[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 152 (Monday, August 8, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52516-52518]
[FR Doc No: 2016-18733]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0351]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 22 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions were granted April 28, 2016. The exemptions
expire on April 28, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or Room W12-140 on the
ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On March 28, 2016, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of exemption
applications from certain individuals, and requested comments from the
public (81 FR 17237). That notice listed 22 applicants' case histories.
The 22 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in interstate
commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a two-year period if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve
a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater than the level that
would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 22 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

III. Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides: A person is
physically qualified to drive a commercial motor vehicle if that person
has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye
without corrective lenses or visual acuity separately corrected to 20/
40 (Snellen) or better with corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity
of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both eyes with or without corrective
lenses, field of vision of at least 70[deg] in the horizontal meridian
in each eye, and the ability to recognize the colors of traffic signals
and devices showing red, green, and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 22
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including amblyopia, aphakia, central scotoma, complete loss
of vision, corneal scar, macular scar, open angle glaucoma, optic nerve
damage, prosthetic eye, retinal detachment, and strabismic amblyopia.
In most cases, their eye conditions were not recently developed.
Fifteen of the applicants were either born with their vision
impairments or have had them since childhood.
    The 7 individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults
have had it for a range of 5 to 30 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.

    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 22 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging for 5 to 41
years. In the past three years, 3 drivers were involved in crashes, and
1 driver was convicted of a moving violation in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the March 28, 2016
notice (81 FR 17237).

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is
likely to be achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in
interstate commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in
intrastate commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 22 applicants, 3 drivers were involved in crashes, and 1 driver was
convicted of a moving violation in a CMV. All the applicants achieved a
record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 22 applicants listed in the notice of March
28, 2016 (81 FR 17237).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 22 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following:
    (1) That each individual be physically examined every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)
and (b) by a medical examiner who attests that the individual is
otherwise physically qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that each
individual provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or optometrist's
report to the medical examiner at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) that each individual provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification
file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a copy of the
certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

V. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received three comments in this proceeding. Austen Barlow
stated she is in favor of granting the exemptions because she believes
these

drivers will exercise more caution than those who meet the standards.
Roy Hegland stated that he is in favor of granting the exemptions based
on the professional experience of his daughter who has a vision
deficiency. An anonymous commenter stated that they are against
granting the exemptions because of safety concerns related to the
vision deficiencies of the drivers, specifically regarding depth
perception of the drivers and larger blind spots while operating CMVs.
As stated in section four of this notice, medical evaluations from each
driver, their driving records, driving experience with the vision
deficiency, and safety concerns, are all considered when determining if
an exemption should be granted. Studies pertaining to the efficacy of
these considerations are also referenced in section four.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 22 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR
391.64(b)):

Lee R. Boykin (TX)
Donald Carrillo (NM)
Carl F. Cryer (AL)
Steven W. Day (MO)
Roger M. Dunaway (KY)
Horace N. Goss (TX)
Matt A. Guilmain (NH)
Hugo N. Gutierrez (IN)
Edward R. Hunt (NC)
William J. Kanaris (NY)
Harvey Klein (NJ)
Ronnie L. McHugh (KS)
Walter J. Musty (MN)
John O'Boyle (PA)
Michael L. Robinson (MO)
Donald P. Ruckinger (PA)
Mark A. Sanders (OK)
Michael J. Scarano (NJ)
Edward P. Schrader II (WA)
Charles H. Strople (MA)
Eddie Walker (NC)
Trent Wipf (SC)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked if: (1) The person fails to comply with the
terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted
in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted;
or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the
goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: July 29, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-18733 Filed 8-5-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 224 (Tuesday, November 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69634-69635]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28142]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-D-0436]

International Conference on Harmonisation; Guidance on Q11
Development and Manufacture of Drug Substances; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a guidance entitled ``Q11 Development and Manufacture
of Drug Substances.'' The guidance was prepared under the auspices of
the International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements
for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). The guidance
describes approaches to developing and understanding the manufacturing
process of a drug substance and provides guidance on what information
should be provided in certain sections of the Common Technical Document
(CTD). The guidance is intended to harmonize the scientific and
technical principles relating to the description and justification of
the development and manufacturing process of drug substances (both
chemical entities and biotechnological/biological entities) to enable a
consistent approach for providing and evaluating this information
across the three regions. The discussion of principles in the guidance
is intended to apply only to the manufacture of drug substance, not the
manufacture of finished drug products.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances
at any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to
the Division of Drug Information (HFD-240), Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 51, Rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or the Office of
Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM-40), Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research

(CBER), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
MD 20852-1448. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist the
office in processing your requests. The guidance may also be obtained
by mail by calling CBER at 1-800-835-4709 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the guidance
document.
    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regarding the guidance:

John Smith, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug
Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 21, rm. 2619, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17),
Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N,
Rockville, MD 20852-1448,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Regarding the ICH:

Michelle Limoli, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, International
Programs, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
51, rm. 3342, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In recent years, many important initiatives have been undertaken by
regulatory authorities and industry associations to promote
international harmonization of regulatory requirements. FDA has
participated in many meetings designed to enhance harmonization and is
committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical
procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of
harmonization is to identify and then reduce differences in technical
requirements for drug development among regulatory Agencies.
    ICH was organized to provide an opportunity for harmonization
initiatives to be developed with input from both regulatory and
industry representatives. FDA also seeks input from consumer
representatives and other stakeholders. ICH is concerned with
harmonization of technical requirements for the registration of
pharmaceutical products among three regions: The European Union, Japan,
and the United States. The six ICH sponsors are the European
Commission; the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries
Associations; the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare; the
Japanese Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association; the Centers for Drug
Evaluation and Research and Biologics Evaluation and Research, FDA; and
the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. The ICH
Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is
provided by the International Federation of Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA).
    The ICH Steering Committee includes representatives from each of
the ICH sponsors and the IFPMA, as well as observers from the World
Health Organization, Health Canada, and the European Free Trade Area.
    In the Federal Register of June 29, 2011 (76 FR 38187), FDA
published a notice announcing the availability of a draft guidance
entitled ``Q11 Development and Manufacture of Drug Substances.'' The
notice gave interested persons an opportunity to submit comments by
September 1, 2011.
    FDA received numerous comments on the draft guidance and those
comments were considered as the guidance was finalized. After
consideration of the comments and revisions to the guidance, a final
draft of the guidance was submitted to the ICH Steering Committee and
endorsed by the three participating regulatory Agencies in April 2012.
The final document provides guidance on approaches to developing and
understanding the manufacturing process of the drug substance and
provides guidance on what information should be provided in certain
sections of the CTD. A summary of changes includes the following: (1)
Revisions to the introduction and process development sections to more
strongly emphasize that purification processes play a significant role
in drug substance manufacture, (2) revisions to the discussion of
design space for chemical entities and biotechnological/biological drug
substances, and (3) revisions to the discussion of control strategy. In
addition, editorial changes were made to improve clarity.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
Agency's current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer
any rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the
public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies
the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either written comments regarding
this document to the Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES) or
electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov. It is only necessary
to send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
http://www.regulations.gov, http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm,or http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm.

