[Federal Register: October 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 205)]
[Notices]
[Page 60337-60338]
[DOCID:fr24oc07-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-452-001]

Trunkline Gas Company, LLC; Notice of Filing

October 15, 2007.
    Take notice that on October 2, 2007, Trunkline Gas Company, LLC
(Trunkline Gas), P.O. Box 4967, Houston, Texas 77210-4967, filed an
abbreviated application pursuant to the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part
157 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations requesting authorization
to amend its certificate issued on April 23, 2007. Trunkline Gas seeks
amended authorization to reflect a change in the maximum capacity of
the NTX Expansion and a revised cost in the certificated facilities due
to a contribution in aid of construction. The application is on file
with the Commission and open for public inspection. This filing is
available for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or
may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using

the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,

contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Trunkline Gas proposes to increase the maximum capacity of the NTX
Expansion from 510,000 Dekatherms per day (Dth/d) to 625,000 Dth/d due
to the relocation of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.'s (Energy Transfer)
interconnection with Trunkline Gas. Trunkline Gas will provide a
contribution in aid of construction (CIAC) toward Energy Transfer's
cost of construction of facilities to effectuate deliveries to
Trunkline Gas in the amount of $40,000,000. The total cost for the
Field Zone Expansion increases from $158.9 million to $198.9 million.
    Any questions regarding the application are to be directed to
Stephen T. Veatch, Regulatory Affairs, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Trunkline Gas
Company, LLC, 5444 Westheimer Road, Houston, Texas 77056.
    Any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to
the proceedings for this project should, on or before the below listed
comment date, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the
NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on
the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will
receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other
parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the
Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other
party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for
court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.
    Motions to intervene, protests and comments may be filed
electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper, see, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings.
    Comment Date: October 25, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-20879 Filed 10-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 191 (Friday, October 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 59768]
[FR Doc No: 2015-25022]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER15-2693-000]

Baltimore Power Company LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Baltimore Power Company LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is October 15, 2015.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic 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>.

    Dated: September 25, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-25022 Filed 10-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 147 (Friday, July 31, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45688-45689]
[FR Doc No: 2015-18769]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75529; File No. SR-ICC-2015-009]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Credit LLC; Notice of
Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on Proposed Rule
Change To Revise the ICC Risk Management Framework

July 27, 2015.
    On May 28, 2015, ICE Clear Credit LLC (``ICC'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to make revisions
to the ICC Risk Management Framework (SR-ICC-2015-009). The proposed
rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register on June
12, 2015.\3\ To date, the Commission has not received comments on the
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-75119 (Jun. 8, 2015),
80 FR 33573 (Jun. 12, 2015) (SR-ICC-2015-009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \4\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day from the

publication of notice of filing of this proposed rule change is July
27, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission
action on the proposed rule change. ICC's proposed rule change would
revise the ICC Risk Management Framework to extend its General Wrong
Way Risk framework to the portfolio level to account for the potential
accumulation of portfolio wrong way risk through Risk Factor specific
wrong way risk exposures. The Commission finds it is appropriate to
designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed
rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider ICC's proposed
rule change.
    Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\5\ designates September 10, 2015, as the date by which the
Commission should either approve or disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove, the proposed rule
change (File No. SR-ICC-2015-009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-18769 Filed 7-30-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73771-73775]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30612]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP10-002

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

ACTION: Denial of Petition for a Defect Investigation.

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

SUMMARY: This notice describes the reasons for denying a petition
(DP10-002) submitted to NHTSA under 49 U.S.C. Subtitle B, Chapter V,
Part 552, Subpart A, requesting that the agency conduct ``an
investigation of defective products manufactured by Dayton Wheel
Concepts, Inc. (`Dayton Wheel' and American Wire Wheel, LLC (`American
Wheel').'' The petition listed the allegedly defective products and the
alleged defect (which varied by allegedly defective product).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob Young, Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI), NHTSA; 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE; Washington, DC
20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By a letter dated December 31, 2009, Mr.
Thomas M. Gisslen; 707 Miamisburg-Centerville Rd. 158; Dayton,
OH 45459, through his lawyer John R. Folkerth, JR; 109 North Main
Street; 500 Performance Place; Dayton, OH 45402; petitioned the NHTSA
requesting that it investigate ``defective products manufactured by
Dayton Wheel
    Concepts, Inc. (`Dayton Wheel' and American Wire Wheel, LLC
(`American Wheel')'' and that the Agency ``order * * * Dayton Wheel
[to] remedy the indicated design defects and to cease and desist from
the manufacture of the defective products until such time as the
indicated design defects have been corrected, that all inventory of
such defective product be impounded and destroyed, that all defective
product be recalled, and that [Dayton Wheel] provide the notice
specified in 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30119'' [basically that Dayton conduct
a safety recall of the allegedly defective product(s) and so notify the
NHTSA].
    NHTSA has reviewed the material provided by the petitioner and
other pertinent data. The results of this review and our analysis of
the petition's merit is set forth in the DP10-002 Petition Analysis
Report, published in its entirety as an appendix to this notice.
    For the reasons presented in the petition analysis report, there is
no reasonable possibility that an order concerning the notification and
remedy of a safety-related defect would be issued as a result of
granting Mr. Gisslen's petition. Therefore, in view of the need to
allocate and prioritize NHTSA's limited resources to best accomplish
the agency's safety mission, the petition is denied.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR
1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: November 22, 2011.
Nancy Lummen Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.

APPENDIX

Petition ANALYSIS--DP10-002

1.0 Introduction

    On January 27, 2010, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) received a December 31, 2009, letter from
attorney John R. Folkerth, Jr.

