due to the similarities between the Federal sulfur limits and those in
the CBG Rule, and would expect the Federal gasoline sulfur content
limits to essentially backstop the emissions reductions associated with
the low sulfur content limit in the CBG Rule.
    As far as aromatics are concerned, the study predicts an increase
in aromatic content from the current (2006) wintertime average of
approximately 20% (by volume) to approximately 23%, based on the
average aromatics content in gasoline nationwide. See page 12 of
appendix A to the Maintenance Plan. Moreover, wintertime gasoline RVP
could increase from the current (2006) average of 8.8 psi to as high as
13.5 psi in response to the relaxation of the Low RVP Rule. The
relative increases in aromatics and RVP would lead to higher emissions
of CO and VOC, and potentially of particulate matter as well. We review
these increases or potential increases, in the context of attainment
and maintenance of the CO, ozone, and particulate matter NAAQS in the
paragraphs that follow.
    With respect to CO, we conclude that the changes in wintertime
gasoline specifications due to the rules changes would not interfere
with the NAAQS based on the modeling results documented in the Las
Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan and our proposed approval of the
Maintenance Plan herein. The modeling conducted for the Maintenance
Plan relies on emissions factors that take no credit for either the CBG
Rule or the Low RVP Rule and still demonstrates maintenance of the CO
NAAQS in Las Vegas Valley through 2020.
    For the ozone NAAQS, we recognize that a portion of Clark County is
designated nonattainment for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and thus, absent
modeling results or other convincing evidence showing non-interference,
we would not normally approve a SIP revision that would result in an
increase in ozone precursors within the nonattainment area. However, in
the Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan, Clark County DAQEM contends
that there would be no interference with the ozone NAAQS in this
instance because the effect of the gasoline fuel changes is limited to
the winter months whereas ozone exceedances occur during the
summertime. See pages 6-2 and 6-3 of the Maintenance Plan. At the
outset, we generally find this line of reasoning for a non-interference
finding to be acceptable, but to gain a more detailed understanding of
the seasonal nature of ozone exceedances in Las Vegas Valley, we
reviewed ozone data by month to determine when exceedances of the 0.075
ppm, eight-hour average, ozone NAAQS occurred. The data indicates that,
over the past 6 years (2004-2009), all exceedances of the 0.075 ppm
standard occurred during and between the months of April and September.
Conversely, no ozone NAAQS exceedances were recorded from October
through March, which is the period of time affected by the suspension
of the CBG Rule and relaxation of the RVP specification. Thus, we find
that the changes in Clark County wintertime gasoline specifications
would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the ozone NAAQS.
    With respect to the 1987 (24-hour average) PM-10, Las Vegas Valley
is classified as a ``serious'' nonattainment area. See 40 CFR 81.329.
In 2004, EPA approved the ``serious'' area PM-10 plan for Las Vegas
Valley and approved the request to extend the applicable attainment
date to the end of 2006. See 69 FR 32273 (June 9, 2004). In our 2004
final rule approving the PM-10 plan, we approved a number of fugitive
dust rules, including Clark County Air Quality Regulations (AQR)
Sections 90 through 94, that limit emissions from such sources as open
areas and vacant lots; unpaved roads, unpaved alleys and unpaved
easement roads; unpaved parking lots; construction sites; and paved
roads and street sweeping equipment. In approving the Las Vegas Valley
``serious'' area PM-10 plan, we also indicated that we agreed with
Clark County DAQEM's conclusion that nonroad and on-road vehicle
exhaust are not significant source categories in Las Vegas Valley for
the purpose of implementing Best Available Control Measures (BACM). See
our proposed approval of the PM-10 plan at 68 FR 2954, at 2959 (January
22, 2003).
    In the Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance Plan, Clark County DAQEM
contends that the changes in wintertime gasoline specifications would
not interfere with the PM-10 NAAQS based on the determination in the
approved serious area PM-10 plan that vehicular exhaust is not a
significant source of PM-10 in Las Vegas Valley.\20\ See pages 6-3 and
6-4 of the Maintenance Plan. Clark County DAQEM also contends that
removing fuels controls has no impact on PM-10 emissions from vehicular
exhaust. Lastly, Clark County DAQEM points to the most recent PM-10
emissions inventory that shows vehicular exhaust to account for less
than one percent of the total PM-10 emissions in Las Vegas Valley in
year 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ The significant source categories identified in the serious
area PM-10 plan for Las Vegas Valley are fugitive types of sources,
including disturbed vacant land/unpaved parking lots, construction
(including highway construction), and vehicular travel on paved and
unpaved roads. See 68 FR 2954, at 2959 (January 22, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First of all, Clark County DAQEM is correct in pointing out that
vehicular exhaust was determined not to be a significant source of PM-
10 emissions in Las Vegas Valley for the purposes of implementing the
BACM requirement. We also believe that Clark County DAQEM's most recent
inventory presents reasonable estimates of existing sources of PM-10 in
Las Vegas Valley. As a general matter, we do not agree that removal of
fuels controls has no affect on vehicular exhaust emissions of PM-10,
but we recognize that the extent to which the higher aromatics content
(from 20% to 23%, by volume) and higher RVP (from 8.8 to 13.5 psi)
would affect PM-10 from vehicle exhaust, and whether that effect would
be positive or negative, is difficult to predict because EPA's MOBILE
emissions factor model, which was used in the development of the
Maintenance Plan, does not have the capability to quantify the
resulting emissions changes.
    However, even assuming the effect would be an increase in PM-10
from vehicle exhaust, we can still find that the changes in wintertime
gasoline specifications due to the fuels changes would not interfere
with attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS, because, in addition to the minimal
impact of vehicular emissions on PM-10 concentrations in Las Vegas
Valley (based on PM-10 inventories), the area appears to have attained
the standard due to the implementation and enforcement of fugitive dust
controls. To determine whether Las Vegas Valley is attaining the PM-10
standard, we reviewed 2007-2009 PM-10 monitoring data from the various
monitoring stations for which Clark County DAQEM reports data into
EPA's Air Quality Database (AQS). The review of the data reveals two
exceedances (i.e., 24-hour-average concentrations equal to or greater
than 155 [mu]g/m\3\) over the 2007-2009 period, both of which were
recorded during year 2008 at the Craig Road PM-10 monitoring site in
North Las Vegas. The PM-10 monitor at the Craig Road site is a
continuous monitor,