    Dated: November 14, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-28142 Filed 11-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 197 (Friday, October 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57473-57474]
[FR Doc No: 2021-22481]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0054; Notice 2]

Notice of Grant of Petition for Decision That Nonconforming Model
Year 2019 Schuler Spezialfahrzeuge GmbH Trailer Is Eligible for
Importation

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

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: This document announces the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's (NHTSA's) grant of a petition for a decision that a
model year (MY) 2019 Schuler Spezialfahrzeuge GmbH trailer that was not
originally manufactured to comply with all applicable Federal motor
vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) is eligible for importation into the
United States because it is capable of being readily altered to conform
with all applicable Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Mazurowski, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, NHTSA<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    A motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured to conform to
all applicable FMVSS may be eligible for import into the United States
if NHTSA determines that the motor vehicle is capable of being readily
altered to conform to all applicable FMVSS. See 49 U.S.C. 30141(a).
``[I]f there is no substantially similar United States motor vehicle,''
NHTSA may determine that ``the safety features of the vehicle comply
with or are capable of being altered to comply with those standards
based on destructive test information or other evidence the Secretary
of Transportation decides is adequate.'' Id. 30141(a)(1)(B). The term
``motor vehicle'' includes trailers that ``are manufactured primarily
for use on public streets, roads, and highways.'' See id. 30102(a)(7).
If NHTSA determines that a nonconforming vehicle is import eligible,
any such nonconforming vehicle imported into the United States must be
modified into conformance and certified as conforming by a registered
importer before it is sold or otherwise released from the custody of
the registered importer. 49 U.S.C. 30146(a)(1); 49 CFR 592.6.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A registered importer is an importer that has registered
with NHTSA under 49 CFR part 592 and is therefore authorized to
modify and then certify imported vehicles as compliant with all
applicable FMVSS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitions for import eligibility decisions may be submitted by
either manufacturers or registered importers and must comply with the
requirements set forth in 49 CFR 593.6. A petition based on the
capability of the vehicle to comply with all applicable FMVSS include,
among other things, ``data, views, and arguments demonstrating that the
vehicle [which is the subject of the petition] has safety features that
comply with or are capable of being modified to conform with such
standard.'' Id. 593.6(b)(2). ``The latter demonstration [must] include
a showing that after such modifications, the features will conform with
such standard.'' Id.
    As specified in 49 CFR 593.7, NHTSA publishes notice of each
petition that it receives in the Federal Register and affords
interested persons an opportunity to comment on the petition. At the
close of the comment period, NHTSA decides whether the vehicle is
eligible for importation based on the petition, its review of any
comments received, and the agency's own analysis. NHTSA will grant a
petition for import eligibility if it ``determines that the petition
clearly demonstrates that the vehicle model is eligible for
importation'' and will deny the petition if it ``determines that the
petition does not clearly demonstrate that the vehicle model is
eligible for importation.'' 49 CFR 593.7(e)-(f). NHTSA then publishes
its decision and the reasons for it in the Federal Register. Id.

II. Discussion of Petition

    Skytop Rover Co., Inc., (Registered Importer R-6-343), of
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania has petitioned NHTSA to decide whether a
nonconforming MY 2019 Schuler Spezialfahrzeuge GmbH trailer (the
Subject Vehicle) is eligible for importation into the United States.
Petitioner contends the Subject Vehicle's ``safety features comply with
or are capable of being modified to comply with all applicable Federal
motor vehicle safety standards.'' Petitioner states the Subject Vehicle
``is a custom-built trailer made in Germany by Schuler Spezialfahrzeuge
GmbH'' and ``there is no substantially similar trailer for comparison
purposes.'' \2\ Petitioner states the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
(GVWR) of the Subject Vehicle is 60,295 lbs. (27,349 kg).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Because the Subject Vehicle is a custom-built trailer, the
grant of this import eligibility petition applies only to the
Subject Vehicle and does not create a category of import eligible
trailers or otherwise apply to any other trailers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioner states that the Subject Vehicle ``was developed and
manufactured using `off the shelf' DOT compliant components'' and ``has
safety features which comply with or are capable of being modified to
conform to all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards.''
Petitioner contends that the Subject Vehicle, as originally
manufactured, complies with or is not subject to FMVSS Nos. 108 (Lamps,
Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment), 119 (New Pneumatic
Tires), 120 (Tire and Rim Selection), 121 (Air Brake Systems), 223
(Rear Impact Guards), and 224 (Rear Impact Protection).
    With respect to FMVSS No. 108 (Lamps, Reflective Devices and
Associated Equipment), Petitioner claims the vehicle meets all aspects
of this standard and provided photographs of the lighting and
retroreflective tape on the vehicle as equipped. These photographs,
however, showed no retroreflective tape applied to the upper corners of
the rear extremity of the vehicle as required under this FMVSS.
    With respect to FMVSS No. 119 (New Pneumatic Tires), Petitioner
claims and provided photographs demonstrating that the vehicle is
equipped with tires that bear the relevant ``DOT'' markings/symbols and
all required information for U.S. DOT certification.
    With respect to FMVSS No. 121 (Air Brake Systems), Petitioner
claims the vehicle meets all aspects of this standard and provided a
test report detailing the service brake and park brake actuation and
release timing. The test report showed results within the requirements
for brake actuation specified for this FMVSS.
    With respect to FMVSS Nos. 223 (Rear Impact Guards) and 224 (Rear
Impact Protection), Petitioner claims the