on behalf of his client, Thomas M. Gisslen, petitioning the agency to
conduct an ``investigation'' of certain products manufacturer by Dayton
Wheel Concepts, Inc. (including those branded ``Dayton'' and ``American
Wire Wheel'') for a range of alleged defects.\1\ Mr. Gisslen (the
``petitioner'') is ``seeking an order requiring Dayton Wheel to remedy
the [allegedly] indicated design defects and to cease and desist from
the manufacture of the defective products until such time as the
[allegedly] indicated design defects have been corrected, that all
inventory of such [allegedly] defective product be impounded and
destroyed, that all [allegedly] defective product be recalled, and that
the manufacturer provide the [recall] notice specified in 49 U.S.C.
30118 and 30119.'' In support of his petition, Mr. Gisslen cites: a
previous NHTSA investigation (PE02-073) and subsequent safety-related
recall (03E-011) of the subject motorcycle wheels; a web-forum
discussion concerning the alleged separation of three spokes in a
Dayton model D452 60-spoke laced wheel installed on a 1958 MGA,
photographs of purportedly defective Dayton wheel components,
photographs of rim cracking in the nipple dimple area on a customer's
Dayton ``BA'' radially-laced motorcycle wheel taken proximate to June
6, 2007, a web-forum discussion concerning quality concerns with a ``21
inch, forty spoke cross-laced American Wire Wheel installed on a Harley
FXDB ``Street Bob''; internal Dayton email concerning wheel component
material, design, and specification, and material related to alleged
test failures of certain Dayton products. According to the petitioner,
``Dayton Wheel's [allegedly] defective products constitute a
substantial risk of catastrophic personal injury * * * '' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Hired on September 6, 2006, Dayton Wheel (``Dayton'')
terminated Mr. Gisslen's employment on September 11, 2007. Gisslen
v. Dayton Wheel Concepts, Inc., et. al. was filed October 6, 2009 on
behalf of Mr. Gisslen alleging he was wrongfully terminated
(Montgomery County Ohio, 2009 CV 08163). Subsequently, Mr. Gisslen
petitioned the Agency.
    \2\ John R. Folkerth, Jr., Esq., to Administrator, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, 31 December
2009, page 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 9, 2010, NHTSA wrote to Dayton requesting certain
information. The company's response was received by us on May 17, 2010.
Included was a request, filed pursuant to 49 CFR part 512, that certain
information provided not be released to the public.
    On July 26, 2010 the petitioner, through attorney Folkerth,
submitted a letter to Ron Medford, NHTSA's Senior Associate
Administrator for Vehicle Safety, covering additional exhibits
primarily concerning alleged product failures both in the field and
during various laboratory tests. Many of the exhibits simply duplicated
what was in NHTSA's public file for this petition (DP10-002).
    On June 24, 2011, the petitioner (no longer represented by Mr.
Folkerth) submitted additional information by Email to NHTSA. The
thrust of the email (and a duplicate sent on June 28, 2011) was his
opining that Dayton had not thoroughly and completely responded to our
March 9th inquiry.
    For purposes of this analysis, ``Dayton'' refers to Dayton Wire
Wheel, Inc. including all of its divisions, subsidiaries (whether or
not incorporated, including American Wire Wheel and Dayton Wheel
Concepts).
    In analyzing the petitioner's allegations and preparing a response,
we:
    [check] Reviewed the petitioner attorney's December 31, 2010, and
July 26, 2010, letters and exhibits.
    [check] Reviewed the petitioner's June 24, 2011, email and
attachments.
    [check] Reviewed the petitioner's June 28, 2011, email and
attachments.
    [check] Reviewed data provided by Dayton in response to our March
9, 2010, information request.
    [check] Reviewed a previous NHTSA defect investigation (PE02-073)
concerning the alleged sudden and unforeseen catastrophic failure of
certain motorcycle wheels produced by Dayton under the brand name
``American Wire Wheel'' (AWW).
    [check] Reviewed information related to Dayton's safety recall
(03E-011) of the PE02-073 subject AWW wheels.
    [check] Reviewed our consumer complaint database for any reports
concerning products manufactured by Dayton.
    [check] Informally interviewed owners of British cars equipped with
Dayton wheels at three Washington, DC-area British car shows.
    [check] Informally interviewed owners of motorcycles equipped with
Dayton wheels at three Washington, DC-area custom motorcycle shows.
    [check] Conducted a wide-ranging, web-based, search for any
information (included forum threads) concerning alleged sudden,
catastrophic failure of Dayton products.
    The information gathered and reviewed during this comprehensive
effort fails to establish that a defect trend exists in any of Dayton's
products (including those identified by the petitioner). Consequently,
the petition is denied.

2.0 Dayton Wire Wheel History

    Founded in 1916, today Dayton Wire Wheel manufactures laced wheels
for sale, predominantly, in the automotive and motorcycle
aftermarket.\3\ Dayton wheels were used by the Wright Brothers and
Charles Lindbergh. As an original equipment supplier in the 1930's,
Auburn, Cord and Duesenberg automobiles were built with Daytons. All
Dayton wheels are produced in Dayton, Ohio.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Dayton continues to supply original equipment wheels to some
vehicle mfrs., including the Morgan Motor Company of County
Worcestershire in the UK.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.0 The Petioners Allegations

    The petitioner provided a listing of the Dayton products he alleges
are defective. While discussing his claims regarding the ``radial
spoke'' (i.e., the spokes do not cross another between the hub and rim)
motorcycle wheels in his letter, the petitioner references an earlier
NHTSA defect investigation (PE02-073) and its related safety recall
(03E-011) concerning certain motorcycle wheels assembled by Dayton.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Folkerth, pages 1-2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.1 The defective products alleged by the Petitioner

    Mr. Gisslen alleges that the following Dayton products have the
following ``defects:'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Ibid, pages 4-5.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Product                         Alleged ``Defect''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003-6 BA 40 Radial Spoke Motorcycle   Hub cracking at spoke flange.
 Wheel.
19'' & 21'' Diameter Front Wheel; 40,  Rim (rolled edge) cracking
 80 & 100 Radial Spoke Wheel * * *      (splitting) between dimples
 all applications.                      (spoke holes).
40 Radial Spoke M/C wheel * * * all    Rim (rolled edge) cracking
 sizes and apps.                        (splitting) between dimples
                                        (spoke holes).
40 Radial Spoke M/C wheel * * * all    Incorporating non-conforming
 sizes and apps.                        spokes and nips [nipples]
                                        increasing risk of cracking and
                                        nip-spoke thread engagement
                                        failure.

Motorcycle Drive Pulleys and Rotors *  Defective design, material &
 * * all sizes and apps..               fabrication increasing risk of
                                        cracking and failure.
Automotive wheel lugs and nuts.......  Extension lug bolts and nuts
                                        securing spline-mounted wheels
                                        incorporating improper material
                                        and manufacturing processes.
All Automotive Wire Wheels...........  Non-conforming spokes and nips
                                        incorporated into wheel
                                        assembly, resulting in loss of
                                        thread engagement and total
                                        failure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.2 NHTSA's Earlier Investigation and Recall

    Unlike random spoke breakages and/or other infrequent laced wheel
issues, sudden, unforeseen wheel collapse is of particular concern to
NHTSA, especially when involving motorcycle wheels. On October 10,
2002, NHTSA opened Preliminary Evaluation (PE) 02-073 after receiving
one owner's complaint alleging the sudden, unforeseen collapse of a
``High Performance Super Spoke'' aftermarket rear motorcycle wheel.
This wheel had been produced by American Wire Wheel, Inc. (AWW), a
division of Hulcher Enterprises in Denton, Texas. While preparing its
inquiry to AWW, NHTSA found the company had sold its assets to Dayton
Wheel Concepts of Dayton, Ohio (Dayton) on September 3, 2002. Included
in the purchase were all materials related to AWW's production of
``Super Spoke'' model wheels. NHTSA's Office of Chief Counsel (NCC)
reviewed materials related to that sale confirming that it involved
only a transfer of AWW's assets. Subsequently, NCC requested
information from Dunn & Bradstreet concerning AWW's current status and
was told the company was no longer in business.
    On October 31, 2002, Dayton received ODI's request for information
concerning the Super Spoke wheels. Allegedly, prior to receiving the
inquiry, only one alleged failure had been disclosed to Dayton by AWW.
However, in reviewing AWW's files while preparing its response to our
inquiry, Dayton found documentation of nine other Super Spoke spoke-
related failures, occurring between February 2000 and September 2002.
Of the nine found (for a total of 10 reports), 2 involved injury
crashes and all concerned rear wheels manufactured by AWW of Denton,
TX. Here is a representative owner statement concerning his August 4,
2002, incident:

    ``I was riding with a group of people. The rider next to me saw
the wheel hopping. I felt it and tried to look down. [It] felt like
I hit a bump, that's when the bike dropped and all hell broke
loose.''

    Photos included with the owner's documentation show the wheel
collapsed when all 40 spokes pulled away from the hub. On August 24,
2001, AWW paid the owner $4,177.62 to settle his claim.
    During the time it was gathering and reviewing material responsive
to ODI's October 31 information request, Dayton assembled 32 Super
Spoke wheels using components produced by AWW prior to Dayton's asset
purchase. Of these, 24 were rear wheels. On January 21, 2003, Dayton
shipped the rear wheels to both Custom Chrome and Drag Specialties,
wholesale distributors specializing in aftermarket motorcycle parts.
    On February 12, 2003, Dayton recalled all of the wheels it produced
(32). In its ``Part 573 Defect and Noncompliance Report'' filed with
the agency for recall 03E-011, it said it was taking this action after
determining the wheels ``have the potential for complete failure while
in use due to steel spokes pulling out of the machined aluminum hub''
with a ``potential for vehicle crash and resultant serious injuries to
riders and passengers.'' In its remedy, Dayton provided, without cost,
a wheel of different design to each affected customer.

