[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 85 (Tuesday, May 3, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26495-26497]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10124]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-6146; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-120-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Dassault Aviation Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2008-19-
08, for all Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 10 airplanes. AD 2008-19-08
currently requires repetitive replacement of the flexible hoses
installed in the wing (slat) anti-icing system with new hoses. Since we
issued AD 2008-19-08, additional reports were received of collapse of
the flexible hoses installed in the slat anti-icing systems on
airplanes equipped with new, improved hoses. This proposed AD would
require reducing the life limit of these flexible hoses, which would
reduce the repetitive replacement intervals. We are proposing this AD
to prevent collapse of the flexible hoses in the slat anti-icing
system, which could lead to insufficient anti-icing capability and, if
icing is encountered in this situation, could result in reduced
controllability of the airplane.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by June 17, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

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-
6146; 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 proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-6146;
Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-120-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD based on those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On September 12, 2008, we issued AD 2008-19-08, Amendment 39-15675
(73

FR 54492, September 22, 2008) (``AD 2008-19-08''). AD 2008-19-08
requires actions intended to address an unsafe condition on all
Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 10 airplanes.
    Since we issued AD 2008-19-08, additional reports were received of
collapse of the flexible hoses installed in the slat anti-icing systems
on airplanes equipped with new, improved hoses.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2014-0104, dated May 7, 2014 (referred to after
this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition on all Dassault Aviation Model
Falcon 10 airplanes. The MCAI states:

    Occurrences were reported involving an in-service Falcon 10
aeroplane, where wing anti-ice hoses collapsed. The subsequent
investigation revealed that the flexible hose, Part Number (P/N)
FAL1005, collapsed because of an internal ply separation.
    This condition, if not corrected, could lead to failure of the
ice-protection system to remove ice accretion on the wing, possibly
resulting in reduced control of the aeroplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, EASA issued AD 2005-
0020 and AD 2006-0114 [which corresponds to AD 2008-19-08],
respectively, imposing flight limitations and requiring replacement
of the flexible hoses P/N FAL1005 with improved hoses P/N FAL1007.
    Since those [EASA] ADs were issued, further occurrences were
reported concerning aeroplanes with improved hoses, which led to the
conclusion that the life limit of the flexible hose P/N FAL1007 must
be reduced.
    For the reasons above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements
of EASA AD 2006-0114, which is superseded; supersedes EASA AD 2005-
0020; requires replacement of flexible hoses having P/N FAL 1000, P/
N 1001, P/N FAL1005, or P/N FAL1005D, and reduces the life limit of
the flexible hoses P/N 1007 [which would reduce the repetitive
replacement intervals].

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-
6146.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have
been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. We are
proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and
determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop
on other products of the same type design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 124 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    The actions that are required by AD 2008-19-08 and retained in this
proposed AD take about 8 work-hours per product, at an average labor
rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $880. Based on
these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that are required by
AD 2008-19-08 is up to $1,560, per replacement cycle.
    We also estimate that it would take about 4 work-hours per product
to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $936
per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this
proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $158,224, or $1,276 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    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.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 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 removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2008-19-08, Amendment 39-15675 (73 FR 54492, September 22, 2008), and
adding the following new AD:

Dassault Aviation: Docket No. FAA-2016-6146; Directorate Identifier
2014-NM-120-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by June 17, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2008-19-08, Amendment 39-15675 (73 FR 54492,
September 22, 2008) (``AD 2008-19-08'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 10
airplanes, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 30, Ice and Rain
Protection.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports of collapse of the flexible
hoses installed in the slat anti-icing systems on airplanes equipped
with new, improved hoses. We are issuing this AD to prevent collapse
of the flexible hoses in the slat anti-icing system, which could
lead to insufficient anti-icing capability and, if icing is
encountered in this situation, could result in reduced
controllability of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Retained Repetitive Hose Replacement With Revised Compliance
Language

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (h) of AD
2008-19-08, with revised compliance language. As of October 27, 2008
(the effective date of AD 2008-19-08), replace the flexible hoses
installed in the slat anti-icing system with new hoses having part
number (P/N) FAL1007, in accordance with the Accomplishment
Instructions of Dassault Service Bulletin F10-313, Revision 1, dated
May 10, 2006, within 700 flight hours since the last replacement or
within 100 flight hours after October 27, 2008, whichever occurs
later, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 700 flight hours.
Accomplishing the replacement required by paragraph (h) of this AD
ends the repetitive inspections required by this paragraph.