rearmost structural element of the trailer has a ground clearance of
less than 22 inches and therefore is excluded from the requirements of
a rear impact guard under FMVSS Nos. 224 and that FMVSS 223 therefore
does not apply. Petitioner provided photographs depicting the
measurements of the ground clearance of the rearmost structural member
of the trailer that appear to support this claim.
    Petitioner also contends that the Subject Vehicle is capable of
meeting the requirements set forth in 49 CFR part 565 (Vehicle
Identification Number Requirements) and 49 CFR part 567 (Certification)
by affixing a certification label to the trailer on the ``Left Front
Half at Shoulder Height'' that contains the VIN number of the Subject
Vehicle.

III. Public Comments

    A Notice of Receipt of the Petition was published in the Federal
Register for public comment for a period of 30 days. 86 FR 48476 (Aug.
30, 2021). No public comment was submitted in response to the Notice of
Receipt.

IV. NHTSA'S Analysis

    A petition to determine import eligibility must include all
information required under the applicable authorities and must also
include data, views, and arguments demonstrating the conclusions
advanced by the petition. In this case, the Petition includes
information demonstrating that the following FMVSS requirements are met
by the Subject Vehicle as manufactured.
    FMVSS No. 119 (New Pneumatic Tires)--Petitioner has shown the
vehicle, as manufactured, is equipped with compliant tires, by direct
inspection and submitted photographs depicting tires that bear the
relevant ``DOT'' markings/symbols and all required information for U.S.
DOT certification.
    FMVSS No. 121 (Air Brake Systems)--Petitioner has shown the
vehicle, as manufactured, is equipped with a compliant braking system,
by direct inspection, submitted photographs, and a service brake and
park brake actuation and release timing test report, which demonstrated
that the results are within the required specifications for compliance.
    FMVSS Nos. 223 (Rear Impact Guards) and 224 (Rear Impact
Protection)--Petitioner has shown the vehicle meets the definition of a
``[l]ow chassis vehicle'' and is excluded from requiring a rear impact
guard per the requirements of FMVSS No. 224 and that FMVSS No. 223 is
therefore not applicable to the Subject Vehicle, by submitting
photographs depicting a ground clearance of the rear most structural
member within 12 inches of the rear of the trailer to be less than 22
inches above ground.
    Petitioner also demonstrated that the Subject Vehicle, as
manufactured, is capable of being modified to conform to FMVSS No. 108
(Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment). Although
Petitioner failed to demonstrate the Subject Vehicle meets the
requirements for retroreflective tape on the back of the vehicle, NHTSA
concludes that the vehicle is capable of being modified to meet these
requirements with the addition of retroreflective tape in the location
specified in the standard. Petitioner has shown the Subject Vehicle
meets all other lighting and conspicuity requirements of the standard,
by submitting photographs depicting the DOT marking of the compliant
lamps and the location of other retroreflective tape.
    Additionally, and as stated by Petitioner, the Subject Vehicle will
need to be modified to conform to the requirements set forth in 49 CFR
part 565 (Vehicle Identification Number Requirements) and 49 CFR part
567 (Certification) by affixing a safety certification label to the
trailer on the ``Left Front Half at Shoulder Height'' that contains the
VIN number of the vehicle.

V. Agency Decision

    Petitioner has demonstrated that the Subject Vehicle is either
compliant with or capable of being readily altered to comply with all
applicable FMVSS, and the petition is therefore granted.
    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30141(a)(1)(B), and (b)(1); 49 CFR 593.7;
delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95 and 501.8.

Joseph Kolly,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2021-22481 Filed 10-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


Mendelsohn, R.O., and J.E. Neumann (1999). The Impact of Climate Change
on the United States Economy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.


[Federal Register: September 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 178)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52914-52916]
[DOCID:fr12se08-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2008-0416; Directorate Identifier 2007-NM-297-AD;
Amendment 39-15656; AD 2008-17-18]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A.
(EMBRAER) Model EMB-135BJ Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    It has been found the occurrence of cable guard pins not
installed in the aileron control system, which may lead to jamming
of the aileron control cables, reducing the aircraft
controllability.

We are issuing this AD to require actions to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: This AD becomes effective October 17, 2008.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of October 17,
2008.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov or in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1405; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on April 29, 2008 (73
FR 23132). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    It has been found the occurrence of cable guard pins not
installed in the aileron control system, which may lead to jamming
of the aileron control cables, reducing the aircraft
controllability.

The corrective actions include inspecting for possible absence of the
cable guard pins in the aileron control system inside the wings, and
installing new ones bearing the same part number. You may obtain
further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket.

Comments

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

Request To Withdraw the NPRM

    EMBRAER requests that the NPRM be withdrawn. The commenter states
that the missing aileron cable guard was discovered during a normal C-
check and that there is no field report of any event caused by the
missing pin. EMBRAER

states that it tested the system on ground under severe conditions and
it operated normally. The commenter states that it is not clear that
the lack of guard pins leads directly to the aileron jamming, and if
the aileron system jammed on one side, then the aircraft can be safely
operated by disconnecting the aileron system and using the free side;
if both sides jammed, the aircraft can be controlled using rudder and
differential thrust. For these reasons, EMBRAER proposes that the NPRM
be withdrawn.
    We do not agree with the commenter's request to withdraw the NPRM.
The cable guard is an airworthiness requirement for transport category
airplanes (reference section 25.689(b) of the Federal Aviation
Regulations). We have determined that an unsafe condition exists due to
risk associated with jamming of both ailerons at the same time. We have
coordinated this action with the Ag[ecirc]ncia Nacional de
Avia[ccedil][atilde]o Civil (ANAC), the airworthiness authority for
Brazil, which issued Brazilian airworthiness directive 2006-07-01,
effective July 31, 2006, (the ``MCAI'') to address the subject
condition. The actions in the AD are necessary to address the unsafe
condition; therefore, we have not changed the final rule in this
regard.

