[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 24, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58467-58470]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23098]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R01-OAR-2013-0020; FRL- 9901-11-Region1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Connecticut; Redesignation of Connecticut Portion of the New York-New
Jersey-Connecticut Nonattainment Area to Attainment of the 1997 Annual
and 2006 24-Hour Standards for Fine Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the State of Connecticut's June 22, 2012
request to redesignate the Connecticut portion of the New York-N. New
Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT fine particle (PM2.5) area
(i.e., New Haven and Fairfield Counties; herein called the
``Southwestern CT Area'' or ``the Area'') from nonattainment to
attainment for the 1997 annual National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS or standards), as well as for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. As part of these approvals, EPA is approving: A State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision containing a 10-year maintenance
plan for the Area; a 2007 base-year emissions inventory for the Area;
and new motor vehicle emissions budgets (MVEBs) for the years 2017 and
2025 that are contained in the 10-year PM2.5 maintenance
plan for the Area. This action is being taken in accordance with the
Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on October 24, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2013-0020. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of Ecosystem
Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning
Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if
at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Copies of the documents relevant to this action are also available
for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at
the Bureau of Air Management, Department of Energy and Environmental
Protection, State Office Building, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-
1630.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alison C. Simcox, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5
Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On June 22, 2012, the Connecticut Department of Energy and
Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) submitted a request for EPA to
redesignate the Connecticut portion of the New York-N. New Jersey-Long
Island, NY-NJ-CT Area (i.e., the Southwestern CT Area) from
nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS, and to approve a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision containing an emissions inventory and a maintenance plan
for the area. As part of its redesignation request, CT DEEP asked EPA
to withdraw the SIP-approved 2009 motor vehicle emissions budgets
(MVEBs) prepared using the MOBILE6.2 emissions model and to approve the
2017 and 2025 MVEBs prepared using the MOVES2010 emissions model.
    On July 19, 2013 (78 FR 43096), EPA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Connecticut proposing to approve the
state's redesignation request and to approve the associated
PM2.5 maintenance plan, as well as the 2007 base-year
emissions inventory and new MVEBs for the years 2017 and 2025. EPA also
proposed to withdraw the SIP-approved 2009 MVEBs prepared using
MOBILE6.2.
    Specific details of Connecticut's redesignation request, 2007
emissions inventory, Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 175A maintenance plan,
and 2017 and 2025 MVEBs, and the rationale for EPA's proposed approvals
are explained in the NPR and will not be restated here. No public
comments were received on the NPR.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving Connecticut's June 22, 2012 redesignation request
and maintenance plan for the Southwestern CT Area because the
requirements for approval have been satisfied. EPA has evaluated
Connecticut's redesignation request, and determined that it meets the
redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean
Air Act. EPA believes that the redesignation request and monitoring
data demonstrate that the area has attained the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 standards. The final approval of this
redesignation request will change the designation of the Southwestern
CT Area from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 standards.
    EPA is also approving the associated PM2.5 maintenance
plan for this area submitted on June 22, 2012 as a revision to the
Connecticut SIP. EPA has determined that the PM2.5
maintenance plan meets the requirements of section 175A of the CAA. In
addition, EPA is also withdrawing the previously SIP-approved 2009
MVEBs prepared using MOBILE6.2 and is approving the 2017 and 2025 MVEBs
prepared using the MOVES model. Finally, EPA is approving the 2007
comprehensive emission inventory for the Southwestern CT Area under CAA
section 182(a)(1).

III. 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, 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 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 November 25, 2013. 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

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 81

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

    Dated: September 11, 2013.
Stephen S. Perkins,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
    Parts 52 and 81 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations are amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart H--Connecticut

0
2. Section 52.379 is amended by adding paragraph (h) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.379  Control strategy: PM2.5.

* * * * *
    (h) Approval--EPA is approving a request to redesignate the
Connecticut portion of the New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT
fine particle (PM2.5) area (i.e., New Haven and Fairfield
Counties or the Southwestern CT Area) from nonattainment to attainment
for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards.
Connecticut submitted this request on June 22, 2012. As part of the
redesignation request, the State submitted a maintenance plan as
required by section 175A of the Clean Air Act. Elements of the section
175A maintenance plan include a contingency plan and an obligation to
submit a subsequent maintenance plan revision as required by the Clean
Air Act. The PM2.5 maintenance plan also establishes 2017
and 2025 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets (MVEBs) for the Area.
Connecticut is establishing 2017 MVEBs of 575.8 tons per year (tpy) for
direct PM2.5 and 12,791.8 tpy for NOX, and 2025
MVEBs of 516 tpy for direct PM2.5 and 9,728.1 tpy for
NOX, for the Southwestern CT Area for maintenance of the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standards. The 2017 and
2025 MVEBs were prepared with the MOVES model. Previously SIP-approved
2009 MVEBs prepared with MOBILE6.2 are being withdrawn. Finally, EPA is
also approving a comprehensive 2007 emission inventory for this Area.

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations

0
4. Section 81.307 is amended by revising the entries for the New York-
N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT area in the Connecticut-
PM2.5 (Annual NAAQS) table and in the Connecticut--
PM2.5 [24-hour NAAQS] table to read as follows:

Sec.  81.307  Connecticut.