(h) New Requirement of This AD: Hose Replacement for Certain Part
Numbers

    Within 65 days after the effective date of this AD: Replace any
flexible hose having part number (P/N) FAL1000, P/N FAL1001, or P/N
FAL1005D with a new, improved flexible hose having P/N FAL1007,
using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-
116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the European Aviation
Safety Agency (EASA); or Dassault Aviation's EASA Design
Organization Approval (DOA).

(i) Life-limit for P/N FAL1007--Repetitive Replacements

    At the later of the times specified in paragraphs (i)(1) and
(i)(2) of this AD, replace any flexible hose having part number P/N
FAL1007 with a serviceable flexible hose having P/N FAL1007, using a
method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA; or Dassault Aviation's
EASA DOA. Thereafter, before the accumulation of 350 flight hours on
any flexible hose having P/N FAL1007, replace the flexible hose with
a serviceable flexible hose having P/N FAL1007.
    (1) Before the accumulation of 350 flight hours on the flexible
hose P/N FAL1007 since first installation on an airplane.
    (2) At the earlier of the times specified in (i)(2)(i) and
(i)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) Within 200 flight hours after the effective date of this AD.
    (ii) Before the accumulation of 700 flight hours on the flexible
hose P/N FAL1007 since first installation on an airplane, or within
65 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

(j) Definition of Serviceable Flexible Hose

    For the purpose of this AD, a serviceable flexible hose is a
flexible hose having P/N FAL1007 that has accumulated 350 flight
hours or less since first installation on an airplane.

(k) Parts Installation Limitation

    After accomplishing the replacement required by paragraph (h) of
this AD, no person may install a flexible hose in the slat anti-
icing system on any airplane, unless that hose is a serviceable
flexible hose having P/N FAL1007, and thereafter repetitive hose
replacements are done as required by paragraph (i) of this AD.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. 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 International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Information
may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the EASA;
or Dassault Aviation's EASA DOA. If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(m) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0104, dated May 7, 2014, 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-2016-6146.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 20, 2016.
John P. Piccola, Jr.,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-10124 Filed 5-2-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 118 (Monday, June 20, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35742-35744]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15164]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Parts 110 and 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-1119]
RIN 1625-AA01; 1625-AA11

Superfund Site, New Bedford Harbor, New Bedford, MA: Anchorage
Ground and Regulated Navigation Area

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending an existing anchorage ground which
currently overlaps a pilot underwater cap (``pilot cap'') in the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) New Bedford Harbor Superfund
Site in New Bedford, MA. The Coast Guard is also establishing a
regulated navigation area (RNA) prohibiting activities that disturb the
seabed around the site. The RNA would not affect transit or navigation
of the area.

DATES: This rule is effective July 20, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2010-1119 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-1119 in the ``Keyword''
box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Lieutenant Junior Grade Isaac Slavitt, Waterways
Management Branch, First Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On April 12, 2011, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Superfund Site, New Bedford Harbor, New Bedford, MA:
Anchorage Ground and Regulated Navigation Area'' in the Federal
Register (76 FR 20287). We received no comments on the proposed rule. A
public meeting was not requested and none was held. The Commonwealth of
Massachusetts completed a review of this regulatory action and
concurred that the activity's effects on resources and uses in
Massachusetts coastal zone are consistent with the Coast Zone
Management enforceable program policies. The Commonwealth had no
objection to the Coast Guard implementing the action in less than 90
days from the date of initial notification as provided in 15 CFR
930.36(b)(2).

Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the proposed rule is 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221-1236,
2030, 2035, and 2071; 46 U.S.C. chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR
1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; and Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which collectively authorize the Coast
Guard to define regulatory anchorage grounds and RNAs.
    The purpose of the rule is to minimize the potential for human
exposure to contamination and to help protect the integrity of the
EPA's remedy at a portion of the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site by
reducing an existing anchorage ground so that it no longer overlaps the
pilot cap, and by placing the pilot cap in a RNA that would protect the
site from damage by mariners, and protect mariners and the general
public from contaminants in the site.

