline.

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

SUMMARY: Under this notice, the FAA announces the submission deadline
of October 5, 2023, for Summer 2024 flight schedules at Chicago O'Hare
International Airport (ORD), John F. Kennedy International Airport
(JFK), Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Newark Liberty
International Airport (EWR), and San Francisco International Airport
(SFO). In addition, this notice announces a new voluntary, targeted
hourly scheduling limit at EWR based on a review of recent operational
performance metrics.

DATES: Schedules should be submitted by October 5, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Schedules may be submitted to the Slot Administration Office
by email to: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Meilus, Manager, Slot
Administration and Capacity Analysis, AJR-G, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document provides routine notice to
carriers serving capacity-constrained airports in the United States,
including ORD, JFK, LAX, EWR, and SFO. In particular, this notice
announces the deadline for carriers to submit schedules for the Summer
2024 scheduling season. The FAA deadline coincides with the schedule
submission deadline established in the Calendar of Coordination
Activities as published by the International Air Transport Association
(IATA).

General Information for All Airports

    The FAA has designated JFK as an IATA Level 3 airport consistent
with the Worldwide Slot Guidelines (WSG).\1\ The FAA currently limits
scheduled operations at JFK by order that expires on October 26,
2024.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The FAA generally applies the WSG to the extent there is no
conflict with U.S. law or regulation. The FAA recognizes the WSG has
been replaced by the Worldwide Airports Slot Guidelines (WASG)
edition 1, effective June 1, 2020, and subsequently WASG edition 2,
effective July 1, 2022. The WASG is published jointly by Airports
Council International-World, IATA, and the Worldwide Airport
Coordinators Group (WWACG). While the FAA is considering whether to
implement certain changes to the Guidelines in the United States, it
will continue to apply WSG edition 9.
    \2\ Operating Limitations at John F. Kennedy International
Airport, 73 FR 3510 (Jan. 18, 2008), as most recently extended 87 FR
65161 (Oct. 28, 2022). The slot coordination parameters for JFK are
set forth in this Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA has designated EWR, LAX, ORD, and SFO as IATA Level 2
airports \3\ subject to a schedule review process premised upon
voluntary cooperation. The Summer 2024 scheduling season is from March
31, 2024, through October 26, 2024, in recognition of the IATA Summer
season.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ These designations remain effective until the FAA announces
a change in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA is primarily concerned about scheduled and other regularly
conducted commercial operations during designated hours, but carriers
may submit schedule plans for the entire day. The designated hours for
the Summer 2024 scheduling season are: at EWR and JFK from 0600 to 2300
Eastern Time (1000 to 0300 UTC), at LAX and SFO from 0600 to 2300
Pacific Time (1300 to 0600 UTC), and at ORD from 0600 to 2100 Central
Time (1100 to 0200 UTC). These hours are unchanged from previous
scheduling seasons.
    Carriers should submit schedule information in sufficient detail
including, at minimum, the marketing or operating carrier, flight
number, scheduled time of operation, frequency, aircraft equipment, and
effective dates. IATA standard schedule information format and data
elements for communications at Level 2 and Level 3 airports in the IATA
Standard Schedules Information Manual (SSIM) Chapter 6 may be used. The
WSG provides additional information on schedule submissions at Level 2
and Level 3 airports. Some carriers at JFK manage and track slots
through FAA-assigned Slot ID numbers corresponding to an arrival or
departure slot in a particular half-hour on a particular day of week
and date. The FAA has a similar voluntary process for tracking
schedules at EWR with Reference IDs, and certain carriers are managing
their schedules accordingly. The primary users of IDs are United States
and Canadian carriers that have the highest frequencies and
considerable schedule changes throughout the season and can benefit
from a simplified exchange of