* * * * *

                           Connecticut--PM2.5
                             [Annual NAAQS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Designation \a\
         Designated area          --------------------------------------
                                      Date \1\              Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York-N. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT:
    Fairfield County.............        10-24-13  Attainment.
    New Haven County.............        10-24-13  Attainment.

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as
  otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.

                                               Connecticut--PM2.5
                                                 [24-Hour NAAQS]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Designation for the 1997 NAAQS \a\     Designation for the 2006 NAAQS \a\
          Designated area          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Date \1\              Type             Date \2\              Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York-N. New Jersey-Long
 Island, NY-NJ-CT:
    Fairfield County..............  ..............  Unclassifiable/              10-24-13  Attainment.
                                                     Attainment.
    New Haven County..............  ..............  Unclassifiable/              10-24-13  Attainment.
                                                     Attainment.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\1\ This date is 90 days after January 5, 2005, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ This date is 30 days after November 13, 2009, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-23098 Filed 9-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 146 (Friday, July 29, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49876-49878]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17863]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-5463; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-013-AD;
Amendment 39-18598; AD 2016-15-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc. Airplanes

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, &
702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), Model CL-600-2D24
(Regional Jet Series 900), and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series
1000) airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of corrosion found on
the slat and flap torque tubes in the slat and flap control system.
This AD requires replacement of the slat and flap torque tubes in the
slat and flap control system. We are issuing this AD to prevent rupture
of a corroded slat or flap torque tube. This condition could result in
an inoperative slat or flap system and consequent reduced
controllability of the airplane.

DATES: This AD is effective September 2, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of September 2,
2016.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North
America toll-free telephone: 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial telephone:
1-514-855-2999; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet http://www.bombardier.com. You may view this referenced
service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2016-5463.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
5463; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone:
800-647-5527) is Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc.
Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-
2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705), Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series
900), and Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series

1000) airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on April
12, 2016 (81 FR 21503) (``the NPRM''). The NPRM was prompted by reports
of corrosion found on the slat and flap torque tubes in the slat and
flap control system. The NPRM proposed to require replacement of the
slat and flap torque tubes in the slat and flap control system. We are
issuing this AD to prevent rupture of a corroded slat or flap torque
tube. This condition could result in an inoperative slat or flap system
and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.
    Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation
authority for Canada, has issued Canadian AD CF-2016-03R1, dated
February 18, 2016 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing
Airworthiness Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for certain Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet
Series 700, 701, & 702), Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705),
Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900), and Model CL-600-2E25
(Regional Jet Series 1000) airplanes. The MCAI states:

    There have been a number of reports of corrosion found on the
torque tubes in the slat and flap control system. Investigation
revealed that the current design of the flap and slat torque tubes
do not have proper corrosion protection and are not entirely sealed
which leads to moisture ingress and internal corrosion. A corroded
tube may rupture resulting in an inoperative slat or flap system, or
in a worst case scenario, could result in reduced controllability of
the aeroplane. This [Canadian] AD mandates the replacement of
affected slat and flap system torque tubes with [new or] modified
torque tubes.
    This [Canadian] AD was revised to add the statement that
accomplishment of the initial Service Bulletin (SB) 670BA-27-067,
dated 15 January 2015 also meets the requirements of this AD and to
correct the editorial error for the release date of SB 670BA-27-067,
Revision A.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
5463.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comment received. The commenter supported
the NPRM.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and
determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD as proposed except for minor editorial changes. We have
determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM for correcting the unsafe condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-067, Revision A,
dated February 23, 2015. This service information describes procedures
for replacement of the slat and flap torque tubes in the slat and flap
control system. This service information is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 509 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
               Action                        Labor cost           Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of the slat and flap      34 work-hours x $85 per        $105,000         $107,890      $54,916,010
 torque tubes.                         hour = $2,890.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the manufacturer, some of the costs of this AD may be
covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected
individuals. We do not control warranty coverage for affected
individuals. As a result, we have included all costs in our cost
estimate.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

    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 airworthiness
directive (AD):

2016-15-07 Bombardier, Inc.: Amendment 39-18598; Docket No. FAA-
2016-5463; Directorate Identifier 2016-NM-013-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective September 2, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to the airplanes, certificated in any category,
identified in paragraphs (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(3), and (c)(4) of this
AD.
    (1) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (Regional Jet Series 700,
701, & 702) airplanes, serial numbers 10002 through 10342 inclusive.
    (2) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2D15 (Regional Jet Series 705)
airplanes, serial numbers 15001 through 15361 inclusive.
    (3) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2D24 (Regional Jet Series 900)
airplanes, serial numbers 15001 through 15361 inclusive.
    (4) Bombardier, Inc. Model CL-600-2E25 (Regional Jet Series
1000) airplanes, serial numbers 19001 through 19041 inclusive.