Background

    The New Bedford Superfund cleanup site is an urban tidal estuary
with sediments contaminated by polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and
heavy metals. An extensive history and background of the cleanup
project can be found on the EPA's Web site, at http://www.epa.gov/nbh/.
    The specific cleanup project and surrounding area addressed by this
regulation is the Pilot Underwater Cap (``pilot cap''), which is
located south of the New Bedford Harbor hurricane barrier in the outer
harbor. The pilot cap consists of sand and gravel covering
approximately 20 acres of contaminated sediments. Based on data
collected in 2010, the thickness of the cap is predominantly one to two
feet (98% of the cap area has a thickness greater than one foot; 68%
greater than two feet; and in a few isolated areas, the thickness is up
to 6.4 feet). A copy of the latest data for the pilot cap area can be
found on EPA's Web site for New Bedford Harbor: http://www.epa.gov/nbh.
While the pilot cap is protective of human health and the environment,
it remains vulnerable to human actions that tend to disturb the seabed.
    Several maritime practices that involve physical contact with the
seabed (e.g., anchoring, dragging, trawling, and spudding) pose a
specific threat to the pilot cap. It is also conceivable that PCBs or
heavy metals could stick to gear penetrating the seabed; any
contaminants that come up with gear could create a threat to human
health and the environment. The RNA would prohibit these specific
activities without in any way inhibiting surface navigation.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received no comments on the proposed rulemaking. No
changes were made in the Final Rule.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, 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 has not reviewed it
under that Order.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, 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.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule would affect the following

entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or
operators of recreational and small fishing vessels intending to anchor
in New Bedford's outer harbor.
    The rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: Normal
surface navigation will not be affected; approximately half of the
existing anchorage area will still be available for use, and there is
another, much larger anchorage nearby; the number of vessels using the
anchorage is limited due to draft (less than or equal to 18 feet); and
anchoring over the pilot cap could pose a risk to human health and the
environment, making it an already unattractive option.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    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 $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have Tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does 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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

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 the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraphs (34)(f)
and (34)(g) of the Instruction because it involves shrinking an
existing anchorage ground, and establishing an RNA prohibiting
activities that disturb the seabed.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects

33 CFR Part 110

    Anchorage grounds.

33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR parts 110 and 165 as follows:

PART 110--ANCHORAGE REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 110 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 471, 1221 through 1236, 2030, 2035, 2071;
33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Amend Sec.  110.140, by revising paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:

Sec.  110.140  Buzzards Bay, Nantucket Sound, and adjacent waters,
Mass.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Anchorage B. All waters bounded by a line beginning at
41[deg]36'42.3'' N, 070[deg]54'24.9'' W; thence to 41[deg]36'55.5'' N,
070[deg]54'06.6'' W; thence to 41[deg]36'13.6'' N, 070[deg]53'40.2'' W;
thence to 41[deg]36'11.1'' N, 070[deg]54'07.6'' W; thence along the
shoreline to the beginning point.
* * * * *

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
3. The authority citation for Part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
4. Add Sec.  165.125 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.125  Regulated Navigation Area; EPA Superfund Site, New
Bedford Harbor, Massachusetts.

    (a) Location. The regulated navigation area encompasses all waters
bounded by a line beginning at 41[deg]37'22.5'' N, 070[deg]54'34.1'' W;
thence to 41[deg]37'14.4'' N, 070[deg]54'19.6'' W; thence to
41[deg]36'58.5'' N, 070[deg]54'08.1'' W; thence to 41[deg]36'45.0'' N,
070[deg]54'26.9'' W; thence along the shoreline and south side of the
hurricane barrier to the beginning point.
    (b) Regulations. (1) All vessels and persons are prohibited from
activities that would disturb the seabed within the regulated
navigation area, including but not limited to anchoring, dragging,
trawling, and spudding. Vessels may otherwise transit or navigate
within this area without reservation.
    (2) The prohibition described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section
shall not apply to vessels or persons engaged in activities associated
with remediation efforts in the New Bedford Harbor Superfund Site,
provided that the Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) Southeastern
New England, is given advance notice of those activities by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
    (c) Waivers. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Southeastern New
England may, in consultation with the U.S. EPA, authorize a waiver from
this section if he or she determines that the proposed activity can be
performed without undue risk to environmental remediation efforts.
Requests for waivers should be submitted in writing to Commander, U.S.
Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New England, 1 Little Harbor Road,
Woods Hole, MA, 02543, with a copy to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 1, New Bedford Harbor Remedial Project Manager, 5 Post
Office Square, Suite 100 (OSRR07), Boston, MA 02109, to facilitate
review by the EPA and U.S. Coast Guard.