information not dependent on full flight details. Carriers are
encouraged to submit schedule requests at those airports using Slot or
Reference IDs.
    As stated in the WSG, schedule facilitation at a Level 2 airport is
based on the following: (1) Schedule adjustments are mutually agreed
upon between the carriers and the facilitator; (2) the intent is to
avoid exceeding the airport's coordination parameters; (3) the concepts
of historic precedence and series of slots do not apply at Level 2
airports; although WSG recommends giving priority to approved services
that plan to operate unchanged from the previous equivalent season at
Level 2 airports, and (4) the facilitator should adjust the smallest
number of flights by the least amount of time necessary to avoid
exceeding the airport's coordination parameters. Consistent with the
WSG, the success of Level 2 in the United States depends on the
voluntary cooperation of carriers.
    The FAA considers several factors and priorities that are
consistent with the WSG as it reviews schedule and slot requests at
Level 2 and Level 3 airports, including (1) historic slots or services
from the previous equivalent season over new demand for the same
timings; (2) services that are unchanged over services that plan to
change time or other capacity relevant parameters; (3) introduction of
year-round services; (4) effective period of operation; (5) regularly
planned operations over ad hoc operations, and other operational
factors that may limit a carrier's timing flexibility.
    The FAA seeks to maintain close communications with carriers and
terminal schedule facilitators on potential runway schedule issues or
terminal and gate issues that may affect the runway times. In addition
to applying these priorities from the WSG, the U.S. Government has
adopted a number of measures and procedures to promote competition and
new entry at U.S. slot-controlled and schedule-facilitated airports.
    Slot management in the United States differs in some respect from
procedures in other countries. In the United States, the FAA is
responsible for facilitation and coordination of runway access for
takeoffs and landings at Level 2 and Level 3 airports; however, the
airport authority or its designee is responsible for facilitation and
coordination of terminal/gate/airport facility access. The process with
the individual airports for terminal access and other airport services
is separate from, and in addition to, the FAA schedule review based on
runway capacity.
    Generally, the FAA uses average hourly runway capacity throughput
for airports and performance metrics in conducting its schedule review
at Level 2 airports and determining the scheduling limits at Level 3
airports included in FAA rules or orders.\4\ The FAA also considers
other factors that can affect operations, such as capacity changes due
to runway, taxiway, or other airport construction, air traffic control
procedural changes, airport surface operations, and historical or
projected flight delays and congestion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The FAA typically determines an airport's average adjusted
runway capacity or typical throughput for Level 2 airports by
reviewing hourly data on the arrival and departure rates that air
traffic control indicates could be accepted for that hour, commonly
known as ``called'' rates. The FAA also reviews the actual number of
arrivals and departures that operated in the same hour. Generally,
the FAA uses the higher of the two numbers, called or actual, for
identifying trends and schedule review purposes. Some dates are
excluded from analysis, such as during periods when extended airport
closures or construction could affect capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the FAA notes that the schedule information submitted by
carriers to the FAA may be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA). The WSG also provides for release of
information at certain stages of slot coordination and schedule
facilitation. In general, once it acts on a schedule submission or slot
request, the FAA may release information on slot allocation or similar
slot transactions, or schedule information reviewed as part of the
schedule facilitation process. The FAA does not expect that practice to
change, and most slot and schedule information would not be exempt from
release under FOIA. The FAA recognizes that some carriers may submit
information on schedule plans that is both customarily and actually
treated as private. Carriers that submit such confidential schedule
information should clearly mark the information, or any relevant
portions thereof, as proprietary information (``PROPIN''). The FAA will
take the necessary steps to protect properly designated information to
the extent allowable by law.