Change to Format of This Final Rule

    We changed the format of paragraph (f) of this AD and its
subparagraphs to comply with formatting guidelines from the Office of
the Federal Register.
    We have also added a reference to EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-
27-0023, dated January 24, 2006, to paragraph (f) of this AD and
clarified that all actions required by this AD are to be done in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of the service
bulletin.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting the
AD with the changes described previously. We determined that these
changes will not increase the economic burden on any operator or
increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have required different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow our FAA policies. Any such differences
are highlighted in a NOTE within the AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect about 13 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it will take about 2 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average
labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate
the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $2,080, or $160 per
product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains the NPRM, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2008-17-18 Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER):
Amendment 39-15656. Docket No. FAA-2008-0416; Directorate Identifier
2007-NM-297-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective October
17, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to EMBRAER Model EMB-135BJ airplanes,
certificated in any category, serial numbers 145363, 145412, 145462,
145484, 145495, 145505, 145516, 145528, 145540, 145549, 145555,
145586, 145591, 145625, 145637, 145642, 145644, 145678, 145686,
145699, 145706, 145711, 145717, 145730, 145770, 145775, 145780,
145789, 145796, 14500802, and 14500809.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 27: Flight
Controls.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:

    It has been found the occurrence of cable guard pins not
installed in the aileron control system, which may lead to jamming
of the aileron control cables, reducing the aircraft
controllability.

The corrective actions include inspecting for possible absence of
the cable guard pins in the aileron control system inside the wings,
and installing new ones bearing the same part number.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done: Within 270 calendar days after the
effective date of this AD, do a detailed inspection with the aid of
a borescope for possible absence of the cable guard pins in the
aileron control system inside the wings, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-27-
0023, dated January 24, 2006.
    (1) If any cable guard pin having part number (P/N) NAS427K8,
NAS427K28, or NAS427K36 is missing in the internal part of the left
and right halfwing spar boxes, before further flight, install a new
one bearing the same part number, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-27-
0023, dated January 24, 2006.
    (2) If any cable guard pin P/N NAS427K26 is missing in the
aileron control cable pulleys in the internal part of the wing
leading edge III, before further flight, remove the corresponding
leading edge and install a new cable guard pin bearing the same part
number, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-27-0023, dated January 24, 2006.

FAA AD Differences

    Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows:

The MCAI includes airplanes in addition to those specified in the
applicability of this AD. Those airplanes are not included in this
AD because they are modified by Supplemental Type Certificates
(STCs) that are not FAA-approved. This AD includes only the U.S.
certified airplanes identified in the referenced service
information.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) 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. Send information to ATTN:
Sanjay Ralhan, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC
applies, notify your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA
Flight Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local
FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to ensure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the information
collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-
0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI Brazilian Airworthiness Directive 2006-07-01,
effective July 31, 2006; and EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-27-
0023, dated January 24, 2006; for related information.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (i) You must use EMBRAER Service Bulletin 145LEG-27-0023, dated
January 24, 2006, to do the actions required by this AD, unless the
AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Empresa Brasileira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER), P.O. Box 343--CEP
12.225, Sao Jose dos Campos--SP, Brazil.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington; or at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information
on the availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-
locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on August 12, 2008.
Michael J. Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. E8-19384 Filed 9-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 213 (Thursday, November 3, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68106-68107]
[FR Doc No: 2011-28391]

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

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0601; FRL-9481-6]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions were
proposed in the Federal Register on August 23, 2011 and concern
volatile organic compound (VOC), oxides of nitrogen (NOX),
and particulate matter (PM) emissions from flares. We are approving a
local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air
Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on December 5, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0601 for
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume
reports), and some may not be available in either location (e.g.,
confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard copy
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4126<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On August 23, 2011 (76 FR 52623), EPA proposed to approve the
following rule into the California SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Local agency               Rule No.             Rule title              Amended         Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD...........................         4311   Flares.....................        06/18/09         01/10/10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it
complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action
contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received no comments.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the
submitted rule complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Therefore,
as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the

Act, EPA is fully approving this rule into the California SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 3, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: October 6, 2011.
Keith Takata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220, is amended by adding paragraph (c)(378)(i)(D) to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (378) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
    (1) Rule 4311, ``Flares,'' amended on June 18, 2009.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-28391 Filed 11-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 33 (Friday, February 19, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8505-8507]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03478]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-0190]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Requirements Under the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco
Health Education Act of 1986, as Amended by the Family Smoking
Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information,
including each proposed extension of an existing collection of
information, and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the
notice. This notice solicits comments on submission of rotational plans
for health warning label statements for smokeless tobacco products.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by April 19, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to http://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your

comment does not include any confidential information that you or a
third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information,
your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business
information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you
include your name, contact information, or other information that
identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be
posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Division of
Dockets Management, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2013-N-0190 for ``Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Requirements Under the
Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986, as
Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.''
Received comments will be placed in the docket and, except for those
submitted as ``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Division of Dockets Management between 9
a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION''. The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Division of Dockets Management. If you do not
wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available,
you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body
of your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/dockets/default.htm.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Division of Dockets Management, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including
each proposed extension of an existing collection of information,
before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with
this requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection
of information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Requirements Under the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education
Act of 1986, as Amended by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco
Control Act (OMB Control Number 0910-0671)-Extension