    Dated: June 6, 2011.
D.A. Neptun,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011-15164 Filed 6-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 41 (Wednesday, March 2, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10952-10953]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04567]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA-2016-0007]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

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

ACTION: Request for public comment on extension of a currently approved
collection of information.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation (DOT) invites public comments
about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) renewed approval for an existing collection of information for
brake fluid labeling in 49 CFR 571.116, ``Motor Vehicle Brake Fluids.''
Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public
comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions
and reinstatement of previously approved collections. This existing
collection involves labeling requirements for manufacturers and
packagers of brake fluids, as well as packagers of hydraulic system
mineral oils. The information to be collected will be used to and/or is
necessary to insure the following: The contents of the container are
clearly stated; these fluids are used for their intended purpose only;
and, the containers are properly disposed of when empty.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 2, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments must refer to the docket number cited at the
beginning of this notice, and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
Telephone: 1-800-647-2251.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the docket number for
this document. Please identify the collection of information for which
a comment is provided by referencing the OMB Control Number, 2127-0521.
Note that all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy Act heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Patrick Hallan,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
NHTSA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. The OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must
be included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must ask for public comment on the following:
    (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (3) How to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected;
    (4) How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following collection of information:
    Title: Labeling of Motor Vehicle Brake Fluid Containers in 49 CFR
571.116
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0521
    Form Numbers: This collection of information uses no standard form.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection of
information.
    Summary of the Collection of Information: In 49 CFR 571.116
(Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 116, ``Motor Vehicle Brake
Fluid''), there are performance and design requirements for motor
vehicle brake fluids and hydraulic system mineral oils. In Section
5.2.2 of the standard, there are also labeling requirements for
manufacturers and packagers of brake fluids, as well as packagers of
hydraulic system mineral oils.
    Description of the Need for the Information and the Use of the
Information: Properties of these fluids and their use necessitate the
package labeling information specified in this standard. The
information on the label of a container of motor vehicle brake fluid or
hydraulic system mineral oil is necessary to ensure: The contents of
the container are clearly stated; these fluids are used for their
intended purpose only; and the containers are properly disposed of when
empty. Without this labeling requirement, there could be improper use
or storage of these brake fluids, which would have dire safety
consequences for the operators of vehicles or the equipment in which
they are used.
    Description of the Likely Respondents (Including Estimated Number
and Proposed Frequency of Response to the Collection of Information):
We estimate that the collection of information affects 200 respondents
annually, which are manufacturers and packagers of brake fluids and
hydraulic mineral oils.
    Estimate of the Total Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden
Resulting from the Collection of Information: The estimated annual
burden is as follows:
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 200.
    Estimated Number of Responses (labels): 70,000,000.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 7000 hours.
    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 estimate 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.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.95.

Raymond R. Posten,
Associate Administrator for Rulemaking, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-04567 Filed 3-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 26, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75865-75868]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30954]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0751; FRL- 9763-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Kentucky; Redesignation of
the Kentucky Portion of the Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH 1997 Annual
Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area to Attainment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a request submitted on
February 12, 2012, by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the
Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet, Division for Air Quality
(DAQ), to redesignate the Kentucky portion of the tri-state Huntington-
Ashland, West Virginia-Kentucky-Ohio fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) nonattainment area (hereafter referred to as the
``Huntington-Ashland Area'' or ``Area'') to attainment for the 1997
Annual PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
The Huntington-Ashland Area is composed of Boyd County and a portion of
Lawrence County in Kentucky; Lawrence and Scioto Counties and portions
of Adams and Gallia Counties in Ohio; and Cabell and Wayne Counties and
a portion of Mason County in West Virginia. EPA's approval of the
redesignation request is based on the determination that Kentucky has
met the criteria for redesignation to attainment set forth in the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act). EPA is approving a revision to the Kentucky State
Implementation Plan (SIP) to include the 1997 Annual PM2.5
maintenance plan for the Kentucky portion of the Huntington-Ashland
Area. EPA is also approving the on-road motor vehicle insignificance
finding for direct PM2.5 and nitrogen oxides (NOx) for the
Kentucky portion of the Huntington-Ashland Area.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective on December 26, 2012

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0751. 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., Confidential
Business Information 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 Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person 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 federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel Huey, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Joel Huey may be reached by
phone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the Background for the Actions?
II. What are the Actions EPA is Taking?
III. Why is EPA Taking These Actions?
IV. What are the Effects of These Actions?
V. Final Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the Background for the Actions?