EWR General Information

    Consistent with the WSG, carriers are asked for their voluntary
cooperation to adjust schedules to meet the targeted scheduling limits
in order to minimize potential congestion and delay. Even with the
current targeted scheduling limits, on-time performance at EWR is among
the worst in the nation. Since 2018, EWR has had the largest number of
Ground Delay Programs (GDPs),\5\ the largest number of late arriving
aircraft due to GDPs,\6\ and the lowest on-time arrival rate \7\ among
the Core 30 airports. The FAA has also reviewed the distributions of
scheduled operations and actual runway operations. Based on Aviation
System Performance Metrics (ASPM) data from January 2022 through July
2023, there is a significant imbalance between scheduled operations and
actual runway operations.\8\ Based on FAA internal analysis, the median
hourly number of actual runway operations at EWR is lower than the
median number of hourly scheduled operations by three operations per
hour. Further, the actual airport throughput (the sum of actual
arrivals and departures) is less than or equal to 77 operations per
hour 95% of the time based on ASPM empirical data. Current approved
schedules at EWR routinely exceed 77 operations per hour and in fact
exceed the current schedule limit of 79 operations per hour. The hours
that are most frequently scheduled above the approved hourly targeted
scheduling limit are 0700, 0800, 1500, 1600, 1700, 1900, and 2000
Eastern Time. Schedules in these hours can reach 88 operations per
hour. This imbalance in schedules and actual throughput results in
congestion which, in turn, results in chronic delays and cancellations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ASPM: Key Advisories: GDP & GS Report. https://aspm.faa.gov/aspmhelp/index/ASPM_Key_Advisories__GDP_%26_GS_Report.html.
    \6\ ASPM: Airport Analysis: EDCT Report.
    \7\ Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM): Airport
Analysis: Delayed Flights Report. https://aspm.faa.gov/aspmhelp/index/ASPM__Analysis__Delayed_Flights.html.
    \8\ ASPM: Airport Efficiency: Daily Configuration By Hour
Report. https://aspmhelp.faa.gov/index/ASPM_Efficiency__Daily_Configuration_By_Hour_Report.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current voluntary targeted scheduling limits at EWR are 79
operations per hour and 43 operations per half hour. The current
targeted maximum number of scheduled arrivals or departures,
respectively, is 43 in an hour and 24 in a half-hour.\9\ To better
align scheduled operations with the airport's runway operational
capacity, based on actual runway operations, the targeted scheduling
limit is reduced to 77 operations per hour and 42 operations per half
hour. Improving the alignment between scheduled operations and actual
operations will help prevent unnecessary delays, will help optimize the
efficient use of the airport's resources, and will help deliver
passengers to their destinations more reliably and on time. To balance
arrivals

and departures, the targeted maximum number of scheduled arrivals and
departures, respectively, will be 42 in an hour and 23 in a half-hour.
These targets are expected to allow some higher levels of operations in
certain periods (not to exceed the hourly limits) and some recovery
from lower demand in adjacent periods. Consistent with general
established practice at EWR, the FAA will accept flights above the
limits if the flights were operated as approved, or treated as
operated, by the same carrier on a regular basis in the previous
corresponding season (i.e., Summer 2023) and consistent with the recent
DOT reassignment of 16 peak-hour runway timings.\10\ However, the FAA
does not intend to approve requests for new flights unless they can be
accommodated within the targeted limits. The FAA is seeking carriers'
voluntary cooperation to get scheduled operations down to the new
targeted scheduling limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 88 FR 22514 (April 13, 2023); 87 FR 60430 (October 5,
2022).
    \10\ See Department of Transportation Order 2022-7-1, Docket
DOT-OST-2021-0103, served July 5, 2022, ``Reassignment of Schedules
at Newark-Liberty International Airport''.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Carriers are reminded that FAA approval for runway times is
separate from the approval process for gates or other airport
infrastructure and both are essential for the success of Level 2 at
EWR. Schedule facilitation at Level 2 airports is designed to engender
collaboration and gain mutual agreement between the carriers and the
FAA regarding schedules and potential adjustments to stay within the
performance goals and capacity limits of the airport and to mitigate
delays and congestion that would result in the need for Level 3 slot
controls. The FAA expects that all carriers operating at EWR will
respect the targeted scheduling limits and work cooperatively with the
FAA in order to avoid unacceptable delays and other adverse operational
impacts at the airport.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on September 15, 2023.
Alyce Hood-Fleming,
Vice President, System Operations Services.
[FR Doc. 2023-20419 Filed 9-18-23; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 100 (Thursday, May 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24117-24119]
[FR Doc No: 2017-10754]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0794; FRL-9957-98]