and thus the expected number of days per year, averaged over the 2007-
2009 period, is less than 1.0,\21\ which means that the PM-10 NAAQS has
been met at the Craig Road monitor, and since the Craig Road monitor is
the only site recording any exceedances, it follows that the entire
valley has attained the standard.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ The PM-10 NAAQS is 150 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/
m\3\), 24-hour average concentration. The standard is attained when
the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average
concentration above 150 [mu]g/m\3\, as determined in accordance with
appendix K to 40 CFR part 50, is equal to or less than one. See 40
CFR 50.6.
    \22\ An attainment finding is not the same as redesignation of
an area to attainment. The latter type of action can only be
approved by EPA if all of the criteria under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) are met, including submittal of, and EPA approval of, a
maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We do not believe that a hypothetical, incremental increase in PM-
10 emissions, from a source category (vehicular exhaust) estimated to
contribute less than 1% to the overall emissions inventory, would have
a discernible effect on ambient PM-10 concentrations. This lack of
discernible effect, coupled with an attainment finding, provides us
with a sufficient rationale for concluding that the changes in
wintertime gasoline properties, expected to occur with the relaxation
of the Low RVP Rule and the suspension of the CBG Rule, would not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of the PM-10 NAAQS in Las
Vegas Valley.
    With respect to the 1997 (annual) and 2006 (24-hour) PM-2.5 NAAQS,
Las Vegas Valley and the various other hydrographic areas that comprise
Clark County, are designated as ``unclassifiable/attainment'' areas.
See 40 CFR 81.329. A review of AQS data from the various PM-2.5
monitoring sites in Clark County reveals that PM-2.5 concentrations are
well below the PM-2.5 NAAQS. Over the past three years, the highest
98th percentile value (for the 24-hour average), recorded at the
Sunrise Avenue site, is 23 [mu]g/m\3\, well below the corresponding 24-
hour NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\. The highest annual concentration, also
recorded as the Sunrise Avenue site, is 10.3 [mu]g/m\3\, well below the
corresponding annual NAAQS of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\.
    As discussed above for PM-10, the changes to wintertime gasoline
properties due to the relaxed Low RVP Rule and suspended County CBG
Rule could result in increases in PM-10 emissions from vehicular
exhaust. All of the PM-10 from vehicular exhaust can be assumed also to
be fine particulate matter (i.e., PM-2.5), and thus the changes to the
wintertime gasoline properties could also result in increased PM-2.5
emissions from vehicular exhaust. However, we have no reason to believe
that this hypothetical increase would be large enough to cause an
exceedance of the 24-hour or annual PM-2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, we
conclude that the changes in wintertime gasoline properties, expected
to occur with the relaxation of the Low RVP Rule and the suspension of
the CBG Rule, would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the
PM-2.5 NAAQS in Clark County.
    Based on our previous approvals of NAC section 590.065 (i.e., the
Low RVP Rule) and the CBG Rule, and the nature of the regulatory
changes submitted to us (e.g., relaxing a vapor pressure limit (not
subject to preemption), updating specifications and test methods in the
State rule, suspension of the county CBG rule) as well as the above
evaluation of the impact of the changes in wintertime gasoline
properties in Clark County on ambient CO, ozone, PM-10, and PM-2.5
concentrations, we find that the changes would not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS, nor would they interfere
with any applicable requirement of the Act, and thus are approvable
under CAA section 110(l). As such, we propose to approve the amendments
to NAC section 590.065, and suspension of the CBG Rule, as submitted by
NDEP on March 26, 2010, as revisions to the Nevada SIP.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ In addition to gasoline vapor pressure requirements, NAC
section 590.065 also includes maximum content limits in gasoline for
lead, phosphorus, manganese, ethanol, and sulfur. See NAC section
590.065(7). Because none of these content limits relate to gasoline
vapor pressure requirements in Las Vegas Valley nor the CO emissions
reductions achieved therefrom, and because the subsection in NAC
section 590.065 containing these limits (i.e., subsection (7)) is
severable from the rest of the rule, we are not including NAC
section 590.065(7) in our proposed approval of amendments to NAC
section 590.065.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Proposed Action and Request for Comment

    Under section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is proposing to approve
NDEP's submittal dated September 18, 2008 of the Las Vegas Valley CO
Maintenance Plan as a revision to the Nevada SIP because we find that
it satisfies the requirements of section 175A of the CAA to include a
reasonably accurate and comprehensive attainment inventory, an adequate
maintenance demonstration, contingency provisions, and commitments to
continue operation of an acceptable ambient monitoring network to
verify continued attainment. Final approval of the Las Vegas Valley CO
Maintenance Plan would make Federally enforceable the commitments, such
as the commitment to continue operation of an adequate CO monitoring
network, and the contingency provisions, contained therein. In
addition, we are proposing to approve for transportation conformity
purposes the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the Las Vegas Valley CO
Maintenance Plan for years 2008, 2010, and 2020 because we find they
meet the criteria found in 40 CFR 93.118(e). The budgets for 2008, 2010
and 2020 are 658 tons per day, 686 tons per day, and 704 tons per day,
respectively (based on typical weekday during the winter).
    Based in part on our proposed approval of the Las Vegas Valley CO
Maintenance Plan, we are also proposing to approve NDEP's September 18,
2008 request to redesignate Las Vegas Valley to attainment for the CO
NAAQS. In doing so, we find that the area has met all of the criteria
for redesignation under CAA section 107(d)(3)(E), i.e., the area has
attained the CO standard; EPA has fully approved the Las Vegas Valley
SIP for all requirements under section 110 and part D of the CAA that
are applicable for purposes of redesignation; the improvement in CO
conditions in Las Vegas Valley is due to permanent and enforceable
reductions; and as described above, the State has submitted a
maintenance plan for the area that meets the requirements of section
175A.
    Contingency provisions in maintenance plans must include the
measures contained in the SIP prior to redesignation, and for one such
contingency measure included in the Las Vegas Valley CO Maintenance
Plans, the State's Low RVP Rule, the responsible State agency (State
Department of Agriculture) has not yet made the necessary commitment.
Thus, our proposed approval of the Maintenance Plan and redesignation
request is contingent upon submittal (and approval by EPA) of such a
commitment as a revision to the Nevada SIP.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ On July 12, 2010, the Nevada Department of Agriculture
initiated a 30-day comment period to solicit comment (or request a
public hearing) on the draft commitment regarding implementation of
the contingency measure in the Maintenance Plan related to
reinstatement of the Low RVP Rule. The Department's notice of intent
to solicit public comment, which includes the commitment language,
has been placed in the docket for this rulemaking. We have reviewed
the language of the Department's draft commitment and expect to
approve it if it is ultimately submitted to us without significant
modification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We are also proposing to approve, under section 110(k)(3) of the
CAA, NDEP's March 26, 2010 submittal of the