    The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the Tobacco
Control Act) was enacted on June 22, 2009, amending the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and providing FDA with the authority
to regulate tobacco products (Pub. L. 111-31; 123 Stat. 1776). Section
3 of the Comprehensive Smokeless Tobacco Health Education Act of 1986
(the Smokeless Tobacco Act) (15 U.S.C. 4402), as amended by section 204
of the Tobacco Control Act, requires, among other things, that all
smokeless tobacco product packages and advertisements bear one of four
required warning statements. Section 3(b)(3)(A) of the Smokeless
Tobacco Act requires that the warnings be displayed on packaging and
advertising for each brand of smokeless tobacco ``in accordance with a
plan submitted by the tobacco product manufacturer, importer,
distributor, or retailer'' to, and approved by, FDA.
    This information collection--the submission to FDA of warning plans
for smokeless tobacco products--is statutorily mandated. The warning
plans will be reviewed by FDA, as required by the Smokeless Tobacco
Act, to determine whether the companies' plans for the equal
distribution and display of warning statements on packaging and the
quarterly rotation of warning statements in advertising for each brand
of smokeless tobacco products comply with section 3 of the Smokeless
Tobacco Act, as amended.
    Based on the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC's) previous experience
with the submission of warning plans and FDA's experience, FDA
estimates that there are 52 companies affected by this information
collection. To account for the entry of new smokeless tobacco companies
that may be affected by this information

collection, FDA is conservatively estimating the total number of annual
respondents to this collection of information to be 100.
    When the FTC requested an extension of their approved warning plan
information collection in 2007, based on over 20 years implementing the
warning plan requirements and taking into account increased
computerization and improvements in electronic communication, the FTC
estimated submitting an initial plan would take 60 hours. Based on
FDA's experience over the past several years, FDA believes the estimate
of 60 hours to complete an initial rotational plan continues to be
reasonable.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Numbers of
                     Activity                          Numbers of     responses per     Total annual    Average burden    Total hours     Total capital
                                                      respondents       respondent       responses       per response                         costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission of rotational plans for health warning              100                1              100               60            6,000           $1,200
 statements.......................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    FDA estimates a total of 100 respondents will respond to this
collection of information and take 60 hours to complete a rotational
warning plan for a total of 6,000 burden hours. In addition, capital
costs are based on 100 respondents mailing in their submission at a
postage rate of $12 for a 5-pound parcel (business parcel post mail
delivered from the furthest delivery zone). Therefore, FDA estimates
that the total postage cost for mailing the rotational warning plans to
FDA to be $1,200.

    Dated: February 12, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-03478 Filed 2-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12501-12503]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04308]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91210; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2021-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Regarding the
Listing and Trading Rule for Shares of the Alger 25 ETF

February 25, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby given
that, on February 22, 2021, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to update certain representations regarding
the Alger 25 ETF (the ``Fund''). The Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') has approved listing and trading of shares of the Fund
on the Exchange under NYSE Arca Rule 8.900-E (Managed Portfolio
Shares).\4\ Shares of the Fund have not commenced listing and trading
on the Exchange. The

proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the
Commission's Public Reference Room.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See note 5, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Commission has approved a proposed rule change relating to
listing and trading on the Exchange of shares (``Shares'') of the Fund
under NYSE Arca Rule 8.900-E,\5\ which governs the listing and trading
of Managed Portfolio Shares on the Exchange.\6\ The Shares of the Fund
were to be issued by The Alger ETF Trust (the ``Trust''), which is
registered with the Commission as an open-end management investment
company.\7\ Shares of the Fund have not commenced listing and trading
on the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90528 (November 30,
2020), 85 FR 78389 (December 4, 2020) (SR-NYSEArca-2020-80) (Order
Approving a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 2, to
List and Trade Shares of Alger Mid Cap 40 ETF and Alger 25 ETF under
NYSE Arca Rule 8.900-E) (the ``Prior Order''); see also Amendment
No. 2 to SR-NYSEArca-2020-80, available at https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2020-80/srnysearca202080-7985015-225090.pdf
(the ``Prior Filing'').
    \6\ NYSE Arca Rule 8.900-E provides that a Managed Portfolio
Share is security that (a) represents an interest in an investment
company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940
(``Investment Company'') organized as an open-end management
investment company that invests in a portfolio of securities
selected by the Investment Company's investment adviser consistent
with the Investment Company's investment objectives and policies;
(b) is issued in a Creation Unit, or multiples thereof, in return
for a designated portfolio of instruments (and/or an amount of cash)
with a value equal to the next determined net asset value and
delivered to the Authorized Participant (as defined in the
Investment Company's Form N-1A filed with the Commission) through a
Confidential Account; (c) when aggregated into a Redemption Unit, or
multiples thereof, may be redeemed for a designated portfolio of
instruments (and/or an amount of cash) with a value equal to the
next determined net asset value delivered to the Confidential
Account for the benefit of the Authorized Participant; and (d) the
portfolio holdings for which are disclosed within at least 60 days
following the end of every fiscal quarter.
    \7\ The Trust is registered under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (the ``1940 Act''). On August 17, 2020, the Trust filed a
registration statement on Form N-1A under the Securities Act of 1933
(the ``1933 Act'') and the 1940 Act for the Alger Mid Cap 40 ETF and
the Alger 25 ETF (File No. 811-23603). On February 19, 2021, the
Trust filed an amended registration statement on Form N-1A under the
1933 Act and 1940 Act for the Alger Mid Cap 40 ETF and the Alger 35
ETF (File Nos. 811-23603 and 333-248085) (the ``Registration
Statement''). In response to the Trust's application for exemptive
relief (File No. 812-15117), the Commission issued an order granting
such relief to the Trust under the 1940 Act on May 19, 2020
(Investment Company Act Release No. 33869). The description of the
operation of the Trust and the Alger 35 ETF, formerly known as the
Alger 25 ETF, herein is based, in part, on the Registration
Statement. The Exchange will not commence trading in shares of the
Alger 35 ETF until the Registration Statement is effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to update two representations made in the
Prior Filing and the Prior Order relating to the Fund. The Exchange
proposes to (1) update the name of the Fund to the Alger 35 ETF and (2)
update the number of holdings that the Fund will generally own to
approximately 35, rather than approximately 25 as represented in the
Prior Filing. The Prior Filing represented that the Fund's primary
objective is to seek long-term capital appreciation and that the Fund
will primarily invest in equity securities of growth companies of any
market capitalization listed on U.S. exchanges, including common or
preferred stocks, and these representations are unchanged with respect
to the Alger 35 ETF. The Alger 35 ETF will differ from the Fund only in
that it will generally own approximately 35 holdings, instead of
approximately 25 holdings.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is the
requirement under Section 6(b)(5) \8\ that an exchange have rules that
are designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices,
to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove
impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    This proposed rule change merely updates the name of the Fund and
the approximate number of holdings that the Fund will own, in
accordance with the Registration Statement. Other than this proposed
change, all statements in the Prior Filing remain unchanged, including
that the Alger 35 ETF will have the same investment objectives as the
Fund and will invest in the same types of securities as the Fund.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that this proposed rule change
raises no novel regulatory issues.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The proposed change does not
introduce a new product, but rather proposes to update representations
regarding the Fund that would not impose any burden on competition not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \9\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\10\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \11\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\12\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing to accommodate the listing
and trading of the Shares of the Alger 35