Registration Review; Draft Human Health and/or Ecological Risk
Assessment(s), and Final Tetrachlorvinphos Occupational and Residential
Exposure Risk Assessment, and the Agency's Decision To Rely on Data
From Human Health Research; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's draft human
health and ecological risk assessments for the registration review of
bromacil, cyprodinil, and propamocarb; the draft human health risk
assessment for the registration review of cyphenothrin; and the draft
ecological risk assessment for the registration review of 2, 4-D, and
opens a public comment period on these documents. This notice also
announces the availability of EPA's final occupational and residential
exposure assessment for the registration review of tetrachlorvinphos
(TCVP) and EPA's explanation for relying on TCVP data from human
research on TCVP exposure from pet collars. The TCVP draft risk
assessments were published for a 60-day public comment period in the
Federal Register of January 20, 2016 (81 FR 3128) (FRL-9940-81).
Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide registrations
to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the statutory
standard for registration; that is, the pesticide can perform its
intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human health
or the environment. As part of the registration review process, the
Agency has completed comprehensive draft human health and draft
ecological risk assessments for the registration review of bromacil,
cyprodinil, and propamocarb; the draft human health risk assessment for
the registration review of cyphenothrin; the final occupational and
residential exposure assessment for TCVP; and the draft ecological risk
assessment for the registration review of 2, 4-D. After reviewing
comments received during the public comment period for all pesticide
cases named above (excluding TCVP), EPA may issue a revised risk
assessment, explain any changes to the draft risk assessment, and
respond to comments and may request public input on risk mitigation
before completing a proposed registration review decision for the
pesticides identified above. Regarding TCVP, the EPA has published a
revised human health and final occupational and residential exposure
assessment in addition to response to comments and other support
documents, which explain changes to the preliminary risk assessments
and responds to substantive comments. Through the registration review
program, the EPA is ensuring that each pesticide's registrations are
based on current scientific and other knowledge, including its effects
on human health and the environment.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 24, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0794, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.

    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For pesticide specific information contact: The Chemical Review
Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in Tables 1 and II of
Unit III.
    For general questions on the registration review program, contact:
Richard Dumas, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the Chemical Review Manager identified in Tables 1 and II of
Unit III.

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the pesticides
discussed in this document, compared to the general population.

II. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals listed
in Tables 1 and II of Unit III pursuant to section 3(g) of the FIFRA
and the Procedural Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part
155, subpart C. Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things,
that the registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years.
Under FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered
only if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA
section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with
widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must
perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the
use of a pesticide in or on food.

III. Registration Reviews

    As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is reviewing the pesticide
registration for the pesticides listed in Tables 1 and 2 to ensure that
they continue to satisfy the FIFRA standard for registration--that is,
that these chemicals can still be used without unreasonable adverse
effects on human health or the environment.

 Table 1--Draft Risk Assessments Being Made Available for Public Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Registration review case name                      Contact and contact
          and number             Docket ID number       information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,4-D 0073....................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0  Brittany Pruitt,
                                 330<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 347-0289.
Bromacil 0041.................  EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0  Steven Snyderman,
                                 445<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 347-0249.
Cyphenothrin 7412.............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0  Margaret Hathaway,
                                 842<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 305-
                                                    5076.
Cyprodinil 7025...............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-1  Leigh Rimmer,
                                 008<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Propamocarb 3124..............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0  Christina Scheltema,
                                 662<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(703) 308-
                                                    2201.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 2--Final Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment Being
                Made Available (No Public Comment Period)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Registration review case name                      Contact and contact
          and number             Docket ID number       information
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tetrachlorvinphos (TCVP) 0321.  EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0  James Parker,
                                 316<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.53(c), EPA is providing an opportunity,
through this notice of availability, for interested parties to provide
comments and input concerning the Agency's draft human health and
ecological risk assessments for the registration review of bromacil,
cyprodinil, and propamocarb; the draft human health risk assessment for
cyphenothrin; and the draft ecological risk assessment for the
registration review of 2, 4-D. Such comments and input could address,
among other things, the Agency's risk assessment methodologies and
assumptions, as applied to a draft risk assessment. The Agency will
consider all comments received during the public comment period and
make changes, as appropriate, to a draft human health and/or ecological
risk assessment. EPA