suspension of Clark County's Air Quality Regulations (AQR) Section 54
(``Cleaner Burning Gasoline: Wintertime Program'') (``CBG
Regulation''), and the amendments to the NAC section 590.065, including
the relaxation in the State's wintertime gasoline RVP requirement for
Clark County from 9.0 to 13.5 psi, because we find that doing so would
not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any of the NAAQS or any
applicable requirement of the Clean Air Act for the purposes of CAA
section 110(l). We are not including subsection (7) of amended NAC
section 590.065 in our proposed approval because the limits in
subsection (7) of the amended rule are unrelated to the vapor pressure
requirement and associated CO emissions reductions, and are severable
from the rest of the rule.
    We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the
next 30 days.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of a maintenance plan under section 107(d)(3)(E)
are actions that affect the status of a geographical area and do not
impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources beyond those
imposed by State law. A redesignation to attainment does not in and of
itself create any new requirements, but rather results in the
applicability of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that have
been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, 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, these actions merely propose to approve a
State plan and redesignation request as meeting Federal requirements
and do not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For these reasons, these actions:
     Are not ``significant regulatory actions'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are 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.);
     Do 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);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are 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
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed 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. Nonetheless, EPA has
discussed the proposed action with the one Tribe, the Las Vegas Paiute
Tribe, located within Las Vegas Valley.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
National parks, Wilderness areas.

    Dated: July 21, 2010.
Keith Takata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010-18645 Filed 7-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 84 (Thursday, May 1, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24632-24634]
[FR Doc No: 2014-09830]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

14 CFR Part 398

[Docket No.: DOT-OST-2014-0061]

Essential Air Service Proposed Enforcement Policy

AGENCY: Office of Aviation Analysis (X50), Department of Transportation
(DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Enforcement Policy.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed notice of enforcement policy announces how the
Department of Transportation (DOT) intends, going forward, to enforce
compliance with the requirements of the Department of Transportation
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000, which prohibits the
Department from subsidizing Essential Air Service (EAS) to communities
located within the 48 contiguous States receiving per passenger subsidy
amounts exceeding $200, unless the communities are located more than
210 miles from the nearest large or medium hub airport. As proposed,
all communities receiving subsidies under the EAS Program would have
until September 30, 2015, based on data from October 1, 2014, through
September 30, 2015, to ensure compliance with the $200 subsidy cap or
face termination of subsidy eligibility. After September 30, 2015, the
Department would continue enforcement of the $200 subsidy cap on an
annual basis based on data compiled at the end of every fiscal year.
Consistent with established procedures, DOT will issue each potentially
impacted community a show cause order regarding termination of
eligibility and provide each such community with a fair and reasonable
opportunity to demonstrate compliance with the $200 subsidy cap prior
to a final decision by DOT. In addition, any community that is deemed
ineligible under the $200 subsidy cap provision may petition the
Secretary for a waiver. After receiving a community's petition for a
waiver, the Secretary may waive the subsidy cap for a limited period of
time, on a case-by-case basis, and subject to availability of funds. To
provide the Department with sufficient time to evaluate the FY 2015
data for potentially affected communities, DOT does not intend to begin
the Show Cause Order process until January 2016.

DATES: Send comments on or before June 30, 2014. Late-filed comments
will be considered to the extent practicable.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number DOT-OST-2014-

0061 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and follow the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30; U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments
from the public to better inform its decision-making process. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, 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. DOT will read and respond to all substantive
comments. If you are filing comments on behalf of an organization or
group of individuals, we encourage you to include the name of your
group or organization. However, anonymous comments will be considered
if they are timely filed. Including your name/group along with your
comment is completely optional.
    Docket: Comments received may be read at http://www.regulations.gov
at any time. Follow the online instructions for accessing the docket or
go to the Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground
Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical questions concerning
this action, contact Kevin Schlemmer, Chief, Essential Air Service and
Domestic Analysis Division, Office of Aviation Analysis, Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W86-309, Washington, DC
20590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>For legal
questions concerning this action, contact Claire McKenna, Attorney,
Office of the General Counsel, Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Room 96-309; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Airline Deregulation Act, passed in 1978, gave airlines almost
total freedom to determine which markets to serve domestically and what
fares to charge for that service. The United States Congress (Congress)
established the EAS program to guarantee that small communities that
were served by certificated air carriers before deregulation maintain
at least a minimal level of scheduled air service. Since its inception,
the EAS program has provided a vital link for eligible small
communities to the National Airspace System (NAS). Indeed, this program
ensures that small communities across America can tap into the economic
and quality of life benefits that scheduled air services offer.
    Over the years, Congress has made a number of statutory changes to
the program (most recently in 2011 and 2012), but the fundamental
purpose of the program remains unchanged. Given the socio-economic
importance of this program, DOT remains committed to preserving the EAS
program for eligible communities and ensuring the sustainability of the
program for the future.
    This proposed enforcement policy concerns the statutory mandate
that prohibits DOT from providing EAS funds to any community in the 48
contiguous states that requires a per-passenger-subsidy in excess of
$200 unless the community is located more than 210 miles from the
nearest large or medium airport. Congress first imposed a $200 subsidy
per passenger cap for communities in the 48 contiguous States in FY
1990 appropriations language. Such language was repeated in several
later appropriations acts, throughout the 1990s, and was made permanent
by the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2000, Public Law 106-69, 113 Stat. 986 (Oct. 9, 1999).
Specifically, the Act provided that:

Hereafter, notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 41742, no essential air service
subsidies shall be provided to communities in the 48 contiguous
States that are located fewer than 70 highway miles from the nearest
large or medium hub airport, or that require a rate of subsidy per
passenger in excess of $200 unless such point is greater than 210
miles from the nearest large or medium hub airport.