(d) Subject

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

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of corrosion found on the slat
and flap torque tubes in the slat and flap control system. We are
issuing this AD to prevent rupture of a corroded slat or flap torque
tube. This condition could result in an inoperative slat or flap
system and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Replace Slat and Flap Torque Tubes in the Slat and Flap Control
System

    Within the compliance times specified in paragraph (g)(1),
(g)(2), or (g)(3) of this AD, as applicable: Replace the slat and
flap torque tubes in the slat and flap control system with new or
modified slat and flap torque tubes, in accordance with the
Accomplishment Instructions of Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-
067, Revision A, dated February 23, 2015.
    (1) For airplanes that have accumulated 28,000 total flight
hours or less as of the effective date of this AD, or 137 months or
less since the date of issuance of the original Canadian certificate
of airworthiness or date of issuance of the original Canadian export
certificate of airworthiness as of the effective date of this AD:
Before the accumulation of 34,000 total flight hours or within 167
months since the date of issuance of the original Canadian
certificate of airworthiness or date of issuance of the original
Canadian export certificate of airworthiness, whichever occurs
first.
    (2) For airplanes that have accumulated more than 28,000 total
flight hours but not more than 36,000 total flight hours as of the
effective date of this AD, and more than 137 months but not more
than 176 months since the date of issuance of the original Canadian
certificate of airworthiness or date of issuance of the original
Canadian export certificate of airworthiness as of the effective
date of this AD: At the earlier of the times specified in paragraphs
(g)(2)(i) and (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Within 6,000 flight hours or 30 months, whichever occurs
first, after the effective date of this AD.
    (ii) Before the accumulation of 38,000 total flight hours, or
within 186 months since the date of issuance of the original
Canadian certificate of airworthiness or date of issuance of the
original Canadian export certificate of airworthiness, whichever
occurs first.
    (3) For airplanes that have accumulated more than 36,000 total
flight hours as of the effective date of this AD, or more than 176
months since the date of issuance of the original Canadian
certificate of airworthiness or date of issuance of the original
Canadian export certificate of airworthiness as of the effective
date of this AD: Within 2,000 flight hours or 10 months, whichever
occurs first, after the effective date of this AD.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph
(g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective
date of this AD using Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-067,
dated January 15, 2015.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, New
York Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), ANE-170, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the ACO, send it to ATTN: Program Manager, Continuing
Operational Safety, FAA, New York ACO, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite
410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal
inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the
local flight standards district office/certificate holding district
office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this
AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, New York ACO,
ANE-170, FAA; or Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA); or
Bombardier, Inc.'s TCCA Design Approval Organization (DAO). If
approved by the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized
signature.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information
(MCAI) Canadian AD CF-2016-03R1, dated February 18, 2016, for
related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating
Docket No. FAA-2016-5463.
    (2) Service information identified in this AD that is not
incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in
paragraphs (k)(3) and (k)(4) of this AD.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Bombardier Service Bulletin 670BA-27-067, Revision A, dated
February 23, 2015.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., 400 C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval,
Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center
North America toll-free telephone: 1-866-538-1247 or direct-dial
telephone: 1-514-855-2999; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference 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 July 21, 2016.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-17863 Filed 7-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 192)]
[Notices]
[Page 61475-61477]
[DOCID:fr05oc10-85]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP10-496-000]

Cameron LNG, LLC; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental
Assessment for the Proposed Cameron LNG Export Project and Request for
Comments on Environmental Issues

September 29, 2010.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Cameron LNG Export Project
involving the export of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the existing
LNG terminal by Cameron LNG, LLC (Cameron LNG) in Cameron Parish,
Louisiana. This EA will be used by the Commission in its decision-
making process to determine whether the project is in the public
convenience and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff
determine what issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that
the scoping period will close on October 29, 2010.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives are asked to notify their constituents of this planned
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Cameron LNG proposes to export LNG from its existing LNG terminal
in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. The Cameron LNG Export Project would
allow Cameron LNG's customers to export up to 250 billion cubic feet of
foreign-sourced LNG over a two year period. According to Cameron LNG,
its project would provide additional flexibility and marketing
opportunities to its customers.
    The general location of the existing Cameron LNG terminal is shown
in Appendix 1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to
all those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
http://www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements

    Based on the preliminary information, construction of the Cameron
LNG Export Project would not involve any facility modifications;
therefore, there would be no land disturbance.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\2\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as ``scoping''. The main goal of
the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. All comments
received will be considered during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the

construction and operation of the proposed project under these general
headings:
     Land use;
     Water resources, fisheries, ballast water, and wetlands;
     Cultural resources;
     Wildlife;
     Air quality and noise;
     Endangered and threatened species; and
     Public safety.
    We will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed
project or portions of the project, and make recommendations on how to
lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    Our independent analysis of the issues will be presented in the EA.
The EA will be placed in the public record and, depending on the
comments received during the scoping process, may be published and
distributed to the public. A comment period will be allotted if the EA
is published for review. We will consider all comments on the EA before
we make our recommendations to the Commission. To ensure your comments
are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public
Participation section beginning on page 4.

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential effects on
historic properties.\3\ We will define the project-specific Area of
Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPO as the project is
further developed. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a
minimum encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples
include construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards,
compressor stations, and access roads). Our EA for this project will
document our findings on the impacts on historic properties and
summarize the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Historic
properties are defined in those regulations as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register for Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please send your comments so
that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before October 29,
2010.
    For your convenience, there are three methods which you can use to
submit your comments to the Commission. In all instances please
reference the project docket number (CP10-496-000) with your
submission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and
has expert eFiling staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You may file your comments electronically by using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. An eComment is an
easy method for interested persons to submit brief, text-only comments
on a project;
    (2) You may file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is located on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling you
can provide comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a
file with your submission. New eFiling users must first create an
account by clicking on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the
type of filing you are making. A comment on a particular project is
considered a ``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You may file a paper copy of your comments at the following
address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native
American Tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and
newspapers. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined
in the Commission's regulations) who own homes within certain distances
of aboveground facilities and anyone who submits comments on the
project. We will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis
proceeds to ensure that we send the information related to this
environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and government
entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the proposed
project.
    If the EA is published for distribution, copies will be sent to the
environmental mailing list for public review and comment.