4.0 Consumer Complaints

    In analyzing this petition's merit, NHTSA was interested in any
verifiable real world failure allegations indicating: (a) the sudden,
unforeseen collapse of any Dayton product including those cited by the
Petitioner and, (b) if such incidents existed, did their frequency
indicate a defect trend existed?

4.1 Real World Failures Cited by the Petitioner

    With his December 31, 2010, letter and June 24, 2011, email the
petitioner alleged there were seven real-world incidents involving
Dayton wheels. Of these, four involved automotive wheels and three
concerned motorcycle wheels. He also provided information concerning
one alleged failure of a motorcycle drive pulley produced by Dayton.

4.1.1 British-Cars.net--Automotive Wheels

    The petitioner included a report he found on a web-based forum at
British-Cars.net which he characterized as: ``A recent wheel failure
report surfaced at british-cars.net. Fortunately no one was injured.
The failure event was three spokes pulling out of the hub on a single
wheel.'' \6\ Subsequently, we found the subject wheel (a Dayton model
D452) was installed on a 1958 MGA owned by a British car enthusiast in
West Chester, PA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Ibid, page 2.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29NO11.034

    The owner posted three different threads, the first on or about
February 4, 2008, detailing his experience with the Dayton wheels. His
primary concern was his impression that Dayton was not willing to honor
the wheels' warranty. Subsequently, the issue was resolved to the
owner's satisfaction. At no time did the wheel collapse nor was vehicle
controllability compromised by the separation of three spokes on one
wheel.

4.1.2 Scott's Classic Imports--Automobile Wheels

    The petitioner's December 31 letter included six photographs of a
Dayton model D450 15x4 wheel intended for use on Austin Healey, Lotus,
MG and Triumph automobiles. According to Dayton, this September 2005
warranty submission for broken spokes came from a now defunct used car
dealer in Plympton, MA. No wheel collapse, or loss of vehicle control,
was reported.

4.1.3 The BA Motorcycle Wheel

    The Petitioner included information concerning a 40 spoke, radially
laced, rear motorcycle wheel installed on a 1998 Harley FLHRCI ``Road
King Classic.'' Known internally as the ``BA'' wheel, it was a redesign
of the ``Super Spoke'' wheel produced by American Wire Wheel of Denton,
Texas and later recalled by Dayton. In February 2006, the owner
contacted Dayton to report that the wheel rim had cracked and would not
hold air. After receiving the

wheel, Dayton found that, as a result of overloading, the rim was
cracked 270 degrees circumferentially. At no time did the wheel
collapse.

4.1.4 V-Twin Forum.com--Motorcycle Front Wheels

    The petitioner also included two forum threads from V-Twin
Forum.com, both concerning a front wheel installed on a Harley-Davidson
motorcycle, one radially-laced of an unspecified make or size and the
other cross-laced.
    The first posting, by ``TacomaWA12'' on February 9, 2006, alleges a
crash occurred while riding his Harley FLSTC when the front ``rim metal
between the spokes failed and literally split the rim in two.'' He
claims the bike sustained an estimated $4,400 in damage. The thrust of
his post was ``how can I find out who made the wheel?'' because, as the
``3rd or 4th owner,'' the wheel manufacturer was unknown to him. There
have been no entries on this thread since February 22, 2006, and the
identity of the wheel manufacturer is unknown. Dayton has no record of
this alleged failure and NHTSA has been unable to locate the owner to
ascertain whether Dayton produced the wheel which allegedly failed.
    The second thread concerned a 21'' forty spoke, cross-laced front
motorcycle wheel produced under the brand name ``American Wire Wheel''
by Dayton and installed on Harley FXDB ``Street Bob.'' Beginning on
September 20, 2008, the customer (aka ``Sponk'') provides a laundry
list of complaints: slow delivery, poor bearing quality, fitment
problems, and slow air loss. At no time was a wheel collapse indicated
or alleged.

4.1.5 Motorcycle Drive Pulleys

    Appendix K of the petitioner's December 31 letter purports to
document manufacturing defects with Dayton-produced motorcycle belt-
drive pulleys for Harley-Davidson fitment. Appendix L is a photo of an
alleged customer pulley with a complete hub separation occurring in the
summer of 2007. Dayton confirms that this is a customer's pulley but
states it was improperly installed. Witness marks on the hub indicate
improper fasteners were used to secure the pulley to the hub.

4.1.6 Complaints Identified in Gisslen Email \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Email from Thomas Gisslen to Robert Young, June 24, 2011,
page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 24, 2011, the Petitioner (Gisslen) alleged that two real-
world incidents, within the scope of our December 31 inquiry, had not
been identified by Dayton in its March 9, 2011, response. Both
incidents involved Swedish customers who had fitted Dayton wire wheels
to their automobiles. The first, reported to Dayton in March 2011 (and
revealed to the Petitioner during discovery in his civil suit against
Dayton), involved an air leakage problem with the Dayton wheels
installed on a late-model Ford Thunderbird. No wheel collapse was
reported.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29NO11.035

    The second, occurring in 2005, involved alleged spoke breakage on
Dayton wheels installed on a modified Jaguar. No wheel collapse was
reported.
    Neither of the alleged ``failures'' documented in these
``complaints'' were within the scope of our December 31 inquiry.

4.2 Real-World, In-Scope, Complaints Received by Dayton Wire Wheel,
Inc.

    In requesting customer complaint information from Dayton, we
limited the scope of our inquiry to those products identified in the
Petitioner's December 31st letter:
    Subject Products:
    1. 2003-06 BA 40 spoke, radially-laced, motorcycle wheel;
    2. 19 inch, 40 spoke, radially-laced, motorcycle wheel;
    3. 19 inch, 80 spoke, radially-laced, motorcycle wheel;
    4. 19 inch, 100 spoke, radially-laced, motorcycle wheel;
    5. 21 inch, 40 spoke, radially-laced, motorcycle wheel;
    6. 21 inch, 80 spoke, radially-laced, motorcycle wheel;
    7. 21 inch, 100 spoke, radially-laced, motorcycle wheel;
    8. All motorcycle drive pulleys;
    9. All motorcycle brake rotors;
    10. All extension spline-mounting lugs;
    11. All extension spline-mounting lug nuts; and
    12. All automotive wire wheels.

and the alleged defect was defined as:

    Alleged defect: For Subject Products Nos. 1 through 7: any rim
and or hub cracking and/or spoke/nipple thread failure resulting in
wheel collapse [emphasis added]. For Subject Product Nos. 8 and 9:
any fracturing of the pulley or rotor [emphasis added]. For Subject
Product Nos. 10 and 11: Any failure resulting in clamping force
reduction and wheel separation [emphasis added]. For Subject Product
No. 12: any fracturing of the spoke head and/or any stripping of
spoke/nipple threads resulting in wheel collapse [emphasis
added].\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Letter from Richard P. Boyd to Charlie Schroeder, March 9,
2010, page 2.