    The Department always has expected communities less than 210 miles
from the nearest large or medium hub airport to work together with air
carriers providing EAS to keep the subsidy per passenger below the $200
cap or risk termination of eligibility from the EAS Program. DOT also
has routinely provided notice of this statutory mandate to communities
that were or appeared to be at risk of exceeding the cap, and a number
of EAS communities have lost their eligibility as a result of the cap.
    Although the $200 subsidy cap is a longstanding statutory
provision, in 2012, Congress added a provision that allows the
Secretary to grant waivers in limited circumstances. To effectuate that
new provision and to ensure the fair and consistent treatment of all
EAS communities subject to the $200 subsidy cap prospectively, DOT is
issuing this proposed enforcement policy. Specifically, the Department
is considering a policy that will defer future enforcement of the $200
subsidy cap until January 2016. The proposed policy, if finalized,
would set September 30, 2015, as the date by which any EAS community
with a per passenger subsidy exceeding or approaching the $200 subsidy
cap must ensure compliance with the cap. Under the proposed policy, DOT
would determine each community's subsidy per passenger cap based on
data compiled from October 1, 2014, through September 30, 2015.
Consistent with past practice and our obligations under 49 U.S.C.
41733(f)(2), DOT would continue to encourage potentially affected
communities to work with air carriers providing subsidized EAS to
maximize use of the service awarded under their respective carrier-
selection orders to avoid exceeding the $200 subsidy cap.
    If after September 30, 2015, a particular community's subsidy per
passenger remains above $200 and its location is less than 210 miles
from the nearest large or medium hub airport, the Department would
initiate proceedings, consistent with 49 U.S.C. 41733(f) and Public Law
112-97 (Feb. 14, 2012), Section 426(e), directing interested persons to
show cause why the Department should not terminate the eligibility of
the community in question under the EAS Program. This process will
provide each potentially affected community with a fair and reasonable
opportunity to demonstrate compliance with the $200 subsidy cap prior
to a final decision by DOT. To provide the Department with sufficient
time to receive and evaluate the FY 2015 data for potentially affected
communities, DOT does not intend to begin the show cause process until
January 2016.
    After September 30, 2015, the Department would continue enforcement
of the $200 subsidy cap on an annual basis based on data compiled at
the end of every fiscal year and submitted to DOT after the close of
the

most recent fiscal year. Regardless of whether this proposed
enforcement policy is adopted in any form, the EAS program contains
certain statutory protections that an adversely impacted EAS community
may invoke. First, in the event that DOT determines that a community is
ineligible because it exceeds the $200 subsidy cap provision in a given
fiscal year, the community may petition the Secretary of DOT for a
waiver pursuant to Pubic Law 112-97, Sec. 426(e) (c) (Feb. 14, 2012).
Under this provision, ``[s]ubject to the availability of funds, the
Secretary may waive, on a case-by-case basis, the subsidy-per-passenger
cap.'' The law further provides: ``A waiver . . . shall remain in
effect for a limited period of time, as determined by the Secretary.''
Second, a community that is deemed ineligible based on the $200 subsidy
cap and removed from the program may petition the Secretary for
reinstatement into the program in a subsequent year if the community
can demonstrate that it will be able to comply with the $200 subsidy
cap on an annual basis going forward.
    The Department seeks comments from all interested parties regarding
this proposed enforcement policy.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 23, 2014.
Brandon M. Belford,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2014-09830 Filed 4-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 10, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46895-46897]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21627]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0232; Airspace Docket No. 17-AGL-11]

Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; Battle Creek, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies the Class D and removes the Class E
airspace designated as an extension at W.K. Kellogg Airport (formerly
W.K. Kellogg Field), Battle Creek, MI. Airspace reconfiguration is
necessary due to the decommissioning of the Battle Creek collocated VHF
omnidirectional range and tactical air navigation (VORTAC) navigation
aid, and cancellation of the VOR approaches. The Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface is also modified due
to the redesign of the instrument landing system (ILS) approach,
thereby removing reference to the BATOL navigation aid and Battle Creek
ILS localizer. This action also updates the geographic coordinates of
the airport, and makes an editorial change replacing Airport/Facility
Directory with the term Chart Supplement in the associated Class D and
E airspace areas. This action enhances the safety and management of
standard instrument approach procedures for instrument flight rules
(IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, December 7, 2017. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order

7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11B at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walter Tweedy, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. 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. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends Class D and Class E airspace to support standard
instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at W.K. Kellogg
Airport, Battle Creek, MI.

History

    The FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) (82 FR 20554, May 3, 2017) Docket No. FAA-2017-0232
to modify Class D airspace, Class E airspace designated as an
extension, and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the surface at W.K. Kellogg Airport, Battle Creek, MI. Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments
were received.
    Subsequent to publication, the FAA determined the Class E airspace
designated as an extension at W.K. Kellogg Airport is no longer
required to contain any instrument procedures. Therefore, this rule
removes Class E airspace designated as an extension at W.K. Kellogg
Airport. This change has no substantive impact on operators using the
airspace.
    Class D, Class E extension, and Class E transition area airspace
designations are published in paragraphs 5000, 6004, and 6005,
respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and
effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in this
document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 modifies the Class D and removes the Class E airspace
designated as an extension at W.K. Kellogg Airport (formerly W.K.
Kellogg Field), Battle Creek, MI. The airport's geographic coordinates
are amended in the associated Class D and Class E airspace listed in
this amendment.
    Also, the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface within a 7-mile radius of W.K. Kellogg Airport is being amended
by removing the southwest segment, and the segment 7 miles northwest
and 4.4 miles southeast of the Battle Creek ILS localizer northeast
course extending 10.4 miles northeast of the localizer outer marker/non
directional radio beacon. The northeast segment will be amended to
within 2 miles each side of the 047[deg] bearing (from 4 miles each
side of the 049[deg] bearing) from the airport extending from the 7-
mile radius of the airport to 10 miles northeast (from 10.9 miles) of
the airport, and the southeast segment will be amended to within 2
miles each side of the 126[deg] bearing from the airport extending from
the 7-mile radius to 7.4 miles (from 11.1 miles) southeast of the
airport. Additionally, this action modifies the Class E airspace by
removing reference to the BATOL navigation aid and Battle Creek ILS
localizer. This action enhances the safety and management of the
standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at the
airport.
    Lastly, this action makes minor editorial corrections to the
amended Class D and Class E legal descriptions by removing the city
listed before the airport name in the second line and replacing the
outdated term Airport/Facility Directory with the term Chart
Supplement.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected
to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and
effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace Areas.