Becoming an Intervenor

    In addition to involvement in the EA scoping process, you may want
to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party to the
Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in the
process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be heard
by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling.
An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a
request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are
included in the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the
Commission's Web site.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Click
on the eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field
(i.e., CP10-496). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range.
For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission now offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. 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. Go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.
    Finally, public meetings or site visits will be posted on the
Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/

EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-24956 Filed 10-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 178 (Monday, September 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56593-56594]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20165]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2305-123]

Sabine River Authority--LA & TX; Notice of Application Accepted
for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Application Type: Revised Shoreline Management Plan.
    b. Project No: 2305-123.
    c. Date Filed: July 29, 2020.
    d. Applicant: Sabine River Authority--LA & TX.
    e. Name of Project: Toledo Bend Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The Sabine River in Panola, Shelby, Sabine, and Newton
counties in Texas and DeSoto, Sabine, and Vernon parishes in Louisiana.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Jim Brown, Toledo Bend Project Joint
Operation Compliance Officer,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Mark Carter,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests: October 8, 2020.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's
eFiling system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without
prior registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact
information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(866) 208-3676 (toll
free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY). In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-2305-123. Comments emailed to Commission staff
are not considered part of the Commission record.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person whose name appears on the official service
list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or
documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that
may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they
must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Request: As required by Article 411 of the August
29, 2014 license, Sabine River Authority--LA & TX (licensee) filed a
revised shoreline management plan (SMP) for the project. The revised
SMP is substantially similar to the original SMP approved in the 2014
license but includes a request for expanded permitting authority for
certain activities (e.g., fencing, maintenance dredging, energy and
utility infrastructure without ground disturbing activities, private or
public marinas that accommodate no more than 20 watercraft at one time,
etc.) without the need for prior Commission approval.
    l. Locations of the Application: In addition to publishing the full
text of this document in the Federal Register, the Commission provides
all interested persons an opportunity to view and/or print the contents
of this document via the internet through the Commission's Home Page
(http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``elibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the document field to access
the document. At this time, the Commission has suspended access to the
Commission's Public Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a
National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19),
issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659. Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly
from the applicant.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214, respectively. In determining the appropriate action to take, the
Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only
those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the
Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments,
protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the
specified comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Documents: Any filing must (1) bear in all
capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or ``MOTION TO
INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the name of the
applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing
responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone number of the
person commenting, protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise comply
with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001

through 385.2005. All comments, motions to intervene, or protests must
set forth their evidentiary basis. Any filing made by an intervenor
must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed in the
service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in
accordance with 18 CFR 385.2010.

    Dated: September 8, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-20165 Filed 9-11-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 143 (Thursday, July 27, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35045-35050]
[FR Doc No: 2017-15833]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2014-0177]

Crash Preventability Demonstration Program

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

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On July 12, 2016, FMCSA proposed a crash preventability
demonstration program. Based on the feedback received in response to
the Federal Register notice, FMCSA announces the initiation of a crash
preventability demonstration program in which the Agency would accept
requests for data review (RDRs) to evaluate the preventability of
certain categories of crashes through its national data correction
system known as DataQs. This notice describes the crash types that will
qualify for the demonstration program, the process for submitting RDRs
to evaluate the preventability of a crash, how decisions on
preventability will be displayed in Agency systems, and the data to be
collected through this program for use in future decisions about a
longer-term crash preventability program.