According to Dayton, the company ``has never had a report or instances
where any problem or issue with Subject Products Nos. 1-7 resulting in
a wheel collapse. Similarly, Dayton has never had any report or
instance where a problem or issue with Subject Products Nos. 10 and 11
resulted in wheel separation. Dayton has never had any report or
instance where any problem or issue with Subject Product No. 12
resulted in wheel collapse. With respect to Subject Products Nos. 8 and
9, Dayton has had one instance where a pulley failed * * * as a direct
result of improper mounting.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Folkerth, page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.3 Real-World Dayton Product Failure Reports in NHTSA's Consumer
Complaint Database

    Using the broadest possible search criteria \10\ we found five
complaints involving Dayton products. Of these, four concerned the
``Super Spoke'' motorcycle wheels recalled by the company on February
12, 2003, (03E-011). The fifth documented this petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Our searches included those where the manufacturer was
identified as ``Dayton'' and/or ``American Wire Wheel'' (including
wild cards). In the event the wheel manufacturer was not
specifically identified, we searched for those complaints where
``wheel'' or ``sprocket'' appeared in the complaint summary and then
manually reviewed each for any involving a Dayton product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.4 Real-World Dayton Product Failure Allegations on the Web

    Using the broadest possible web search criteria,\11\ we found no
reports of Dayton product collapse and/or separation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ We searched the web using readily available search engines
including Google, Bing, and Yahoo for any information related to
Dayton product failures. We then looked for those involving collapse
and/or separation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4.5 Real-World Dayton Product Experience

    In an effort to gather additional information about consumer
experience with Dayton products, particularly as it relates to wheel
collapse/separation or motorcycle drive pulley collapse, we attended
three local British car shows and the same number of custom motorcycle
shows. While there, we found some owners displaying vehicles

equipped with Dayton wheels and/or (in the case of motorcycles) drive
sprockets. No problems with the Dayton products, of any sort, were
claimed by any of those we queried.

5.0 Dayton Product Evaluations

5.1 Petitioner Documentation

    In support of his claim that the subject products are ``defective''
thus constituting ``a substantial risk of catastrophic personal
injury,'' the petitioner cites a number of tests and analyses conducted
on behalf of Dayton * * * the last of these dated February 22,
2006.\12\ The Petitioner has characterized these as documented test
failures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ John R. Folkerth, Jr., Esq., to Ronald Medford, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC, 26 July 2010,
attachment 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5.2 Dayton Documentation

    In responding to both the petitioner's allegations and item numbers
6 and 9 of our March 9, 2010, inquiry, Dayton provided additional
information and context. Two items are relevant here: First, the Finite
Element Analysis conducted by RHAMM Technologies, LLC of Dayton, Ohio
on behalf of Dayton in January 2006 was later found flawed because the
analysis parameters did not account for work-hardening of the spoke
material. Additionally, RHAMM could not define a real-world failure
point within the reasonably expected load limits.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Letter from Jeffrey P. Hinebaugh to Richard P. Boyd, NHTSA,
Washington, DC, 14 May 2010, item number 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The second relevant item concerns the allegation that testing
conducted by Standard Test Labs (STL) on Dayton's behalf, was invalid.
According to Dayton, when this allegation was first made, sometime in
2006, it retained the services of Rexnord Technical Services of
Milwaukee, WI to assess STL's testing and results. Rexnord's analysis
validated STL's tests and results.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.0 NHTSA Analysis

    In assessing the petitioner's claim that the subject Dayton
products are defective, NHTSA reviewed all reasonably available
information to determine whether the products were failing in real-
world use and, if so, how frequently? After conducting a comprehensive
effort to uncover reports of Dayton wheel separation and/or collapse or
motorcycle drive pulley failure, we found no such reports concerning
Dayton wheels and one (from 2007) involving a drive pulley, the latter
apparently resulting from improper installation. If, as the petitioner
alleges, the testing results (from 2003-2006) indicated Dayton was
producing and selling sub-standard wheels and pulleys, it would follow
that real-world failures would have occurred, certainly in the last
five years. NHTSA found no such evidence.

7.0 Conclusion

    Based on the foregoing analysis, there is no reasonable possibility
that an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-
related defect would be issued as a result of granting Mr. Gisslen's
petition. Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize
NHTSA's limited resources to best accomplish the agency's safety
mission, the petition is denied.

[FR Doc. 2011-30612 Filed 11-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Joint Application of

DELTA AIR LINES, INC.,

ATLANTIC SOUTHEAST AIRLINES, INC.

and COMAIR, INC.

   and

ALITALIA-LINEE AEREE ITALIANE-S.p.A.,

ALITALIA TEAM S.p.A.,

ALITALIA EXPRESS S.p.A.

and EUROFLY S.p.A.

for blanket statements of authorization

pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 212

(U.S.-Italy open skies codesharing)	)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

))))

)

)

Docket OST-2001-10417

NOTICE OF DELTA AIR LINES, INC.

 AND ALITALIA-LINEE AEREE ITALIANE-S.p.A.

November 19, 2001

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to:

Richard D. Mathias

ZUCKERT, SCOUTT &

  RASENBERGER, L.L.P.

888 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Suite 600

Washington, D.C.  20006-3309

(202) 298-8660

Counsel for

ALITALIA-LINEE AEREE

  ITALIANE-S.p.A.,

ALITALIA TEAM S.p.A.,

ALITALIA EXPRESS S.p.A.

and EUROFLY S.p.A.	D. Scott Yohe

Senior Vice President -

  Government Affairs

DELTA AIR LINES, INC.

1275 K Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20005

(202) 216-0700

John Varley

Assistant General Counsel

James A. Coblin

Attorney

DELTA AIR LINES, INC.

Law Department #981

1030 Delta Boulevard

Atlanta, GA  30320

(404) 715-2872

	Robert E. Cohn

Alexander Van der Bellen

Shaw Pittman LLP

2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20037-1128

(202) 663-8060

Counsel for

DELTA AIR LINES, INC.,

ATLANTIC SOUTHEAST

  AIRLINES, INC.,

and COMAIR, INC.

BEFORE THE

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

November 19, 2001

Joint Application of

DELTA AIR LINES, INC.,

ATLANTIC SOUTHEAST AIRLINES, INC.

and COMAIR, INC.

   and

ALITALIA-LINEE AEREE ITALIANE-S.p.A.,

ALITALIA TEAM S.p.A.,

ALITALIA EXPRESS S.p.A.

and EUROFLY S.p.A.

for blanket statements of authorization

pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 212

(U.S.-Italy open skies codesharing)	)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

))))

)

)

Docket OST-2001-10417

NOTICE OF DELTA AIR LINES, INC.

 AND ALITALIA-LINEE AEREE ITALIANE-S.p.A.

Pursuant to the blanket statements of authorization approved by Department Action on Application in Docket OST-2001-10417 dated

October 26, 2001, Delta Air Lines, Inc. (“Delta”) and Alitalia-Linee Aeree Italiane-S.p.A. (“Alitalia”) hereby notify the Department that the carriers plan to offer additional Delta-operated codeshare services.  (1) Delta and Alitalia plan to utilize Alitalia's additional U.S. gateways of Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, Newark and San Francisco to offer alternative routings to the previously authorized connecting service points listed in Exhibit A to the Joint Application; (2) the Joint Applicants also plan to offer Delta-operated connecting service to Honolulu, Hawaii, as an additional U.S. service point.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Richard D. Mathias

_______________________________

Richard D. Mathias

ZUCKERT, SCOUTT &

  RASENBERGER, L.L.P.

888 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Suite 600

Washington, D.C.  20006-3309

(202) 298-8660

Counsel for

ALITALIA-LINEE AEREE

  ITALIANE-S.p.A.