    As stated in EPA's proposed approval notice published on November
19, 2012 (77 FR 69409), this redesignation action addresses the
Kentucky portion of the Huntington-Ashland Area's status solely with
respect to the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, for which
designations were finalized on November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688). On
February 12, 2012,\1\ the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through DAQ,
submitted a request to redesignate the Kentucky portion of the
Huntington-Ashland Area to attainment for the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, and for EPA approval of the Kentucky SIP
revision containing a maintenance plan for the Area. In the November
19, 2012, notice, EPA proposed to take the following separate but
related actions, some of which involve multiple elements: (1) To
redesignate the Kentucky portion of the Huntington-Ashland Area to
attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and (2) to
approve into the Kentucky SIP, under section 175A of the CAA,
Kentucky's 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS maintenance plan,
including the on-road motor vehicle insignificance finding for direct
PM2.5 and NOx for the Kentucky portion of the Huntington-
Ashland Area. EPA received no comments, adverse or otherwise, on the
November 19, 2012, proposed rulemaking. As noted in the November 19,
2012, proposal notice, on April 11, 2012, EPA approved, under section
172(c)(3) of the CAA, Kentucky's 2002 base-year emissions inventory for
the Huntington-Ashland Area as part of the SIP revision submitted by
the Commonwealth to provide for attainment of the 1997
p.m.2.5 NAAQS in the Area. EPA received no comments, adverse
or otherwise, on the proposal related to approval of Kentucky's 2002
base-year emissions inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although EPA received Kentucky's the request to redesignate
the Kentucky portion of the Huntington-Ashland Area to attainment
for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS on February 12, 2012, the
official SIP submittal date and state effective date is the date of
the submittal cover letter, February 9, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is now taking final action on the three actions identified
above. Additional background for today's action is set forth in EPA's
November 19, 2012, proposal and is summarized below.
    EPA has reviewed the most recent ambient monitoring data, which
indicate that the Huntington-Ashland Area continues to attain the 1997
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS beyond the submitted 3-year attainment
period of 2008-2010. As stated in EPA's November 19, 2012, proposal
notice, the 3-year design value of 13.1 [mu]g/m\3\ for 2008-2010 meets
the NAAQS of 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\. Quality assured and certified data in
EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) for 2011 provide a 3-year design value
of 12.1 [mu]g/m\3\ for 2009-2011. Furthermore, preliminary monitoring
data for 2012 indicate that the Area is continuing to attain the 1997
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2012 preliminary data are available
AQS although not yet quality assured and certified.

II. What are the actions EPA is taking?

    In today's rulemaking, EPA is approving: (1) Kentucky's
redesignation request to change the legal designation of Boyd County
and a portion of Lawrence County in Kentucky from nonattainment to
attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and (2)
Kentucky's 1997 Annual PM2.5 maintenance plan (such approval
being one of the CAA criteria for redesignation to attainment status)
for the Kentucky portion of the Huntington-Ashland Area. The
maintenance plan is designed to demonstrate that the Kentucky portion
of the Huntington-Ashland Area will continue to attain the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS through 2022. EPA's approval of the
redesignation request is based on EPA's determination that the Kentucky
portion of the Huntington-Ashland Area meets the criteria for
redesignation set forth in CAA, sections 107(d)(3)(E) and 175A,
including EPA's determination that the Kentucky portion of the
Huntington-Ashland Area has attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA's analyses of Kentucky's redesignation request, maintenance
plan, and emissions inventory are described in detail in the November
19, 2012, proposed rule (77 FR 69409).
    Consistent with the CAA, the maintenance plan that EPA is approving
also includes an on-road motor vehicle insignificance finding for
direct PM2.5 and NOx for the Kentucky portion of the
Huntington-Ashland Area. In this action, EPA is approving this
insignificance finding for the purposes of transportation conformity.