DATES: The crash preventability demonstration program will begin
accepting RDRs on August 1, 2017, for crashes that occur on or after
June 1, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Catterson Oh, Compliance Division,
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions regarding viewing or
submitting material to the docket, contact Docket Services, telephone
(202) 366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Since its implementation in 2010, the Safety Measurement System
(SMS) has used safety performance information in the Behavior Analysis
and Safety Improvement Categories (BASICs) plus recordable crashes
involving commercial motor vehicles (CMVs), that are submitted by the
States through the Agency's Motor Carrier Management Information System
(MCMIS), to prioritize carriers for safety interventions (75 FR 18256).
The Agency uses the definition of ``accident'' in 49 CFR 390.5 to
identify those crashes that must be maintained by the motor carrier in
an accident register under 49 CFR 390.15. These include crashes
resulting in fatalities, bodily injuries requiring immediate medical
treatment away from the scene of the crash, or a vehicle being towed
from the scene because of disabling damage. These same crashes must be
reported by the States to FMCSA, through MCMIS, if the CMV has an
actual weight (i.e., gross vehicle weight) or gross vehicle weight
rating of 10,001 or more pounds or a gross combination weight rating of
10,001 or more pounds and is used on public highways. In addition,
crashes must be reported if the CMV is designed to transport nine or
more people, including the driver, and the motor carrier receives
compensation, and if a CMV in the crash is designed to transport 16 or
more people, including the driver regardless of compensation.
Additionally, if any motor vehicle in the crash is required to display
a hazardous materials placard, regardless of the weight of the vehicle,
it must be reported to FMCSA by the State. The crash data reported to
FMCSA by the States does not specify whether or not the crash was
preventable by the CMV driver.
    The Crash Indicator BASIC uses crashes from the previous 24 months
to calculate a percentile for a motor carrier. SMS weights crashes
based on crash severity, with more weight given to fatality and injury
crashes than those that resulted in a vehicle being towed from the
scene with no injuries or fatalities. In addition, the crashes are time
weighted, with more recent crashes having more weight. All reportable
crashes are included in the Crash Indicator BASIC regardless of
preventability.
    While the public SMS Web site provides a list of the recordable
crashes for the motor carrier, the Crash Indicator BASIC percentiles
have never been publicly available. The Crash Indicator BASIC
percentiles are, however, available to motor carriers who log in to
view their own data, as well as to FMCSA and law enforcement users.
    Stakeholders have expressed concern that the Crash Indicator BASIC
may not identify the highest-risk motor carriers for interventions and
that the listing of crashes on the public Web site, without an
indication of preventability, can give an inaccurate impression about
the risk posed by the company.
    On January 23, 2015, FMCSA announced the results of the Agency's
study on the feasibility of using a motor carrier's role in crashes in
the assessment of the company's safety (80 FR 3719). This study
analyzed whether police accident reports provide sufficient,
consistent, and reliable information to support crash-weighting
determinations; whether a crash weighting determination process would
offer an even stronger predictor of crash risk than overall crash
involvement and how crash weighting would be implemented in the
Agency's SMS; and how FMCSA might manage a process for making crash-
weighting determinations, including the acceptance of public input.
    Among the public comments to FMCSA's January 23, 2015, Federal
Register notice, the American Trucking Associations (ATA) provided a
list of certain types of not preventable crashes and suggested that
FMCSA establish a process by which documents demonstrating that the
crash was not preventable could be submitted to justify removing these
crashes from the motor carriers' records.
    Based on ATA's recommendations and other feedback received in
response to the January 2015 Federal Register notice, on July 12, 2016,
FMCSA proposed, in a Federal Register notice, a demonstration program
to determine the efficacy of preventability determinations on certain
types of crashes that are generally less complex. (81 FR 45210) The
Agency proposed to accept RDRs to evaluate the preventability of
certain categories of crashes through its national data correction
system known as DataQs. It proposed that a crash challenged through an
RDR would be found not preventable when documentation submitted with
the RDR established that the crash was not preventable.

Demonstration Program Details

Types of Crashes

    The Agency's July 2016 Federal Register notice advised that a crash
would be considered not preventable if the documentation submitted by
the motor carrier or driver established that the CMV was struck by a
motorist who was convicted of one of the four following offenses or a
related offense:
    1. Driving under the influence;
    2. Driving the wrong direction;
    3. Striking the CMV in the rear; or
    4. Striking the CMV while it was legally stopped.
    While there were comments opposing the demonstration program, there
were no comments opposing the categorization of the four proposed crash
scenarios as not preventable; so these categories will be retained in
the demonstration program as crashes that may be challenged by the
motor carrier through an RDR.
    Additionally, FMCSA advised in the July 2016 Federal Register
notice that RDRs could also be submitted:
    1. When an individual committed suicide by stepping or driving in
front of the CMV;
    2. When the CMV was incapacitated by an animal in the roadway; or
    3. When the crash was the result of an infrastructure failure.
    Comments to the Federal Register notice largely supported
identifying these additional proposed crash scenarios as not
preventable. Numerous commenters suggested expanding the list of
crashes to include vehicles running stop signs and red lights, crashes
involving two or fewer vehicles, or any crash where the other driver
was cited. Many commenters provided specific examples of crashes their
drivers were involved in that they felt were not preventable. For
example, Bill Puckett discussed an incident where a driver was
operating on the right hand shoulder and crashed into the CMV while the
CMV was making a right turn.
    The Institute of Makers of Explosives recommended including crashes
where vehicles are struck by debris, including trees and falling rocks.
The American Bus Association recommended including crashes where
vehicles are struck by cargo from another vehicle.

    After consideration of these comments, FMCSA modifies the original
list of not preventable crash scenarios to include crashes involving an
unattended CMV that is legally stopped or parked, and crashes involving
road debris or cargo from another vehicle. FMCSA believes that these
crash scenarios are similar to the scenarios originally proposed
because they generally are not complex. However, other crash scenarios
proposed by commenters are more complex and would require more analysis
and probably generate less consistent findings.
    Therefore, the Agency has decided that the crashes that may be
reviewed using the RDR process during the demonstration program
include:
    1. When the CMV was struck by a motorist driving under the
influence (or related offense);
    2. When the CMV was struck by a motorist driving the wrong
direction;
    3. When the CMV was struck in the rear;
    4. When the CMV was struck while it was legally stopped or parked,
including when the vehicle was unattended;
    5. When the CMV struck an individual committing or attempting to
commit suicide by stepping or driving in front of the CMV;
    6. When the CMV sustained disabling damage after striking an animal
in the roadway;
    7. When the crash was the result of an infrastructure failure,
falling trees, rocks, or other debris; or
    8. When the CMV was struck by cargo or equipment from another
vehicle.
    As proposed in the July 2016 notice, FMCSA will use the
preventability standard in 49 CFR part 385, Appendix B: ``If a driver,
who exercises normal judgment and foresight could have foreseen the
possibility of the accident that in fact occurred, and avoided it by
taking steps within his/her control which would not have risked causing
another kind of mishap, the accident was preventable.''