/s/A. Van der Bellen

______________________________

Robert E. Cohn

Alexander Van der Bellen

Shaw Pittman LLP

2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20037-1128

(202) 663-8060

Counsel for

DELTA AIR LINES, INC.

Footnote continued from previous page

Footnote continued on next page

Notice of Delta and Alitalia

Page   PAGE  2


[Federal Register: April 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 79)]
[Notices]
[Page 21998]
[DOCID:fr23ap08-140]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Request Revision From the Office of
Management and Budget of a Currently Approved Information Collection
Activity, Request for Comments; Safety Improvements Report Accident
Prevention Counselor Activity Reports

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA invites public comments about our intention to request
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to approve a current
information collection. Accident Prevention Counselor Activity Reports
are used by counselors to advise the FAA of Accident Prevention Program
accomplishments.

DATES: Please submit comments by June 23, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Mauney on<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

    Title: Safety Improvements Report Accident Prevention Counselor
Activity Reports.
    Type of Request: Revision of an approved collection.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0057.
    Forms(s): FAA Forms 8740-5 and 8740-6.
    Affected Public: A total of 4,792 Respondents.
    Frequency: The information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: Approximately 6 minutes per
response.
    Estimated Annual Burden Hours: An estimated 2,042 hours annually.
    Abstract: Safety improvement reports are used by airmen to notify
the FAA of hazards to flight operations. Accident Prevention Counselor
Activity Reports are used by counselors to advise the FAA of Accident
Prevention Program accomplishments.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla
Mauney, Room 712, Federal Aviation Administration, IT Enterprises
Business Services Division, AES-200, 800 Independence Ave., SW.,
Washington, DC 20591.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimates of the burden of
the proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 17, 2008.
Carla Mauney,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business
Services Division, AES-200.
 [FR Doc. E8-8726 Filed 4-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 199 (Tuesday, October 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 48227]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22498]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9969-52-OA]

Notice of Meeting of the EPA Children's Health Protection
Advisory Committee (CHPAC)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee
Act, notice is hereby given that the next meeting of the Children's
Health Protection Advisory Committee (CHPAC) will be held November 29
and 30 at The George Washington University Milken Institute School of
Public Health 950 New Hampshire Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20052. The
CHPAC advises the Environmental Protection Agency on science,
regulations, and other issues relating to children's environmental
health.

DATES: November 29 and 30 at The George Washington University Milken
Institute School of Public Health in Washington, DC.

ADDRESSES: 950 New Hampshire Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20052.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Hackel, Office of Children's
Health Protection, USEPA, MC 1107T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meetings of the CHPAC are open to the
public. An agenda will be posted to epa.gov/children.
    Access and Accommodations: For information on access or services
for individuals with disabilities, please contact Angela Hackel at 202-
5566-2977.

    Dated: October 2, 2017.
Angela Hackel,
Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 2017-22498 Filed 10-16-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 117 (Friday, June 17, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39587-39590]
[FR Doc No: 2016-14245]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 385

[Docket No. FMCSA-2016-0120]
RIN 2126-AB92

Incorporation by Reference; North American Standard Out-of-
Service Criteria; Hazardous Materials Safety Permits

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA amends its Hazardous Materials Safety Permits rules to
update the current incorporation by reference of the Commercial Vehicle
Safety Alliance's (CVSA) ``North American Standard Out-of-Service
Criteria and Level VI Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria
for Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and Highway
Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49
CFR part 173.403.'' Currently the rules reference the April 1, 2015,
edition of the out-of-service criteria and, through this final rule,
FMCSA incorporates the April 1, 2016, edition.

DATES: Effective June 17, 2016. The incorporation by reference of
certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of
the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51 as of June 17, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael Huntley, Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration, Office of Policy, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001, by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Office hours are from 8 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions on viewing the docket, contact Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Rulemaking Documents

A. Availability of Rulemaking Documents

    For access to docket FMCSA-2016-0120 to read background documents
and comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time, or
to Docket Services at U.S. Department of Transportation, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT although this action adopts
a final rule and, thus, comments are not solicited, DOT accepts
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Executive Summary

    This rulemaking updates an incorporation by reference found at 49
CFR 385.4 and referenced at 49 CFR 385.415(b)(1). The rules currently
reference the April 1, 2015, edition of ``North American Standard Out-
of-Service Criteria and Level VI Inspection Procedures and Out-of-
Service Criteria for Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting
Transuranics and Highway Route Controlled Quantities of Radioactive
Materials as defined in 49 CFR part 173.403.'' In this final rule,
FMCSA incorporates the April 1, 2016, edition.
    Ten actions were completed to update the 2016 edition of the
handbook and distinguish it from the previous edition of the handbook.
The revision does not impose new requirements or substantively amend
the Code of Federal Regulations.

III. Legal Basis for the Rulemaking

    Congress has enacted several statutory provisions to improve the
safety of hazardous materials transported in interstate commerce.
Specifically, in provisions codified at 49 U.S.C. 5105(d), relating to
inspections of motor vehicles carrying hazardous material, and 49
U.S.C. 5109, relating to motor carrier safety permits, the Secretary of
the Department of Transportation is required to promulgate regulations
as part of a comprehensive safety program on hazardous material safety
permits. The FMCSA Administrator has been delegated authority under 49
CFR 1.87 to carry out the rulemaking functions vested in the Secretary
of Transportation. Consistent with that authority, FMCSA has
promulgated regulations to address the congressional mandate. Such
regulations on hazardous materials are the underlying provisions that
have utilized the material incorporated by reference discussed in this
notice.
    The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) specifically
provides that adherence to its notice and public comment rulemaking
procedures are not required where the Agency finds there is good cause
to dispense with such procedures (and incorporates the finding and a
brief statement of reasons to support the finding in the rules issued).
Generally, good cause exists where the Agency determines that notice
and public comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 553 (b)(3)(B)). This document
updates an incorporation by reference found at 49 CFR 385.4 and
referenced at 49 CFR 385.415(b)(1). As discussed in detail below, this
revision does not impose new requirements or substantively change the
Code of Federal Regulations. For these reasons, the FMCSA finds good
cause that notice and public comment procedures are unnecessary.