may then issue a revised risk assessment, explain any changes to the
draft risk assessment, and respond to comments. In the Federal Register
notice announcing the availability of the revised risk assessment, if
the revised risk assessment indicates risks of concern, the Agency may
provide a comment period for the public to submit suggestions for
mitigating the risk identified in the revised risk assessment before
developing a proposed registration review decision on the pesticides
identified above.
    As directed by FIFRA section 3(g), EPA is also reviewing the
pesticide registration for TCVP to ensure that it continues to satisfy
the FIFRA standard for registration--that is, that TCVP can still be
used without unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the
environment. TCVP is an organophosphate (OP) insecticide used to
control fleas, ticks, flies, lice, and insect larvae on livestock and
domestic animals and their premises. TCVP is also applied as a
perimeter treatment. TCVP is formulated into dusts, pet collars,
emulsifiable concentrates, feed additives (solid and liquid), feed
blocks, wettable powders, pellets and granular products. This Federal
Register notice is announcing that the EPA has published the final
registration review TCVP occupational and residential exposure risk
assessment for all TCVP uses.
    The final TCVP registration review occupational and residential
exposure risk assessment incorporates several changes, including a
reduction of the oral toxicological point of departure (POD) from 8.0
milligram/kilogram/day (mg/kg/day) to 2.8 mg/kg/day; the use of human
research data (Davis, M. et al.,) ``Assessing Intermittent Pesticide
Exposure from Flea Control Collars Containing the Organophosphorus
Insecticide Tetrachlorvinphos'' to assess residential post-application
exposure; and an approach to account for the potential release of TCVP
from pet collar products as a liquid and solid form concurrently.
    In addition to the final occupational and residential exposure
assessment, the registration review docket for TCVP also includes other
relevant documents related to the registration review of this case. The
preliminary registration review assessments were previously posted to
the published in the Federal Register of January 20, 2016 for a 60-day
comment period, during which time the public was invited to submit
comments or new information.
    During the 60-day comment period, comments were received from Bayer
HealthCare (Bayer), The Hartz Mountain Corporation (Hartz), the Center
for Biological Diversity (CBD), United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the general
public. The EPA's response to comments on the registration review
preliminary risk assessments can be assessed in the TCVP docket (EPA-
HQ-OPP-2008-0316) at www.regulations.gov.
    In compliance with EPA's rule for protection of human subjects,
specifically 40 CFR 26.1706(d), EPA is hereby publishing its full
explanation of the Agency's decision to rely on data from human
research ``Assessing Intermittent Pesticide Exposure From Flea Control
Collars Containing the Organophosphorus Insecticide Tetrachlorvinphos
(TCVP) by M. Keith Davis, J. Scott Boone, John E. Moran, John W. Tyler
and Janice E. Chambers) on TCVP exposure from pet collars. Relying on
this data is crucial to EPA's decision that more stringent regulatory
restrictions are necessary to protect public health than could be
justified without the data. EPA's full explanation can be found at
regulations.gov in docket number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0316, and on OPP's Web
page at https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/use-tetrachlorvinfos-exposure-data-human-research.
    1. Other related information. Additional information on the
registration review status of the chemicals listed in Tables 1 and 2 of
Unit III, as well as information on the Agency's registration review
program and on its implementing regulation is available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.
    2. Information submission requirements. Anyone may submit data or
information in response to this document. To be considered during a
pesticide's registration review, the submitted data or information must
meet the following requirements:
     To ensure that EPA will consider data or information
submitted, interested persons must submit the data or information
during the comment period. The Agency may, at its discretion, consider
data or information submitted at a later date.
     The data or information submitted must be presented in a
legible and useable form. For example, an English translation must
accompany any material that is not in English and a written transcript
must accompany any information submitted as an audiographic or
videographic record. Written material may be submitted in paper or
electronic form.
     Submitters must clearly identify the source of any
submitted data or information.
     Submitters may request the Agency to reconsider data or
information that the Agency rejected in a previous review. However,
submitters must explain why they believe the Agency should reconsider
the data or information in the pesticide's registration review.
    As provided in 40 CFR 155.58, the registration review docket for
each pesticide case will remain publicly accessible through the
duration of the registration review process; that is, until all actions
required in the final decision on the registration review case have
been completed.