Conviction Requirement

    FMCSA proposed that evidence of a conviction, as defined in 49 CFR
383.5 and 390.5, be required to document that the crash was not
preventable by the motor carrier or driver. However, the vast majority
of commenters opposed this requirement, including Richard Metz, Douglas
B. Marcello, Vigillo, Knight Transportation, Greyhound, Advocates for
Highway and Auto Safety (Advocates), Truck Safety Coalition (TSC) and
the National Ready Mixed Concrete Association. Reasons cited included
the amount of time that courts take to adjudicate cases, and the fact
that, when the other driver dies in the crash, there is no prosecution.
In addition, some commenters pointed out that the courts make a
determination of ``at fault'' which has a definition different from
``preventable.''
    After consideration of this feedback, FMCSA will not require
evidence of a conviction before processing crash preventability
requests in the demonstration program. The Agency will, however, review
conviction information, if provided.

Documents To Be Submitted

    In the July 2016 notice, FMCSA proposed that the RDRs should
include all available law enforcement reports, insurance reports from
all parties involved in the crash, and any other relevant information.
Douglas B. Marcello, Vigillo, and the Owner Operators Independent
Driver Association (OOIDA) noted that receiving insurance reports from
other parties is unlikely and should not be required. In addition,
Robert Spikes cited a crash where the insurance company paid because it
was more cost effective than going to court. Comments also indicated
that the Agency should accept other evidence, including videos.
    Therefore, FMCSA will not require someone submitting a crash
preventability RDR to include any specific documentation from third
parties, such as insurance companies, but it will be incumbent on the
submitter to provide sufficient documentation that a crash was not
preventable. The Agency will consider all relevant evidence submitted.
    The burden is on the submitter to show by compelling evidence that
the crash was not preventable. However, in these and all crashes, FMCSA
reserves the right to request additional information on the crash,
which may include any documentation the carrier is required to maintain
under the Agency's regulations. Failure to submit documents requested
by the Agency may cause the RDR to be closed without a preventability
determination.
    On August 1, the Agency's DataQs system will accept videos 5 MB or
smaller in specific video container formats, including MP4, MPG, MKV,
AVI, MPEG, and WMV file types. These file types will be accepted in
this demonstration program.

Re-Opening RDRs

    If, during the demonstration program, a submitter receives a
determination that the crash was preventable or undecided, or the RDR
is closed for failure to submit additional requested documents, the RDR
may be re-opened once and the request reconsidered by FMCSA if
additional documentation is submitted.

Out of Service Violations

    The Agency proposed that a crash would be found preventable if
documentation showed that the CMV driver was in violation of an out of
service (OOS) regulation at the time of the crash, e.g., the driver had
exceeded his/her hours of service limits. In addition, FMCSA advised
that the crash would be considered preventable if the post-crash
inspection revealed that an OOS violation existed prior to the crash.
    United Vision Logistics asserted that an OOS violation should not
be determinative unless it was a contributing factor to the crash.
Transportation Safety Services also indicated that crashes should not
be considered preventable due to OOS violations.
    While some commenters did not want other violations to impact the
crash preventability decision, the Agency is retaining this requirement
in the demonstration program consistent with the Agency's current
preventability review procedures. Operations in violation of an OOS
regulation demonstrate a disregard for safety and compliance. These
crashes were preventable because the vehicle and/or driver should not
have been operating. Therefore, if a vehicle and/or driver was
operating with any OOS condition under the North American Standard OOS
Criteria at the time of the crash, the RDR will result in a preventable
determination, because the vehicle and/or driver should not have been
on the roadway because of an OOS condition. Additionally, if the motor
carrier was in violation of an operations OOS order, the crash will be
determined to have been preventable.

Display of Crashes in FMCSA Systems

    In the July 2016 Federal Register notice, the Agency proposed that
it would remove crashes determined to be ``Not Preventable'' from the
motor carrier's public SMS display. The Agency noted that Section 5223
of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 114-94,
prohibits the Agency from making available to the general public
information regarding crashes in which a determination is made that the
motor carrier or the CMV driver is not at fault.
    In response to the Agency's proposal to remove not preventable
crashes from the public SMS display, commenters correctly stated that
the Agency was