ETF on the Exchange prior to 30 days after the date of the filing. The
Shares of the Fund have not yet commenced listing and trading, and the
proposed changes to the rule governing their listing and trading raise
no novel or regulatory issues. For these reasons, the Commission
believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, and the Commission
hereby waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposed
rule change to be operative upon filing.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2021-14 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2021-14. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2021-14 and should be submitted
on or before March 24, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-04308 Filed 3-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


#########################################################################
#												                                                #
#				          DO WQS Geospatial Variable Calcs                      #
#												                                                #
#########################################################################

# Author: Alyssa Le, George Gardner, Jessica Balukas
# Date Created: 03/13/23
# Last Updated: 07/28/23

# The purpose of this code is to calculate the variables required for the DO WQS economic analysis.

rm(list=ls())
gc()

options(stringsAsFactors=FALSE)
pacman::p_load(dplyr, sf, tidycensus, tidyr, purrr, magrittr, ggplot2, nhdplusTools, measurements,
               foreign, tigris, openxlsx, terra, rgdal, readr, rgeos, sp, raster)

#Increase memory limit
memory.limit(size=100000)

#tigris::blocks(state = c("NY", "NJ", "PA", "MD", "DE", "DC", "CT"))
# Variables to change before running the code --------------------------------

outpath <- "C:/Users/40179/ICF/CWA Anniversary & Econ Support - General/06_Technical Support for Economic Analysis/TD3_Delaware River WQS/GIS/Data/R_programs/Outputs/"
# has information on the FMA, Delaware River main stem and zones, sturgeon critical habitats.
EPA_Data <- "C:/Users/40179/ICF/CWA Anniversary & Econ Support - General/06_Technical Support for Economic Analysis/TD3_Delaware River WQS/GIS/Data/"
# has information on NHD flowlines.
GIS_Data <- "C:/Users/40179/ICF/Steam Electric ELG - Documents/6-Benefits/GIS/NHD/"
# land cover information.
NLCD_Data <- "C:/Users/40179/OneDrive - ICF/Desktop/PHMSA Shapefiles/NLCD/nlcd_2019_land_cover_l48_20210604"

# Census Data Prep
# Activate API Key
census_api_key("0d3711e1f7f03d54ea326708428a15bcec0c0621") # Key registered to Sam Ennett
years <- c(2021)
Census_var <- c("B01001_001", "B19013_001E", "B25010_001E") # Population, Median Household Income, Average Household Size

# STEP 1: Read in data ----------------------------------------------------------------

# Fish Maintenance Area
FMA <- st_read(paste0(EPA_Data,"Fish Maintenance Area/delriv_fma.shp")) |>
  st_transform("ESRI:102008")

# NLCD 2019 data (30-m resolution)
NLCD <- raster(paste0(NLCD_Data, "./nlcd_2019_land_cover_l48_20210604.img"))

# get 5-year CBG-level data on median income, population, and average household size.
CBG_df <- get_acs(geography = "block group",
             year = years,
             survey = "acs5",
             state = c("NY", "NJ", "PA", "MD", "DE", "DC", "CT"),
             variables = Census_var,
             geometry = T)
CBG_df <- CBG_df |>
  st_transform("ESRI:102008")

# NOTE: don't need geometry of tracts since this data is only used to supplement missing CBG ACS data.
Tract_df <- get_acs(geography = "tract",
                    survey = "acs5",
                    state = c("NY", "NJ", "PA", "MD", "DE", "DC", "CT"),
                    variables = Census_var,
                    geometry = F) %>%
                    dplyr::select(-moe) %>%
  pivot_wider(names_from = "variable", values_from = "estimate")
# change names of columns.
names(Tract_df) <- c("GEOID", "TRACT_LOC", "POPULATION", "MED_INC", "HOUSEHOLD_SIZE")

# County polygons
County_df <- get_acs(geography = "county",
                  year = years,
                  survey = "acs5",
                  state = c("NY", "NJ", "PA", "MD", "DE", "DC", "CT"),
                  variables = Census_var,
                  geometry = T)
County_df <- County_df |>
  st_transform("ESRI:102008")

# NHD flowlines for region 2
Reg2_flowlines <- st_read(paste0(GIS_Data,"NHDPlusMA/NHDPlus02/NHDSnapshot/Hydrography/NHDFlowline.shp")) |>
  st_transform("ESRI:102008") |>
  st_zm()

# NHD VAA data
#*# Note: this data provides the stream order information.
Reg2_VAA <- read.dbf(paste0(GIS_Data,"NHDPlusMA/NHDPlus02/NHDPlusAttributes/PlusFlowlineVAA.dbf"))

# Merge NHD flowline with NHD VAA data to get stream orders.
Reg2_data <- merge(Reg2_flowlines, Reg2_VAA, by.x = "COMID", by.y = "ComID")

# STEP 2: Prepare variables ----------------------------------------------------

# Affected resource:
# obtain the NHD flowlines that lie within the FMA.
FMA_flowlines <- st_intersection(FMA, Reg2_flowlines) |>
  filter(GNIS_NAME=="Delaware River") # filtering is done to remove tributaries
FMA_flowlines$LENGTH_FMA_m = st_length(FMA_flowlines) # may have to remove [m] from output since not considered numbers