IV. Background

    Currently, 49 CFR 385.415 prescribes operational requirements for
motor carriers transporting hazardous materials for which a hazardous
materials safety permit is required. Section 385.415(b)(1) requires
that motor carriers must ensure a pre-trip inspection be performed on
each motor vehicle to be used to transport a highway route controlled
quantity of a Class 7 (radioactive) material, in accordance with the
requirements of the ``North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria
and Level VI Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria for
Commercial Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and Highway Route
Controlled Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 CFR
part 173.403.'' With regard to the specific edition of the out-of-
service criteria, 49 CFR 385.4, as amended on June 18, 2015 (80 FR
34839), references the April 1, 2015, edition. This final rule amends
Sec.  385.4(b) by replacing the reference to the April 1, 2015, edition
date with the new edition date of April 1, 2016.
    FMCSA has reviewed the April 1, 2016, edition and determined there
are no substantive changes that would result in motor carriers being
subjected to a new or amended standard. The changes are outlined below
for reference. It is necessary to update the reference to ensure that
motor carriers and enforcement officials have convenient access to the
correctly identified inspection criteria that are referenced in the
rules.
    There were ten actions taken to update the 2016 edition that
distinguish it from the previous edition of the handbook. Additional
conforming changes have been made to the table of contents, but those
are not included in this summary. (All references are to the April 1,
2016, North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria and Level VI
Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria for Commercial
Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and Highway Route Controlled
Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 CFR part 173.403.)
The first action addresses consistency with 49 CFR 383.25, the out-of-
service condition that prohibits drivers from holding a commercial
driver's learner's permit (CLP) and transporting passengers. (Part I,
Item 3.b.) This action updates the language used in the criteria to
align with the regulatory language and is not a substantive change. The
second and third actions modified the language regarding medical
certificates and how to handle Canadian Class 5 or G licenses. These
updates occur in Part I, Item 4 (Driver Medical/Physical Requirements).
Part I, Item 4.b.(3) is necessary due to recent changes in FMCSA policy
regarding the verification of a valid medical certificate. And, the
note that clarifies how to handle the discrepancy when applying
Canadian and U.S. driver medical requirements was amended in section
4.b., to require Canadian drivers operating a commercial motor vehicle
within the United States with a valid Class 5 or G license to provide
evidence of compliance with medical requirements. FMCSA views these
changes as non-substantive, as they are already found in the relevant
U.S. or Canadian regulations.
    The fourth action in Part II, Item 2 (Cargo Securement, Tiedown
Defect Table) involves an adjustment made to the table that would
eliminate the possibility of an inspector declaring a vehicle out-of-
service for a defect-only violation instead of an out-of-service
condition. The Agency does not consider this a substantive change.
    The fifth action adds language to (Driveline/Driveshaft)
specifically, Part II, Item 4.b. which indicates that a missing bearing
cap retainer clip is a condition for placing a vehicle out-of-service.
This addition is not considered substantive, as it acknowledges that
light duty vehicles may use retainer clips as opposed to bolts to
secure the bearing cap. Because a missing bolt had previously been
determined to be an out-of-service condition, it was determined that a
missing bearing cap retainer clip should similarly be considered an
out-of-service condition. Modification of language in Part II, Item 7
(Fuel Systems) is the sixth action taken to address the criteria and it
consolidates and clarifies the section on the measurement of gaseous
fuels. Again, this change is not considered substantive as it
clarifies, based on consultation and input from industry experts, that
a leak measured to be below 5,000 parts per million is not an imminent
hazard and, therefore, not an out-of-service condition.
    The seventh action, Part II (Lighting Devices), Item 8 involves the
creation of new out-of-service criteria that resolves situations where
a trailer light cord is either left unplugged, had become unplugged in
transit, or there was a

defect in the cord or connector that causes all or many of the trailer
lamps to become inoperative. It was determined that in these
situations, a single out-of-service condition would be recorded rather
than multiple out-of-service conditions listed for the single defect,
the cord or connector. Because inoperable lamps on the rear of trailers
are already an out-of-service condition, this is not a substantive
change.
    In the eighth action, language was amended to the out-of-service
criteria from Part II, Item 9.f. Steering Mechanisms that would
quantify how loose a power assist cylinder must be in order to warrant
placing the CMV out-of-service. The revision clarifies the existing
language and is not a substantive change.
    The ninth action required in Part II, Item 10.b. Suspensions adds a
clarifying note and reference to an existing operational policy that
explains what a secondary air bag is. FMCSA does not consider this to
be a substantive change.
    The final action establishes a new out-of-service condition for
debris between tires in a dual set. This is not considered to be a
substantive change, as the change was established to account for the
infrequent event in which a solid object can become a projectile and
impact a trailing vehicle when dislodged from between the tires of a
dual tire set. In reality, these solid objects, when noticed, will be
remedied on the spot with an inspector, so the likelihood of an ensuing
out-of-service order is very low.

V. Regulatory Analyses

E.O. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review and DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures as Supplemented by E.O. 13563)

    FMCSA has determined that this action is not a significant
regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 (76 FR
3821, January 21, 2011), and is also not significant within the meaning
of DOT regulatory policies and procedures (DOT Order 2100.5 dated May
22, 1980; 44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979) and does not require an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that Order. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) did not,
therefore, review this document.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of the regulatory
action on small business and other small entities and to minimize any
significant economic impact. The term ``small entities'' comprises
small businesses and not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) see
National Archives at http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/regulatory-flexibility/601.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601-612),
FMCSA is not required to complete a regulatory flexibility analysis,
because, as discussed earlier in the legal basis section, this action
is not subject to notice and comment under section 553(b) of the
Administrative Procedure Act.

Assistance for Small Entities

    In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, FMCSA wants to assist small entities
in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects. If the rule will affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions, please consult the FMCSA point of contact, Michael Huntley,
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this rule.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $155 million (which is the
value equivalent to $100,000,000 in 1995, adjusted for inflation to
2014 levels) or more in any one year. This final rule will not result
in such an expenditure.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the OMB for each
collection of information they conduct, sponsor, or require through
regulations. FMCSA determined that no new information collection
requirements are associated with this final rule.

E.O. 13132 Federalism

    A rule has implications for Federalism under Section 1(a) of
Executive Order 13132 if it has ``substantial direct effects 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.''
    FMCSA analyzed this rule under that Order and determined that it
does not have implications for federalism.

E.O. 12988 Civil Justice Reform

    This final rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

E.O. 13045 Protection of Children

    E.O. 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, Apr. 23, 1997), requires agencies
issuing ``economically significant'' rules, to include an evaluation of
their environmental health and safety effects on children, if the
agency has reason to believe that the rule may disproportionately
affect children. The Agency determined this final rule is not
economically significant. Therefore, no analysis of the impacts on
children is required. In any event, the Agency does not anticipate that
this regulatory action could pose an environmental or safety risk that
could disproportionately affect children.

E.O. 12630 Taking of Private Property

    FMCSA reviewed this final rule in accordance with E.O. 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights, and has determined it will not effect a taking of
private property or otherwise have taking implications.

Privacy Impact Assessment

    Section 522 of title I of division H of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2005, enacted December 8, 2004 (Pub. L. 108-447,
118 Stat. 2809, 3268, 5 U.S.C. 552a note), requires the Agency to
conduct a privacy impact assessment (PIA) of a regulation that will
affect the privacy of individuals. This rule does not require the
collection of personally identifiable information (PII) or affect the
privacy of individuals.

E.O. 12372 Intergovernmental Review

    The regulations implementing E.O. 12372 regarding intergovernmental
consultation on Federal programs and activities do not apply to this
rule.

E.O. 13211 (Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use)

    FMCSA has analyzed this rule under E.O. 13211, Actions Concerning
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or
Use.

The Agency has determined that it is not a ``significant energy
action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, it does not require a
Statement of Energy Effects.

E.O. 13175 (Indian Tribal Governments)

    This rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Technical Standards)

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through OMB, with an explanation of why using these standards would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance,
design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related
management systems practices) are standards that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. FMCSA does not intend
to adopt its own technical standard, thus there is no need to submit a
separate statement to OMB on this matter. The standard being
incorporated in this final rule is discussed in detail in section IV,
Background, and is reasonably available through the CVSA Web site.

Environment (NEPA, CAA, Environmental Justice)

    FMCSA analyzed this rule for the purpose of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and
determined this action is categorically excluded from further analysis
and documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement under FMCSA Order 5610.1(69 FR 9680, March 1, 2004),
Appendix 2, paragraph (6)(b). This Categorical Exclusion (CE) covers
minor revisions to regulations. The content in this rule is covered by
this CE and the final action does not have any effect on the quality of
the environment. The CE determination is available for inspection or
copying in the Regulations.gov Web site listed under ADDRESSES.
    FMCSA also analyzed this rule under the Clean Air Act, as amended
(CAA), section 176(c) (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), and implementing
regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Approval of this action is exempt from the CAA's general conformity
requirement since it does not affect direct or indirect emissions of
criteria pollutants.
    Under E.O. 12898, each Federal agency must identify and address, as
appropriate, ``disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on
minority populations and low-income populations'' in the United States,
its possessions, and territories. FMCSA has determined that this rule
has no environmental justice implications, nor does its promulgation
cause any collective environmental impact.