improperly equating a finding of ``not preventable'' with a finding of
``not at fault.'' Advocates stated that determinations of fault are
``the province of the legal system'' and noted that independent
investigations of a crash may reach different fault conclusions.
Advocates advised that using ``only a limited amount of information
about the incident, and without all of the benefits provided to a jury
during a civil trial, including going to the scene, is grossly
misguided.'' The TSC added that the State court systems are responsible
for making determinations of fault. ATA advised that, ``The goal of
this process should not be to definitely declare fault, but to identify
the predictive value of crashes in the same way the agency does with
violations.''
    Fault is generally determined in the course of civil or criminal
proceedings and results in the assignment of legal liability for the
consequences of a crash. By contrast, a preventability determination
seeks to identify the root causes for a crash and is used to prevent
the same type of crash from re-occurring. A preventability
determination is not a proceeding to assign legal liability for a
crash. Because preventability determinations are distinct from findings
of fault, Section 5223 does not prohibit the public display of not
preventable crashes.
    The demonstration program is intended to analyze preventability.
The Agency believes that the public display of all crashes, regardless
of the preventability determination, provides the most complete
information regarding a motor carrier's safety performance record. The
Agency is committed to the open and transparent reporting of safety
performance data. Therefore, during the demonstration program, not
preventable crashes will continue to be listed on the public SMS site.
However, the review of the crash, and the subsequent determination,
will be clearly noted as described below. In addition, during the
demonstration program, the motor carrier's Crash Indicator BASIC
percentiles for motor carriers logged into the SMS, FMCSA, and law
enforcement users will show percentiles with and without the crashes
determined to be not preventable.
    During the demonstration program, changes in SMS will not be
reflected in the Agency's mobile applications such as the SaferBus and
Query Central (QC Mobile) apps or the Pre-employment Screening Program.

Weighting of Not Preventable Crashes

    FMCSA considered weighting crashes determined to be preventable
with a higher weight in the SMS to see the impacts to the Agency's
crash correlation models. YRC Worldwide, Inc. and OOIDA expressed
concerns about weighting crashes determined to be preventable. It was
noted that this might discourage participation in the demonstration
program. As a result, FMCSA will not use a higher severity weighting
for any crashes determined to be preventable for any SMS calculations
during the demonstration program. However, the Agency's analysis of the
demonstration program will review these crashes and include severity
weight options to determine impacts on crash correlation.

Preventability Decisions

    The Agency did not receive comments requesting changes to the three
proposed preventability decisions. The three preventability decisions
will remain ``Not Preventable,'' ``Preventable,'' and ``Undecided.''
FMCSA clarifies below how these decisions will be displayed:
    1. Not Preventable--The public display of SMS will include a
notation that reads, ``FMCSA reviewed this crash and determined that it
was not preventable.'' For logged-in users (motor carriers viewing
their own data, FMCSA, and law enforcement users), two Crash Indicator
BASIC percentiles will be calculated--one with and one without the not
preventable crash(es).
    2. Preventable--The public display of SMS will include a notation
that reads, ``FMCSA reviewed this crash and determined that it was
preventable.''
    3. Undecided--In these cases, the documentation submitted did not
allow for a conclusive decision by reviewers. When crash reviews are
undecided, SMS will include a notation that reads, ``FMCSA reviewed
this crash and could not make a preventability determination based on
the evidence provided.''
    In addition, if a submitter fails to provide documents requested by
FMCSA, the RDR will be designated in DataQs as ``Closed Due to Non-
Response'' without any notation in the public display of SMS.

Input From the Public

    The July 2016 Federal Register notice proposed to allow public
input on any crashes with a proposed not preventable determination.
United Vision Logistics and the National Motor Freight Traffic
Association do not believe that an opportunity for public input should
be available in the program. The American Association for Justice
advised that the public must have access to the data used to make a
determination.
    The opportunity to collect information from other parties is
critical to determining the impacts and costs of this program.
Therefore, during the demonstration program, if a crash is reviewed and
results in a preliminary finding that it was not preventable, the crash
report number, U.S. DOT number, motor carrier name, crash event date,
crash event State and crash type will be listed on the Agency's DataQs
Web site.
    Any member of the public with documentation or data to refute the
proposed finding will have 30 days to submit the documentation through
the DataQs system at https://dataqs.fmcsa.dot.gov. Information on how
to submit additional documentation is available at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/crash-preventability-program.
    Any new documents or data will be reviewed and considered before
FMCSA makes a final determination. Final determinations will be
reflected on SMS within 60 days of the final decision.

DataQs

    Motor carriers and drivers will submit crash preventability RDRs
through the Agency's DataQs system. DataQs has been modified to provide
this functionality. The DataQs system is available at: https://dataqs.fmcsa.dot.gov.
    Information on how to submit a crash preventability RDR is
available on the Agency's Web site at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety/crash-preventability-program.
    It should be noted that crash preventability RDRs for crashes that
predate this program or that do not correspond to the crash scenarios
listed above will not be processed. However, motor carriers and drivers
should continue to submit RDRs through DataQs when crashes are assigned
to the wrong carrier or the crash did not meet the definition of a
recordable crash, using processes currently in place.

Reviewers

    FMCSA will use contract resources to complete two stages of review
within the DataQs system. In stage 1, the reviewer will collect all
documents related to the crash from the submitter and FMCSA systems.
    In stage 2, an experienced crash report reviewer will evaluate all
of the documents from the submitter and FMCSA systems, including the
MCMIS crash information. It should be noted that if an RDR is submitted
before the MCMIS crash report is received, the

evaluation will be put on hold and the submitter will be advised.
    The stage 2 reviewer will confirm that the crash meets one of the
crash types noted above. Based on the evidence reviewed, the stage 2
reviewer will make a recommendation to FMCSA as to whether compelling
evidence demonstrates that the crash was not preventable. The FMCSA
reviewer will review the evidence considered by the stage 1 reviewer
and the stage 2 recommendation. If FMCSA agrees with the recommendation
of not preventable, the crash will be posted for public input as noted
above. If the recommendation is for a determination that the crash was
preventable or that the information submitted was insufficient to
support a determination, and the FMCSA reviewer agrees, the
determination of ``Preventable'' or ``Undecided'' would be noted in the
public SMS display as described in the ``Preventability Decisions''
section above added to the corresponding crash in SMS. Changes would be
reflected on SMS within 60 days.