# this gives us the stream order information for COMIDs within the FMA.
FMA_flowlines_vaa <- merge(FMA_flowlines, Reg2_VAA, by.x="COMID", by.y="ComID", all.x=T)

# Market Extent (100-mile buffer around FMA)
MarkExt <- st_union(st_buffer(FMA_flowlines_vaa, conv_unit(100, "mi", "m")))

# visual confirmation of edge boundary buffer.
ggplot() +
  geom_sf(data = MarkExt, fill = "red") +
  geom_sf(data = FMA, color = "blue")

# STEP 3: Find Population, Median Household Income, Average Household Size for CBG centroids that intersect --
# with the FMA-100-mile-buffer polygon -----------------------------------------------------------------------

# First, get centroids of the CBGs
CBG_df_centroid <- CBG_df |>
  st_centroid(CBG_df) |>
  st_zm()

# Next, find the centroid of CBGs that lie within 100-miles of the FMA
int_CBG <- st_filter(CBG_df_centroid, y = MarkExt, .predicate = st_intersects)

# visual confirmation of the CBGs and FMA buffer
ggplot() +
  geom_sf(data = MarkExt, fill = "red") +
  geom_sf(data = int_CBG, color = "blue") +
  geom_sf(data = FMA_flowlines, color = "green")

# obtain 2021 ACS 5-year estimates of population, average household size, median income.
# pivot wider
CBG_df_form <- int_CBG %>%
  filter(!is.na(estimate)) %>%
  st_drop_geometry() %>%
  dplyr::select(-moe) %>%
  pivot_wider(names_from = "variable", values_from = "estimate")
# change names of columns.
names(CBG_df_form) <- c("GEOID", "BG_LOC", "POPULATION", "MED_INC", "HOUSEHOLD_SIZE")

# Some NA values for median income and household size. Replace these with values from the census tract.
# If NA values exist after that, replace these with values from the county.

# merge CBG data to tract data
CBG_df_form <- CBG_df_form %>%
  mutate(GEOID2 = substr(GEOID, 1, 11))
CBG_df_form <- merge(CBG_df_form, Tract_df, by.x = "GEOID2", by.y = "GEOID", all.x = TRUE)

temp_county <- County_df %>%
  st_drop_geometry() %>%
  dplyr::select(-moe) %>%
  pivot_wider(names_from = "variable", values_from = "estimate")
# change names of columns.
names(temp_county) <- c("GEOID", "COUNTY_LOC", "POPULATION", "MED_INC", "HOUSEHOLD_SIZE")

# merge CBG data to county data
CBG_df_form$GEOID3 = substr(CBG_df_form$GEOID, 1, 5)
CBG_df_form <- merge(CBG_df_form, temp_county, by.x = "GEOID3", by.y = "GEOID", all.x = TRUE)

# replace NA values for median income and household size by CBG first with tract data and second with county data.
CBG_df_form <- CBG_df_form %>%
  mutate(MED_INC.x = ifelse(is.na(MED_INC.x), MED_INC.y, MED_INC.x)) %>%
  mutate(MED_INC.x = ifelse(is.na(MED_INC.x), MED_INC, MED_INC.x)) %>%
  mutate(HOUSEHOLD_SIZE.x = ifelse(is.na(HOUSEHOLD_SIZE.x), HOUSEHOLD_SIZE.y, HOUSEHOLD_SIZE.x)) %>%
  mutate(HOUSEHOLD_SIZE.x = ifelse(is.na(HOUSEHOLD_SIZE.x), HOUSEHOLD_SIZE, HOUSEHOLD_SIZE.x))

CBG_df_form <- CBG_df_form[, 3:7]
names(CBG_df_form) <- c("GEOID", "BG_LOC", "POPULATION", "MED_INC", "HOUSEHOLD_SIZE")

rm(temp_county)

# export as excel file.
write.csv(CBG_df_form, paste0(outpath,"CBG_in_FMA_2021_5Yr_ACS.csv"))

# STEP 4: Generate a list of county polygons that intersect with the FMA -------------------------------------------------
int_Counties <- st_filter(County_df, y = FMA, .predicate = st_intersects) # NOTE: 7/28/23 revised to calculate based on FMA, not MarkExt
county_list <- int_Counties %>%
  filter(!is.na(estimate)) %>%
  st_drop_geometry() %>%
  dplyr::select(-moe) %>%
  pivot_wider(names_from = "variable", values_from = "estimate")
# change names of columns.
names(county_list) <- c("GEOID", "COUNTY_LOC", "POPULATION", "MED_INC", "HOUSEHOLD_SIZE")
# export as excel file.
write.csv(county_list, paste0(outpath,"Cnty_in_FMA_2021_5Yr_ACS.csv"))

# STEP 5: Calculate ln_ar_ratio -----------------------------------------------
# ln_ar_ratio = ln(Total area of CBGs within 100 miles of the FMA / area of counties intersecting the FMA)
# calculate area of CBGs within 100 miles of the FMA.

# create temporary list of intersecting CBGs to filter CBG_df. Need to do this since
# CBG shapes were converted from polygons to centroids (we want area of polygon).
temp_int_CBG <- int_CBG %>%
  dplyr::select(GEOID) %>%
  distinct(GEOID)

# calculates areas and removes duplicates
CBG_area <- CBG_df %>%
  mutate(area_m2 = st_area(CBG_df)) %>%
  merge(temp_int_CBG, all.y = TRUE) %>%
  st_drop_geometry() %>%
  pivot_wider(names_from = "variable", values_from = "estimate") %>%
  distinct(GEOID, .keep_all = TRUE)

rm(temp_int_CBG)

CBG_area <- sum(CBG_area$area_m2)
CBG_area_km2 <- CBG_area/1000^2 # total area of intersecting CBG in km^2.
attributes(CBG_area_km2) = NULL

# calculate area of counties intersecting the FMA.
County_area <- int_Counties %>%
  mutate(area_m2 = st_area(int_Counties)) %>%
  st_drop_geometry() %>%
  pivot_wider(names_from = "variable", values_from = "estimate") %>%
  distinct(GEOID, .keep_all = TRUE)