    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: January 13, 2017.
Yu-Ting Guilaran,
Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2017-10754 Filed 5-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 21, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 204)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62450]
[DOCID:fr21oc08-13]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0256]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Duwamish Waterway, Seattle, WA,
Schedule Change

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is withdrawing its notice of proposed
rulemaking concerning drawbridge operations for the Spokane Street
Bridge across the Duwamish Waterway, mile 0.3, in Seattle, Washington.
The proposed rule would have established two daily closed draw periods
Monday through Friday to help alleviate road traffic, with the proviso
that openings would be provided at any time for vessels of 5000 gross
tons or more. The proposed rule is being withdrawn because Spokane
Street Bridge draw records along with road traffic counts conducted
after the notice of proposed rulemaking was published indicate that the
number of draw openings and the amount of traffic using the Spokane
Street Bridge are not sufficient to warrant the negative impact that
the proposed rule would have on commercial maritime traffic using the
waterway under the bridge.

DATES: The notice of proposed rulemaking is withdrawn on October 21,
2008.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this withdrawn rulemaking is available for
inspection or copying at the 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, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. You may also find
this docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Austin Pratt, Chief, Bridge Section, Waterways Management
Branch, 13th Coast Guard District, at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have
questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager,
Docket Operations, at<PHONE_NUMBER>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On May 22, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
entitled ``Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Duwamish Waterway, Seattle,
WA, Schedule Change'' in the Federal Register (73 FR 29723). The
proposed rule would have established two daily closed draw periods for
the Spokane Street Bridge across the Duwamish Waterway, mile 0.3, in
Seattle, Washington, Monday through Friday to help alleviate road
traffic, with the proviso that openings would be provided at any time
for vessels of 5000 gross tons or more.

Withdrawal

    The notice of proposed rulemaking is being withdrawn because the
Spokane Street Bridge draw records along with road traffic counts
conducted after the notice of proposed rulemaking was published
indicate that the number of draw openings and amount of traffic using
the Spokane Street Bridge are not sufficient to warrant the negative
impact that the proposed rule would have on commercial maritime traffic
using the waterway under the bridge.
    Specifically, draw records indicate that the Spokane Street Bridge
is opened an average of only two to three times per week during each of
the proposed closed periods. While these openings halt traffic, the
amount of traffic affected is much lower than other drawbridges in
Seattle. Traffic counts on Spokane Street during the subject periods
were also much lower than arterials like 15th Avenue and Montlake
Avenue, which also cross drawbridges in Seattle.
    The maritime traffic that would be affected by the proposed rule
includes oceangoing ships, container barges, derrick barges, and other
large vessels that require the drawspan to open. Tidal fluctuations are
critical for many of these vessels to move in the waterway under the
Spokane Street Bridge. The proposed closed periods would delay this
maritime traffic as a result of the bridge being closed as well as the
effect of the closures on the ability of the vessels to transit at the
appropriate tide elevation. Such delays have a substantial negative
effect on maritime commerce due to the necessity of timely transit and
delivery of the cargo being carried.
    The availability of a nearby alternate route was also considered.
The West Seattle Bridge is a multi-lane, fixed, high-structure bridge
immediately adjacent to the Spokane Street Bridge that can easily be
used to transit to and from downtown Seattle instead of the Spokane
Street Bridge, especially for that traffic which does not have a local
destination at Harbor Island.
    The Coast Guard received 80 total responses to the notice of
proposed rulemaking. 18 were from commercial maritime entities with an
interest in using the waterway under the bridge. All of these responses
rejected the proposed change due to delays in the movement of maritime
traffic that would result from the proposed rule. The remaining
responses were from individual commuters, many of which were
bicyclists, with an interest in using the Spokane Street Bridge itself.
All of these responses endorsed the proposal in order to facilitate
commuting to and from downtown Seattle. At least one response objected
to the exemption for vessels of 5000 gross tons or greater and another
suggested that the closure proposed for the morning hours was more
vital than the afternoon.

Authority

    This action is taken under the authority of 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR
1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    Dated: October 8, 2008.
J.P. Currier,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Thirteenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. E8-24985 Filed 10-20-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P