Quality Controls

    At the onset of the program, all RDRs will be checked by a second
reviewer during stage 2. If FMCSA's determination differs from the
stage 2 recommendation, an additional final reviewer will be utilized
and make a recommendation to FMCSA.
    Throughout the program, FMCSA will evaluate the quality control
process. For continued consistency of crash preventability
determinations, a percentage of RDRs will be reviewed before a
recommendation is made to FMCSA.

Fraudulent Requests

    In accordance with the Agency's existing DataQs program, any
intentionally false or misleading statement, representation, or
document that is provided in support of an RDR may result in
prosecution for a violation of Federal law (18 U.S.C. 1001).

Agency Use of Data

    Under 49 U.S.C. 504(f), ``No part of a report of an accident
occurring in operations of a motor carrier, motor carrier of migrant
workers, or motor private carrier and required by the Secretary, and no
part of a report of an investigation of the accident made by the
Secretary, may be admitted into evidence or used in a civil action for
damages related to a matter mentioned in the report or investigation.''
The crash preventability determinations made under this program are
intended only for FMCSA's use in determining whether the program may
improve the Agency's prioritization tools. These determinations are
made on the basis of information available to FMCSA at the time of the
determination and are not appropriate for use by private parties in
civil litigation. These determinations do not establish fault or
negligence by any party and are made by persons with no personal
knowledge of the crash.
    In addition, the crash preventability determinations made under
this program will not affect any carrier's safety rating or ability to
operate. FMCSA will not issue penalties or sanctions on the basis of
these determinations, nor do they establish any obligations or impose
legal requirements on any motor carrier. These determinations also will
not change how the Agency will make enforcement decisions.
    Information submitted about a crash as part of this demonstration
program may be shared with the appropriate FMCSA Division Office for
further investigation. Likewise, if an investigation reveals additional
information about a crash for which the demonstration program made a
preventability determination, this information may be shared within the
Agency and the crash subjected to further review.
    Throughout this demonstration period, FMCSA will maintain data so
that at the conclusion of the test, the Agency can conduct certain
analyses. It is expected that the Agency's analyses would include, but
not be limited to, the cost of operating the test and its extrapolation
to a larger program; future crash rates of carriers that submitted
RDRs, future crash rates of motor carriers with not preventable
crashes, and impacts to SMS crash rates and improvements to
prioritization. The analysis will be used to examine ATA's assertion
that crashes of these types are not preventable and that removing these
crashes from the motor carriers' records would result in a better
correlation to future crash risk, and inform future policy decisions on
this issue.

Demonstration Period

    FMCSA will accept RDRs for crashes occurring on or after June 1,
2017. FMCSA will begin accepting RDRs through DataQs for this
demonstration program on August 1, 2017. This will provide the Agency
with time to conduct outreach to the industry and for motor carriers or
drivers to collect needed documents for submission.
    This demonstration program is expected to last a minimum of 24
months.

Other Issues

Prioritization

    For the purpose of prioritizing motor carriers for safety
interventions, FMCSA will continue to use all crashes during the
demonstration program.

Safety Fitness Determination Rulemaking

    A few commenters asked how this program would impact the Agency's
Safety Fitness Determination (SFD) notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
published on January 21, 2016. Preventability determinations made as
part of this demonstration program will not be used for the purpose of
safety ratings under the Agency's existing safety fitness determination
process. The Agency will continue to make preventability determinations
under its current procedures in 49 CFR part 385, Appendix B, when a
crash adversely affects a carrier's safety rating. If a carrier
disagrees with the calculation of the crash factor during a compliance
review the carrier must request removal under the procedures identified
in the compliance review report it receives or under the procedures
identified in 49 CFR 385.15. The determinations made through this
demonstration program will only be used to determine the impacts of
preventability determinations on the effectiveness of the SMS in
identifying the highest-risk carriers for interventions. Crash
determinations made in this demonstration program will not be
considered as part of any Agency action or proceeding that may impact a
carrier's safety rating, including safety rating upgrade requests.
    In addition, FMCSA published a notice withdrawing the SFD NPRM on
March 23, 2017.

Opposition

    While most comments to the July 2016 Federal Register notice
supported the program, there were four commenters that expressed
opposition on the program in its entirety. The TSC advised that it
``firmly opposes'' the program. TSC and Road Safe America believe that
FMCSA should not expend time or money pursuing this program, and that
instead the Agency should focus on regulations that will reduce
crashes. TSC, Road Safe America, and the American Association for
Justice want all crashes to be in SMS. The Coalition of Seven added
that the ``test study as proposed. . .is of marginal utility and would
not materially improve the accuracy of the crash data.''
    The purpose of this demonstration program, however, is to gather
data that

the Agency will use to examine the feasibility, costs, and benefits of
making crash preventability determinations. The data gathered through
the demonstration program will allow the Agency to better evaluate the
utility of making crash preventability determinations. As a result,
FMCSA is moving forward to implement this demonstration program.

    Issued under the authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: July 19,
2017.
Daphne Y. Jefferson,
Deputy Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2017-15833 Filed 7-26-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P