County_area <- sum(County_area$area_m2)
County_area_km2 <- County_area/1000^2 # total area of intersecting CBG in km^2.
attributes(County_area_km2) = NULL

ln_ar_ratio <- log(CBG_area_km2/County_area_km2) # log(52235.89/68412.99) = 2.427232

# Visualize affected resource and market extent
ggplot() +
  geom_sf(data = MarkExt, color = "black", fill = "lightgray") +
  geom_sf(data = int_Counties, color = "green") +
  geom_sf(data = FMA, color = "blue") +
  geom_sf(data = FMA_flowlines, color="green") +
  geom_sf(data = FMA_flowlines_vaa |> filter(StreamOrde>5), color="red") +
  coord_sf()

# STEP 6: Calculate sub_proportion -----------------------------------------------
# Draw 100-mile buffers around each CBG centroid identified within Step 1.
# For each CBG, estimate the:
# length miles of the FMA that fall within the buffer/total length miles stream order 5 and greater within the buffer

# Create a version of CBG shapefile that won't have repeat rows of the same geometry
CBG_df2 <- get_acs(geography = "block group",
                   year = years,
                   survey = "acs5",
                   state = c("NY", "NJ", "PA", "MD", "DE", "DC", "CT"),
                   variables = "B01001_001",
                   geometry = T)
CBG_df2 <- CBG_df2 |>
  st_transform("ESRI:102008")
# Get centroids of the CBGs
CBG_df2 <- CBG_df2 |>
  st_centroid(CBG_df2) |>
  st_zm()
# Next, find the centroid of CBGs that lie within 100-miles of the FMA
CBG_df2 <- st_filter(CBG_df2, y = MarkExt, .predicate = st_intersects)
# Next, find 100-mile buffers of CBG centroids
CBG_buff <- st_buffer(CBG_df2, conv_unit(100, "mi", "m"))

# visual check.
ggplot() +
  geom_sf(data = CBG_buff, color = "black", fill = "lightgray") +
  geom_sf(data = int_CBG, color = "green")

## second, obtain sf for the flowlines that intersect both the FMA
## and the 100-mile CBG buffers.

# create an empty dataframe to fill in.
sub_prop_table <- data.frame('GEOID' = CBG_buff$GEOID,
                             'FMA_length_m' = 0)

# the loop will add information on the lengths of the flowlines that intersect the
# FMA and the 100-mile CBG buffers.
i <- 1 # loop through CBGs
while (i <= nrow(CBG_buff)) {
  temp_cbg <- CBG_buff[i,]
  temp_crop <- st_intersection(FMA_flowlines_vaa, temp_cbg)
  temp_crop$length_FMA_m <- st_length(temp_crop)
  sub_prop_table$FMA_length_m[i] <- sum(temp_crop$length_FMA_m)
  i <- i + 1 # increment
}
rm(temp_cbg, temp_crop)

# next, a similar loop will be constructed to add information on the lengths of the
# flowlines above stream order 4 that intersect the 100-mile buffers.
# create another sf of the flowlines that are above stream order 4
Reg2_data_G4 <- Reg2_data |>
  filter(StreamOrde>4)

#visual check
ggplot() +
  geom_sf(data = Reg2_data, color = "blue") +
  geom_sf(data = Reg2_data_G4, color = "green")

# create another column in the sub_prop_table to fill in with flowline length data.
sub_prop_table <- sub_prop_table %>%
  mutate(SOG4_length_m = 0)

i <- 1 # loop through CBGs
while (i <= nrow(CBG_buff)) {
  temp_cbg <- CBG_buff[i,]
  temp_crop <- st_intersection(Reg2_data_G4, temp_cbg)
  temp_crop$length_SOG4_m <- st_length(temp_crop)
  sub_prop_table$SOG4_length_m[i] <- sum(temp_crop$length_SOG4_m)
  i <- i + 1 # increment
}

# lastly, create a new variable in sub_prop_table that calculates sub_prop
sub_prop_table$sub_prop <- sub_prop_table$FMA_length_m/sub_prop_table$SOG4_length_m

# export as excel file.
write.csv(sub_prop_table, paste0(outpath,"Sub_Prop_Table.csv"))

# STEP 7: Calculate ln_ar_agr -----------------------------------------------

# create a new clean combined county shapefile that is not a multi-part feature
# so can extract raster values.
int_Counties2 <- get_acs(geography = "county",
                     year = years,
                     survey = "acs5",
                     state = c("NY", "NJ", "PA", "MD", "DE", "DC", "CT"),
                     variables = "B01001_001",
                     geometry = T)
int_Counties2 <- merge(int_Counties2, county_list)
int_Counties2 <- st_transform(int_Counties2, crs=st_crs(crs(NLCD)))
int_Counties2_NLCD <- extract(NLCD,int_Counties2, df = T)

ggplot() +
  geom_sf(data = int_Counties2)

# Calculate total land coverage.
LU_tot <- int_Counties2_NLCD %>%
  summarise(LU_tot = n())

# Calculate the agriculture land coverage.
LU_Ag <- int_Counties2_NLCD %>%
  filter(NLCD.Land.Cover.Class == 81 | NLCD.Land.Cover.Class == 82) %>%
  summarise(LU_Ag = n())

Landuse_Ag <- merge(LU_Ag,LU_tot,all=T)
Landuse_Ag[is.na(Landuse_Ag)] = 0

# Percent coverage
LU_Perc_Cov_Ag <- Landuse_Ag %>%
  mutate(LU_Percent_Ag = LU_Ag / LU_tot) # 0.178887 = 1287764/7198770

ln_ar_agr <- log(LU_Perc_Cov_Ag$LU_Percent_Ag) # -1.721003

# alternative code for calculating ln_ar_agr.
tot_cells<-sapply(int_Counties2_NLCD,length) # 7,198,770
farm_cells<-sapply(int_Counties2_NLCD,function(x) sum(x==81 | x==82)) # 1,287,764
ln_ar_agr2 <- log(1287764/7198770) # -1.721003