AGL MI D Battle Creek, MI [Amended]

W.K. Kellogg Airport, MI
    (Lat. 42[deg]18'23'' N., long. 85[deg]15'00'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,500 feet MSL within a 4.5-mile radius of W.K. Kellogg Airport.
This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates
and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published
in the Chart Supplement.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as an Extension to
a Class D or Class E Surface Area.

AGL MI E4 Battle Creek, MI [Removed]

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AGL MI E5 Battle Creek, MI [Amended]

W.K. Kellogg Airport, MI
    (Lat. 42[deg]18'23'' N., long. 85[deg]15'00'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of W.K. Kellogg Airport, and within 2 miles
each side of the 047[deg] bearing from the airport extending from
the 7-mile radius to 10 miles northeast of the airport, and within 2
miles each side of the 126[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 7-mile radius to 7.4 miles southeast of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on October 2, 2017.
Christopher L. Southerland,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-21627 Filed 10-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: June 8, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 110)]
[Notices]
[Page 33302]
[DOCID:fr08jn06-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-370-000]

Dauphin Island Gathering Partners; Notice of Proposed Changes in
FERC Gas Tariff

June 1, 2006.
    Take notice that on May 25, 2006 Dauphin Island Gathering Partners
(Dauphin Island) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff,
First Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets to
become effective June 24, 2006:

Second Revised Sheet No. 253
First Revised Sheet No. 286
First Revised Sheet No. 301
First Revised Sheet No. 315

    Dauphin Island states that these tariff sheets were filed to delete
the CIG/Granite State discount policy language and to correct several
section references in the Transportation Service Agreements.
    Dauphin Island states that copies of the filing are being served
contemporaneously on its customers and other interested parties.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of
section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210).
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-8871 Filed 6-7-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 174 (Friday, September 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45440-45441]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19388]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-521-000]

Gulf LNG Liquefaction Company, LLC, Gulf LNG Energy, LLC, Gulf
LNG Pipelines, LLC; Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the
Gulf LNG Liquefaction Project

    On June 19, 2015, Gulf LNG Liquefaction Company, LLC and Gulf LNG
Energy, LLC, and Gulf LNG Pipeline, LLC (collectively referred to as
Gulf LNG) filed an application with the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC or Commission) in Docket No. CP15-521-000 pursuant to
section 3(a) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, requesting authorization
to construct and operate the Gulf LNG Liquefaction Project (Project) at
Gulf Energy's existing import liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal in
Jackson County, Mississippi. Within the same application, Gulf LNG
Pipeline, LLC proposes to make modifications to the terminal's send-out
pipeline to allow for bi-directional flow. The Project would expand the
terminal to enable it to liquefy approximately 11 million metric tons
of LNG per year for export. On June 15, 2012, in Order No. 3104, the
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, granted to Gulf LNG
authorization to export LNG by vessel from the terminal to Free Trade
Agreement nations. On August 31, 2012, Gulf LNG filed an application
with the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, for a
long-term, multi-contract authorization to export LNG to Non-Free Trade
Agreement nations. A decision by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office
of Fossil Energy is still pending.
    FERC issued its Notice of Application for the Project on July 1,
2015. Among other things, that notice alerted other agencies issuing
federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary
reviews and to reach a final decision on the request for a federal
authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission
staff's final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Project.
This notice identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for completion
of the final EIS for the Gulf LNG Liquefaction Project, which is based
on an issuance of the draft EIS in November 2018. The forecasted
schedule for both the draft and final EIS is based upon Gulf LNG
providing complete and timely responses to any future data requests. In
addition, the schedule assumes that the cooperating agencies will
provide input on their areas of responsibility on a timely basis.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of Notice of Availability of the final EIS--April 17, 2019
90-Day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--July 16, 2019

    If a schedule change becomes necessary for the final EIS, an
additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are
kept informed of project's progress.

Background

    On May 21, 2014, the Commission staff granted Gulf LNG's request to
use FERC's pre-filing environmental review process and assigned the
Gulf LNG Liquefaction Project Docket No. PF13-4-000. On July 31, 2014,
the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement for the Planned Gulf LNG Liquefaction Project, Request
for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of Public Scoping
Meeting. On August 27, 2014, the Commission issued a Notice of
Extension of Time to allow additional time for comments. The notices
were sent to federal, state, and local government representatives and
agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups;
Native American Tribes; affected property owners; other interested
parties; and local libraries and newspapers. Major issues raised during
scoping include impacts on air and water quality, socioeconomic
conditions, environmental justice, federal and state-listed threatened
and endangered species, noise levels and nighttime light, visual
resources, public safety, and cumulative impacts.
    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. Coast Guard; U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy; U.S. Department of Transportation,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service; and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency are cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EIS and to
keep track of

all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission
offers a free service called eSubscription. This can reduce the amount
of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing
you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct
links to the documents via email. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the Gulf LNG Liquefaction Project is
available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866)
208-FERC or on the FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the eLibrary
link, select General Search from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected
date range and Docket Number excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP15-521), and follow the instructions. For assistance with access to
eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY (202) 502-
8659, or at [email protected]. The eLibrary link on the FERC
website also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by
the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: August 31, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-19388 Filed 9-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 75139]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29544]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR15-5-000]

Sunoco Pipeline L.P.; SunVit Pipeline LLC; ExxonMobil Pipeline
Company; Notice of Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on December 5, 2014, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2014), Sunoco Pipeline
L.P., SunVit Pipeline LLC, and ExxonMobil Pipeline Company
(collectively, the Petitioners) filed a petition for declaratory order
approving the specified rate structures, terms of service, and
prorationing methodology for the proposed Permian Longview and
Louisiana Extension pipeline project, as more fully explained in the
petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 9, 2015.

    Dated: December 10, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-29544 Filed 12-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:A 75 day window to comment is insufficient. Please extend the allotted time to 180 days.