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 385

    Administrative practice and procedure, Highway safety,
Incorporation by reference, Mexico, Motor carriers, Motor vehicle
safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA is amending 49 CFR chapter
III, part 385, as set forth below:

PART 385--SAFETY FITNESS PROCEDURES

0
1. The authority citation for part 385 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 113, 504, 521(b), 5105(d), 5109, 13901-
13905, 31133, 31135, 31136, 31137, 31144, 31148, and 31502; Sec.
113(a), Pub. L. 103-311; Sec. 408, Pub. L. 104-88 109 Stat. 803, 958
Sec. 350 of Pub. L. 107-87; and 49 CFR 1.87.

0
2. Revise Sec.  385.4(b) to read as follows:

Sec.  385.4  Matter incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) ``North American Standard Out-of-Service Criteria and Level VI
Inspection Procedures and Out-of-Service Criteria for Commercial
Highway Vehicles Transporting Transuranics and Highway Route Controlled
Quantities of Radioactive Materials as defined in 49 CFR part
173.403,'' April 1, 2016; incorporation by reference approved for Sec.
385.415(b).
* * * * *

    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87 on: June 10,
2016.
T.F. Scott Darling, III,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-14245 Filed 6-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 159 (Friday, August 20, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46761-46762]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17841]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 159 / Friday, August 20, 2021 / Rules
and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-0455; Project Identifier 2018-SW-031-AD; Amendment
39-21699; AD 2021-17-16]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo S.p.a. Helicopters

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Leonardo S.p.a. Model AW189 helicopters. This AD was prompted
by fatigue testing and analyses. This AD requires establishing a life
limit for a certain part-numbered tail gearbox fitting. The FAA is
issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: This AD is effective September 24, 2021.

ADDRESSES: For service information identified in this final rule,
contact Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano, Head of
Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta 520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va)
Italy; telephone +39-0331-225074; fax +39-0331-229046; or at https://www.leonardocompany.com/en/home. You may view this service information
at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101
Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N-321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on
the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-0455; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the
European Aviation Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety
Agency) (EASA) AD, any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is 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: Kristi Bradley, Program Manager, COS
Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance &
Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX
76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14
CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Leonardo S.p.a.
Model AW189 helicopters. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on
June 10, 2021 (86 FR 30822). In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require
determining the total hours time-in-service (TIS) and total number of
landings of tail gearbox fitting part number (P/N) 4F5350A04152. If the
total hours TIS and total number of landings cannot be determined, the
NPRM would require removing the part from service. Also, the NPRM would
establish a life limit for tail gearbox fitting P/N 4F5350A04152 and
require removing the part from service according to the new life limit.
The NPRM was prompted by EASA AD 2018-0087, dated April 18, 2018 (EASA
AD 2018-0087), issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the
Member States of the European Union, to correct an unsafe condition for
Leonardo S.p.A. Helicopters (formerly Finmeccanica S.p.A.,
AgustaWestland S.p.A.) Model AW189 helicopters. EASA advises of
revisions resulting in Leonardo AW189 Maintenance Manual, Document 89-
A-AMPI-00-P, Chapter IV, Airworthiness Limitations, Issue 13 (89-A-
AMPI-00-P ALS Issue 13), which includes new and/or more restrictive
airworthiness limitations and maintenance tasks since its original
issuance. Failure to accomplish those airworthiness limitations and
maintenance tasks could result in an unsafe condition. This condition,
if not addressed, could result in failure of a part, which could result
in loss of control of the helicopter.
    Accordingly, EASA AD 2018-0087 requires accomplishing the actions
specified in 89-A-AMPI-00-P ALS Issue 13 and revising the Aircraft
Maintenance Program (AMP) with the actions specified in 89-A-AMPI-00-P
ALS Issue 13.

Discussion of Final Airworthiness Directive

Comments

    The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the costs.

Conclusion

    These helicopters have been approved by EASA and are approved for
operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral
agreement with the European Union, EASA has notified the FAA about the
unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA reviewed the relevant
data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as
proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these helicopters. This AD is adopted as proposed in the
NPRM.

Related Service Information

    The FAA reviewed AW189 Air Vehicle Maintenance Planning
Information, 89-B-AMPI-00-P, Chapter 4, Issue 6, dated July 17, 2018
(89-B-AMPI-00-P ALS Issue 6). 89-B-AMPI-00-P ALS Issue 6 specifies
various airworthiness limitations information including retirement
lives, mandatory inspections, and certification maintenance
requirements. 89-B-AMPI-00-P ALS Issue 6 is equivalent to 89-A-AMPI-00-
P ALS Issue 13.

Differences Between This AD and the EASA AD

    EASA AD 2018-0087 applies to Model AW189 helicopters, whereas this
AD applies to that model helicopter with tail gearbox fitting P/N
4F5350A04152 installed instead. EASA AD 2018-0087 requires
accomplishing the actions specified in 89-A-AMPI-00-P ALS Issue 13 and
revising the AMP with the actions specified in 89-A-AMPI-00-P ALS Issue
13, whereas this AD requires establishing a life limit for tail gearbox
fitting P/N

4F5350A04152 and removing that part from service accordingly instead.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD affects 4 helicopters of U.S.
Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on
these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this AD.
    Replacing a tail gearbox fitting takes about 48 work-hours and
parts cost about $30,000 for an estimated cost of $34,080 per
helicopter and $136,320 for the U.S. fleet, per replacement cycle.

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.
    The FAA is 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 helicopters identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    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) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

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:

2021-17-16 Leonardo S.p.a.: Amendment 39-21699; Docket No. FAA-2021-
0455; Project Identifier 2018-SW-031-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective September 24,
2021.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Leonardo S.p.a. Model AW189 helicopters,
certificated in any category, with tail gearbox fitting part number
(P/N) 4F5350A04152 installed.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 6520, Tail Rotor
Gearbox.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by fatigue testing and analyses. The FAA is
issuing this AD to prevent parts from remaining in service beyond
their fatigue life. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could
result in failure of a part, which could result in loss of control
of the helicopter.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions

    Before further flight after the effective date of this AD:
    (1) Determine the total hours time-in-service (TIS) and total
number of landings of tail gearbox fitting P/N 4F5350A04152. For
purposes of this AD, a landing is counted anytime a helicopter lifts
off into the air and then lands again regardless of the duration of
the landing and regardless of whether the engine is shutdown. If the
total hours TIS and total number of landings cannot be determined,
before further flight, remove the part from service.
    (2) Remove any part from service that has reached or exceeded
its life limit as follows. Thereafter, remove any part from service
on or before reaching its life limit as follows. Tail gearbox
fitting P/N 4F5350A04152: 14,600 total hours TIS or 57,300 total
landings, whichever occurs first.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, 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 manager of the International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of
this AD. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) 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.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Kristi Bradley,
Program Manager, COS Program Management Section, Operational Safety
Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 10101 Hillwood
Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) The subject of this AD is addressed in European Aviation
Safety Agency (now European Union Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD
2018-0087, dated April 18, 2018. You may view the EASA AD on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FAA-2021-0455.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued on August 13, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-17841 Filed 8-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 171)]
[Notices]
[Page 50954]
[DOCID:fr05se07-41]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8463-7; Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2006-0812]

Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of peer-review panel workshop.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing that
Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), an EPA contractor for external
scientific review, will convene an independent panel of experts and
organize and conduct a peer-review workshop, to review the external
review draft document titled, ``Child-Specific Exposure Factors
Handbook'' (EPA/600/R-06/096A). EPA provided an opportunity for public
comment on the draft document from October 2006 to January 2007. The
draft document was prepared by the National Center for Environmental
Assessment (NCEA) within EPA's Office of Research and Development. The
``Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook'' provides a summary of
statistical data on various exposure factors used in assessing
children's exposures, including: Drinking water consumption; soil
ingestion and mouthing behavior; inhalation rates; dermal factors
including skin surface area and soil adherence factors; consumption of
retail and home-grown foods; breast milk intake; and human activity
pattern data. Once completed, this report will serve as a resource for
exposure assessors for estimating children's exposures. An interim
final version of this handbook was published in 2002. This updated
version provides analysis of exposure factors data using the age groups
for children recommended in the EPA document entitled, ``Guidance on
Selecting Age Groups for Monitoring and Assessing Childhood Exposures
to Environmental Contaminants'' (EPA/630/P-03/003F) (Available on line
at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=146583).