I was a 2 pack a day smoker for 15 years. Electronic cigarettes were the only thing that allowed me to quit.  I now use zero nicotine,  and have been cigarette free for over 3 years.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 97 (Friday, May 18, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 29586]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12006]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2008-0177(a); FRL-9673-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Portion of
York County, South Carolina Within Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North
Carolina-South Carolina 1997 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area; Ozone
2002 Base Year Emissions Inventory

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the ozone 2002 base year emissions
inventory portion of the state implementation plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control (SC DHEC) on April 29, 2010. The emissions inventory is
included in the ozone attainment demonstration that was submitted for
the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
for the portion of York County, South Carolina that is within the bi-
state Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area. The Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, North Carolina-South Carolina
1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the
``bi-state Charlotte Area'') is comprised of Cabarrus, Gaston, Lincoln,
Mecklenburg, Rowan, Union and a portion of Iredell (Davidson and Coddle
Creek Townships) Counties in North Carolina; and a portion of York
County in South Carolina. This action is being taken pursuant to
section 110 of the Clean Air Act. EPA will take action on the North
Carolina submission for the ozone 2002 base year emissions inventory,
for its portion of the bi-state Charlotte Area, in a separate action.
In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving
the State's SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal
because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and
anticipates no adverse comments.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before June 18, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2008-0177 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2008-0177,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules
section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to
submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara Waterson, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9061. Ms. Waterson can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 12, 2008, EPA issued a revised
ozone NAAQS. See 73 FR 16436. The current action, however, is being
taken to address requirements under the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Requirements for the South Carolina portion of the bi-state Charlotte
Area under the 2008 ozone NAAQS will be addressed in the future. For
additional information see the direct final rule which is published in
the Rules Section of this Federal Register. A detailed rationale for
the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse
comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is
contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule
will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties
interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time.

    Dated: May 8, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-12006 Filed 5-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

                                                     	OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY
                                                      	AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

Date:	September 21, 2018
Subject:	Chloropicrin:  Occupational and Residential Risk Assessment for Registration Review

PC Code: 081501
DP Barcode: NA
CAS No.: 76-06-2
Regulatory Action: Registration Review
Risk Assessment Type: Occupational/Residential
Case Number: 0040
MRID Number: N/A
Docket Number:  EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0153

From:	Laura Parsons, Acting Branch Chief
	Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch (RASSB)
	Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

To:	Michael McCarroll, Chemical Review Manager
	Richard Fehir, Team Leader
	Risk Management Branch II
	Antimicrobials Division (7510P)

This memorandum confirms that no occupational handler risk assessments are being conducted for the antimicrobial uses of chloropicrin during the current round of registration review.   This is consistent with the 2014 FWP which states on page 5:

      New occupational handler exposure assessments are not anticipated unless new studies become available or points of departure or uncertainty factors change.

The antimicrobial use of chloropicrin is as a wood preservative product.   A new chloropicrin wood product (SmartFume) was registered in March 2018; however, exposures are anticipated to be less than those with the original product (Timberfume II) because the new product is packaged in 45 gram cartridges.   There are no new toxicity studies and the points of departure and the uncertainty factors have not changed since the 2009 Amended RED.

cc:   	Tim Dole
	Tim Leighton
	Rose Kyprianou


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 110 (Wednesday, June 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33275-33276]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14195]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2010-0358; FRL-9316-3]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NSPS for Portland Cement Plants
(Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 8, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2010-0358 to: (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, mail code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; or (2) OMB
at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Learia A. Williams, Monitoring,
Assistance, and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail
Code 2223A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On June 2, 2010 (75 FR 30813), EPA sought comments on this ICR
pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any additional
comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB within 30 days
of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2010-0358, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Use EPA's
electronic docket and comment system at http://www.regulations.gov to
submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the
contents of the docket, and to access those documents in the docket
that are available electronically. Once in the system, select ``docket
search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please
note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted
electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing
at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA receives them and without change,
unless the comment contains copyrighted material, Confidential Business
Information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is
restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NSPS for Portland Cement Plants (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1051.11, OMB Control Number 2060-0025.
    ICR Status: This ICR is schedule to expire on July 31, 2011. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain- EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for Portland
Cement Plants were proposed on August 17, 1971, promulgated on December
23, 1971, and amended on December 14, 1988, October 17, 2000, and
September 9, 2010. Particulate matter emissions from Portland cement
plants either cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably
be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
    The control of emissions of particulate matter from Portland cement
plants requires not only the installation of properly designed
equipment, but also the operation and maintenance of that equipment.
Emissions of particulate matter from Portland cement plants are the
result of operation of kilns, clinker coolers, raw mill systems, raw
mill dryers, raw material storage, clinker storage, finished product
storage, conveyor transfer points, bagging and bulk loading and
unloading systems. These standards rely on the capture of particulate
emissions by a baghouse or electrostatic precipitator.
    In order to ensure compliance with these standards, adequate
reporting and recordkeeping is necessary. In the absence of such
information, enforcement personnel would be unable to determine whether
the standards are being met on a continuous basis, as required by the
Clean Air Act.
    Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this part shall
maintain a file of these measurements, and retain the file for at least
two years following the date of such measurements, maintenance reports,
and records. All reports are sent to the delegated state or local
authority. In the event that there is no such delegated authority, the
reports are sent directly to the EPA regional office. This information
is being collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 60, subpart F
and 40 CFR part 60, Subpart A, as authorized in section 112 and 114(a)
of the Clean Air Act. The required information

consists of emissions data and other information that have been
determined to be private.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 71
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining, information, and disclosing and providing information. All
existing ways will have to adjust to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements that have subsequently
changed; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Portland cement plants.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 118.
    Frequency of Response: Initially and semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 17,666.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $2,766,659, which includes $1,827,645
in labor costs, $55,194 in capital/startup costs, and $883,820 in
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no increase in the number of
affected facilities, or the number of responses compared to the
previous ICR. There is, however, an increase in the estimated hours,
and labor burden cost as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved Burdens. This change in burden has occurred because this
renewal ICR is being combined with EPA ICR number 2307.02, which
resulted in an increase in burden hours and cost.
    The combining of this ICR with ICR number 2307.02 also resulted in
an increase in capital/startup vs. O&M costs.

    Dated: May 31, 2011.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-14195 Filed 6-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


DCN 300 012 SUBJ: Ammonia Limits FROM: Shari Barash, Technical Coordinator TO: MPP Project Record DATE: February 24, 2004 DCN 300 011 explains EPA's rationale in selecting data from Episode 307a to calculate the Poultry Subcategory BOD 5 and TSS pollutant limitations. For ammonia, however, EPA found that Episode 307a is most likely not representative of poultry facilities in general because its effluent ammonia concentration is less than the median ammonia effluent concentration of all the Option 2.5 poultry facility discharges in EPA's database. Therefore, EPA looked to other model facilities to select a representative poultry facility to form the basis of the ammonia limitation.

Similar to the manner in which EPA selected Episode 307a to calculate the conventional pollutant limitations, EPA first determined the median ammonia effluent concentrations of all the poultry facilities in its database that utilize the Option 2.5 technologies. In order to respond to comments, EPA eliminated all Option 2.5 facilities with a filter or chemical phosphorus removal. The Option 2 and Option 2.5 technologies are the same except that Option 2.5 also includes partial denitrification. For this evaluation, EPA used only the data from facilities using Option 2.5 because EPA does not want to interfere with denitrification ( which is required to achieve BAT limits for total nitrogen) and the data indicate that effluent discharges of ammonia tend to be higher from facilities that employ partial denitrification. EPA is particularly concerned about this effect with ammonia because of the issue of seasonal variability ( see below) and because the data show that the median ammonia concentration from 2.5 facilities ( 1.05) is 65% higher than the median concentration from 2.0 facilities ( 0.63). This effect is more pronounced than for BOD or TSS, for which EPA based the limits on data from both 2.0 and 2.5 facilities. Table 1 provides information on the facilities and ammonia effluent discharges used to calculate the median ammonia effluent concentration. Based on comments That EPA should use all of the data available to it, EPA used its full effluent database for Option 2.5 facilities ( i. e., including data from facilities that only provided data reported as summarized monthly averages ) to select a model facility for use in developing the ammonia ( as nitrogen) LTAs for the final rule. This ensures that facilities operating the selected technology would be able to achieve the limitations and standards of the final rule ( including the BAT limitations for total nitrogen.) Table 1: Mean Ammonia Effluent Concentration Data from Treatment with Option 2 or Option 2.5 Technologiesa Facility Numberb Treatment Option Mean Ammonia Effluent Concentrationamg/ L 11 2.5 2.2 22 2 0.36 26 2.5 1.4 27 2 2.2 32 2.5 0.69 39 2 0.60 42 2 0.38 45 2.5 0.17 133 2 2.0 291 2 0.89 300 2.5 2.5 307a 2 .303 307e 2.5 0.36 309 2 0.66 aFor facilities in EPA's model facility database, these values reflect the final values after data exclusions as detailed in Section 14 of the final Technical Development Document. bEPA also has data for EPA sampling Episode 6448. EPA did not include Episode 6448 in this table because its ammonia effluent concentration is already accounted for by Episode 307e. This is because the data for Episode 307e encompass the time period of sampling Episode 6448.

Using the information in Table 1, EPA determined that the median ammonia effluent concentration for all poultry facilities in EPA's database employing the Option 2.5 technologies is 1.05 mg/ L. However, for purposes of calculating the long term average ( LTA) and variability factors ( VFs) for use in developing limitations and standards for the final rule, EPA is limited to using only those episodes with individual data points ( i. e. unsummarized daily/ weekly monitoring or EPA's 3 5 day sampling episodes.) The median value calculated for ammonia did not correspond to an existing facility, therefore, EPA selected the facility whose data was most representative of the median data but that also provided individual data. Table 2 below presents the Episode data that could be used to develop limitations and standards for the final rule. For ammonia, the facility with an LTA closest to 1.05 mg/ L for ammonia is Episode 26, so EPA used this data to develop the LTAs and Vfs for the final limitations and standards.

Episode Number Option LTA 1 Day VF 4 Day VF 11 2.5 1.93 7.69 3.08 26 2.5 1.1 5.37 2.55 32 2.5 .69 2.46 1.66 45 2.5 .153 4.57 2.33 291 2 0.82 7.68 3.08 307a 2. .303 5.02 2.40 307e 2.5 .36 5.83 2.0 309 2 0.56 7.49 3.16 6448 2.5 1.28 1.69 1.21 Using the methodology described in Chapter 14, the ammonia daily maximum limit based on Episode 26 would be 5.9 mg/ L and the monthly average would be 2.81 mg/ L.

However, EPA received comments about the seasonal variability of ammonia. In order to address these comments, EPA summarized all of the information for poultry facilities with ammonia limits in its database ( DCN 300,043). For each facility that had tiered limits based on the time of the year, EPA compared the highest value to the lowest value. Tables 3 shows this comparison.

Table 3: Comparison of Winter and Summer Ammonia Permit Limitations Episode Number Ammonia Daily Maximum Limit, mg/ L Ammonia Monthly Average Limit, mg/ L Winter High Summer Low Winter High Summer Low 20 14 8 9 5 26 39 29 26 19 27 30 7.5 20 5 291 4 2.4 2.7 1.6 297 12 8 8 5 307 2.7 1.3 1.7 0.7 Episode Number Ammonia Daily Maximum Limit, mg/ L Ammonia Monthly Average Limit, mg/ L Winter High Summer Low Winter High Summer Low 310 11 7.5 5.5 5 314 18 5 12 3 339 3.9 2.9 1.2 0.9 For each facility and each type of limit, EPA calculated the ratio between the winter high permit limit and mean of the winter and summer permit limit. EPA found that the average of these ratios was 1.30 for the daily maximum permit limits and the monthly average permit limits.

Therefore, in order to account for seasonal variability, EPA calculated the final ammonia limits by multiplying the daily maximum and monthly average limitations determined from Episode 26 by the average of the ratio determined above. The ammonia daily maximum and monthly average limitations are 8 mg/ L ( 5.9* 1.3) and 4 mg/ L ( 2.8* 1.3), respectively. These limit numbers have all been rounded up to the nearest integer. This ensures that these limits can be achieved in all seasons of the year. EPA could also have tried to promulgate seasonal limitations, but chose not to do this because the amount of seasonal variability will vary substantially from one region of the country to another. Instead EPA chose to establish limits that it believes facilities in all parts of the country can achieve in all seasons.

Because EPA did not identify well operated Option 2.5 BAT facilities in the meat subcategories, EPA transferred these limits to those meat subcategories that do not already have limits for ammonia ( as nitrogen).


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 99 (Thursday, May 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29501-29502]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11881]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2014-0045; Notice 1]

General Motors, LLC, Receipt of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Receipt of Petition.