    EPA released this draft document in October 2006, solely for the
purpose of pre-dissemination peer review under applicable information
quality guidelines. This document has not been formally disseminated by
EPA. It does not represent and should not be construed to represent any
Agency policy or determination.
    In preparing a final report, EPA will consider the public comments
submitted to EPA's docket during the public comment period, and the
contractor's report of the external peer-review workshop, including any
oral public comments received at the workshop.

DATES: The peer-review panel workshop will begin on September 19, 2007,
at approximately 8 a.m. and end at 4 p.m. on September 20, 2007.
Members of the public may attend the peer-review panel workshop. Time
will be set aside on the morning of September 19, 2007, for registered
attendees who wish to make brief oral comments (for more information
refer to the instructions for registration below).

ADDRESSES: Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG), an EPA contractor for
external scientific review, will convene an independent panel of
experts and organize and conduct a peer-review panel workshop to review
this draft document. The peer-review panel workshop will be held at The
Navy League Building, located at 2300 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA.
Observers may attend the peer-review panel workshop through a
registration process by calling ERG's conference line between the hours
of 9 a.m. and 5:30 p.m.EDT at<PHONE_NUMBER> or toll free at (800) 803-
2833, or by faxing a registration request to<PHONE_NUMBER> (please
reference the CSEFH Peer-Review Panel Workshop and include full address
and contact information) , or by sending an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(subject line: CSEFH Peer-Review Panel Workshop; body: Include full
address and contact information). Pre-registration is strongly
recommended as space is limited, and registrations will be accepted on
a first-come, first-served basis. The deadline for pre-registration is
September 12, 2007. If space allows, registrations will continue to be
accepted after this date, including on-site registration. Time will be
set aside during the morning of the first day of the meeting to hear
comments from observers, and individuals will be limited to a maximum
of five minutes. Please inform ERG when registering if you wish to make
a comment at the workshop.
    The draft document, ``Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook,''
is available primarily via the Internet on the National Center for
Environmental Assessment's home page under the Recent Additions and the
Data and Publications menus at http://www.epa.gov/ncea. A limited

number of paper copies are available from the Technical Information
Staff, NCEA-W; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>. If
you are requesting a paper copy, please provide your name, mailing
address, and the document title, ``Child-Specific Exposure Factors
Handbook''. Copies are not available from ERG and copies will not be
available onsite.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding registration and
logistics for the external peer-review panel workshop should be
directed to ERG, 110 Hartwell Avenue, Lexington, MA 02421-3136;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:
(781) 674-2906; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    If you need technical information about the draft document, please
contact Jacqueline Moya, National Center for Environmental Assessment
(NCEA); telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

    Dated: August 29, 2007.
Rebecca Clark,
Acting Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. E7-17540 Filed 9-4-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 67 (Monday, April 10, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17252-17253]
[FR Doc No: 2017-07140]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[9956-74-OEI]

Cross-Media Electronic Reporting: Authorized Program Revision
Approval, State of South Carolina

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's approval of the State of South
Carolina's request to revise its National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations Implementation EPA-authorized program to allow electronic
reporting.

DATES: EPA's approval is effective May 10, 2017 for the State of South
Carolina's National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Implementation
program, if no timely request for a

public hearing is received and accepted by the Agency.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Seeh, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Mail Stop
2823T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 566-
1175<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 13, 2005, the final Cross-Media
Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) was published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 59848) and codified as part 3 of title 40 of the CFR.
CROMERR establishes electronic reporting as an acceptable regulatory
alternative to paper reporting and establishes requirements to assure
that electronic documents are as legally dependable as their paper
counterparts. Subpart D of CROMERR requires that state, tribal or local
government agencies that receive, or wish to begin receiving,
electronic reports under their EPA-authorized programs must apply to
EPA for a revision or modification of those programs and obtain EPA
approval. Subpart D provides standards for such approvals based on
consideration of the electronic document receiving systems that the
state, tribe, or local government will use to implement the electronic
reporting. Additionally, Sec.  3.1000(b) through (e) of 40 CFR part 3,
subpart D provides special procedures for program revisions and
modifications to allow electronic reporting, to be used at the option
of the state, tribe or local government in place of procedures
available under existing program-specific authorization regulations. An
application submitted under the subpart D procedures must show that the
state, tribe or local government has sufficient legal authority to
implement the electronic reporting components of the programs covered
by the application and will use electronic document receiving systems
that meet the applicable subpart D requirements.
    On March 6, 2017, the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control (SCDHEC) submitted an application titled
Compliance Monitoring Data Portal (CMDP) for revision to its EPA-
approved drinking water program under title 40 CFR to allow new
electronic reporting. EPA reviewed SCDHEC's request to revise its EPA-
authorized program and, based on this review, EPA determined that the
application met the standards for approval of authorized program
revision set out in 40 CFR part 3, subpart D. In accordance with 40 CFR
3.1000(d), this notice of EPA's decision to approve South Carolina's
request to revise its Part 142--National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations Implementation program to allow electronic reporting under
40 CFR part 141 is being published in the Federal Register.
    SCDHEC was notified of EPA's determination to approve its
application with respect to the authorized program listed above.
    Also, in today's notice, EPA is informing interested persons that
they may request a public hearing on EPA's action to approve the State
of South Carolina's request to revise its authorized public water
system program under 40 CFR part 142, in accordance with 40 CFR
3.1000(f). Requests for a hearing must be submitted to EPA within 30
days of publication of today's Federal Register notice. Such requests
should include the following information:
    (1) The name, address and telephone number of the individual,
organization or other entity requesting a hearing;
    (2) A brief statement of the requesting person's interest in EPA's
determination, a brief explanation as to why EPA should hold a hearing,
and any other information that the requesting person wants EPA to
consider when determining whether to grant the request;
    (3) The signature of the individual making the request, or, if the
request is made on behalf of an organization or other entity, the
signature of a responsible official of the organization or other
entity.
    In the event a hearing is requested and granted, EPA will provide
notice of the hearing in the Federal Register not less than 15 days
prior to the scheduled hearing date. Frivolous or insubstantial
requests for hearing may be denied by EPA. Following such a public
hearing, EPA will review the record of the hearing and issue an order
either affirming today's determination or rescinding such
determination. If no timely request for a hearing is received and
granted, EPA's approval of the State of South Carolina's request to
revise its part 142--National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Implementation program to allow electronic reporting will become
effective 30 days after today's notice is published, pursuant to
CROMERR section 3.1000(f)(4).

Matthew Leopard,
Director, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2017-07140 Filed 4-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P