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

SUMMARY: General Motors, LLC, ``GM'' has determined that certain model
year (MY) 2014 GMC Sierra Denali vehicles do not fully comply with
paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No.
102, Transmission Shift Position Sequence, Starter Interlock, and
Transmission Braking Effect. GM has filed an appropriate report dated
January 31, 2014 pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance
Responsibility and Reports.

DATES: The closing date for comments on the petition is June 23, 2014.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. GM's Petition

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

II. Vehicles Involved

    Affected are approximately 2,747 MY 2014 GMC Sierra Denali vehicles
equipped with RPO code ``UHS'' instrument cluster displays that were
manufactured between July 16, 2013 and January 27, 2014.

III. Noncompliance

    GM explains that while the subject vehicles are being driven the
gear shift selection indicator (a.k.a., PRNDM) may not be visible for
approximately 1.3 seconds during an instrument cluster reset, thus,
failing to fully meet the requirements set forth in paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>
of FMVSS No. 102.

IV. Rule Text

    Paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> of FMVSS No. 102 requires:

    S<IP_ADDRESS> Except as specified in S<IP_ADDRESS>, if the transmission
shift position sequence includes a park position, identification of
shift positions, including the position in relation to each other
and the position selected, shall be displayed in view of the driver
whenever any of the following exist:
    (a) The ignition is in a position where the transmission can be
shifted; or
    (b) The transmission is not in park.

V. Summary of GM's Analyses

    GM stated its belief that the subject noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for the following reasons:
    1. GM believes that the condition is extremely unlikely to occur.
For the condition to occur, the instrument cluster design input rate
must be exceeded. This can only happen under extreme load conditions.
For example, GM was able to create the condition in the laboratory by
simultaneously inputting a series of warnings into the cluster during
an active search of a media device connected to the vehicle while a
Bluetooth call is received by the vehicle.
    2. GM states that any disruption of the PRNDM display as a result
of this condition is very brief. In the unlikely event the condition
were to occur and the instrument cluster resets, the PRNDM display
would be restored within 1.3 seconds. This momentary reset would be a
clear indication to the driver that service may be required.
    3. GM also believes that the condition has little effect on the
normal operation of the vehicle. While the operation of the instrument
panel is briefly affected by the underlying condition, none of the
other vehicle operations are affected.
    4. GM states that the condition is extremely remote and not likely
to occur during shifting. Considering the unusual combination of pre-
conditions for the condition to occur, it is very unlikely the brief
disruption of the PRNDM display would occur when it is needed, i.e.,
during shifting. Most shifting occurs shortly after the vehicle is
started, or just prior to being turned off. In the rare instance of a
cluster reset, it would be more likely to occur during driving, not
immediately after starting the vehicle or just prior to the driver
exiting the vehicle.
    5. GM is not aware of any reported instrument cluster resets as a
result of the subject noncompliance.

    6. GM also expressed its belief that for previous noncompliances
that GM believes were similar, NHTSA granted petitions for
inconsequential noncompliance.
    GM has additionally informed NHTSA that it has corrected the
noncompliance so that all future production vehicles will comply with
FMVSS No. 102.
    In summation, GM believes that the described noncompliance of the
subject vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that
its petition, to exempt GM from providing recall notification of
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall
noncompliance as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, any decision on
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that GM no longer
controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance existed.
However, any decision on this petition does not relieve GM distributors
and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant motor vehicles under their control after GM notified
them that the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Jeffrey M. Giuseppe,
Acting Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-11881 Filed 5-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21382-21383]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9149]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2011-N-0184]

Pediatric Ethics Subcommittee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Pediatric Ethics Subcommittee of the Pediatric
Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the Pediatric Advisory Committee on FDA and certain
Department of Health and Human Services regulatory issues.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 11, 2011, from 8 a.m.
to 3 p.m.
    FDA is opening a docket to allow for additional public comments to
be submitted to the Agency on the issues before the Pediatric Ethics
Subcommittee. Submit either electronic or written comments by May 5,
2011.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the North Marriott Hotel &
Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Rd., Bethesda, MD 20852.
    Submit electronic comments 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.
    Contact Person: Walter Ellenberg, Office of the Commissioner, Food
and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, rm. 5154,
Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-mail:
Walter.Ellenberg @fda.hhs.gov, or FDA Advisory Committee Information
Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area). Please
call the

Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting. A notice
in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that impact a
previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always be
published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the Agency's Web site and call the appropriate
advisory committee hotline/phone line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On May 11, 2011, the Pediatric Ethics Subcommittee of the
Pediatric Advisory Committee will meet to discuss the general topic of
the ethics of administering subtherapeutic doses of investigational
products to children for the purpose of determining, for example, drug
metabolism, disposition, and targeting (e.g., exploratory
investigational new drug (IND) studies). In this context, the
subcommittee will also discuss the referral of such protocols by an
Institutional Review Board for review by a Federal panel under 21 CFR
50.54.
    The subcommittee's recommendations will then be presented to the
FDA Pediatric Advisory Committee on Monday, May 16, 2011. The
announcement of the May 16, 2011, Pediatric Advisory Committee meeting
can be found elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/Calendar/default.htm. Scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the subcommittee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
April 28, 2011. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 11 a.m. and 12 noon on May 11, 2011. Those
desiring to make formal oral presentations should notify the contact
person and submit a brief statement of the general nature of the
evidence or arguments they wish to present, the names and addresses of
proposed participants, and an indication of the approximate time
requested to make their presentation on or before April 20, 2011. Time
allotted for each presentation may be limited. If the number of
registrants requesting to speak is greater than can be reasonably
accommodated during the scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may
conduct a lottery to determine the speakers for the scheduled open
public hearing session. The contact person will notify interested
persons regarding their request to speak by April 21, 2011.
    Comments: FDA is opening a docket to allow for additional public
comments to be submitted to the Agency on issues before the Pediatric
Ethics Subcommittee beginning April 15, 2011, and closing May 5, 2011.
All comments received on or before May 5, 2011, will be provided to the
committee members. All comments received after May 5, 2011, will be
taken into consideration by the Agency. Interested persons are
encouraged to use the docket to submit either electronic or written
comments regarding this meeting (see ADDRESSES). Submit electronic
comments to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is necessary to
submit only one set of comments. It is no longer necessary to send two
copies of mailed 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.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the Agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Walter Ellenberg at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/AboutAdvisoryCommittees/ucm111462.htm for procedures
on public conduct during advisory committee meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: April 11, 2011.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2011-9149 Filed 4-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P