III. Why is EPA taking these actions?

    EPA has determined that the Kentucky portion of the Huntington-
Ashland Area has attained the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and
has also determined that all other criteria for the redesignation of
the Kentucky portion of the Huntington-Ashland Area from nonattainment
to attainment of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS have been met.
See CAA section 107(d)(3)(E). One of those requirements is that the
Kentucky portion of the Huntington-Ashland Area has an approved plan
demonstrating maintenance of the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA is also taking final action to approve the maintenance plan for the
Kentucky portion of the Huntington-Ashland Area as meeting the
requirements of sections 175A and 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA. In addition,
EPA is approving the on-road motor vehicle insignificance finding for
direct PM2.5 and NOx for the Kentucky portion of the
Huntington-Ashland Area. The detailed rationale for EPA's findings and
actions are set forth in the proposed rulemaking and in other
discussion in this final rulemaking.

IV. What are the effects of these actions?

    Approval of the redesignation request changes the legal designation
of Boyd County and a portion of Lawrence County in Kentucky from
nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
EPA is modifying the regulatory table in 40 CFR 81.318 to reflect a
designation of attainment for these counties. EPA is also approving, as
a revision to the Kentucky SIP, the Commonwealth's plan for maintaining
the 1997 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS in the Kentucky portion of the
Huntington-Ashland Area through 2022. The maintenance plan includes
contingency measures to remedy possible future violations of the 1997
Annual PM2.5 NAAQS and establishes an on-road motor vehicle
insignificance finding for direct PM2.5 and NOx for the
Kentucky portion of the Huntington-Ashland Area.

V. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve the redesignation and change
the legal designation of Boyd County and a portion of Lawrence County
in Kentucky from nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 Annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. Through this action, EPA is also approving into
the Kentucky SIP the 1997Annual PM2.5 maintenance plan for
the Kentucky portion of the Huntington-Ashland Area, which includes an
on-road motor vehicle insignificance finding for direct
PM2.5 and NOx for the Kentucky portion of the Huntington-
Ashland Area.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause
for this action to become effective immediately upon publication. This
is because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the nature of
a redesignation to attainment, which relieves the Area from certain CAA
requirements that would otherwise apply to it. The immediate effective
date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which
provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days
after publication if the rule grants or recognizes an exemption or
relieves a restriction, and section 553(d)(3), which allows an
effective date less than 30 days after publication as otherwise
provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the
rule. The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed in section
553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust their
behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect. Today's rule,
however, does not create any new regulatory requirements such that
affected parties would need time to prepare before the rule takes
effect. Rather, today's rule relieves the Commonwealth of various
requirements for the Kentucky portion of the Huntington-Ashland Area.
For these reasons, EPA finds good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for
this action to become effective on the date of publication of this
action.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, redesignation of an area to attainment and the
accompanying approval of the maintenance plan under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E) are actions that affect the status of geographical area
and do not impose any additional regulatory requirements on sources
beyond those required by state law. A redesignation to attainment does
not in and of itself impose any new requirements, but rather results in
the application of requirements contained in the CAA for areas that
have been redesignated to attainment. Moreover, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions
of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40
CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For these reasons, these actions:
     Are 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);
     Do not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Are certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Do not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Do not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Are not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Are not significant regulatory action subject to Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Are not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and,
     Do not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this final 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 Commonwealth, 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 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, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, and Particulate matter.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks.

    Dated: December 13, 2012.
Gwendolyn Keyes Fleming,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart S--Kentucky

0
2. Section 52.920(e) is amended by adding a new entry ``1997 Annual
PM2.5 Maintenance Plan for the Kentucky portion of the
Huntington-Ashland Area'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.920  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Kentucky Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Applicable           State
    Name of non-regulatory SIP        geographic or     submittal date/  EPA approval date       Explanations
            provision               nonattainment area  effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                * * * * * * * * *
1997 Annual PM2.5 Maintenance      Boyd County and              2/9/12  12/26/12 [Insert     For the 1997 Annual
 Plan for the Kentucky portion of   Lawrence County                      citation of          PM2.5 NAAQS.
 the Huntington-Ashland Area.       (part) (Kentucky                     publication].
                                    portion of the
                                    Huntington-Ashland
                                    WV-KY-OH Area).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81-[AMENDED]

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

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
4. In Sec.  81.318, the table entitled ``Kentucky-PM2.5
(Annual NAAQS)'' is amended under ``Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH'' by
revising the entries for ``Boyd County'' and ``Lawrence County (part)''
to read as follows:

Sec.  81.318  Kentucky.

* * * * *

                     Kentucky--PM2.5--(Annual NAAQS)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Designation\a\
         Designated area         ---------------------------------------
                                        Date\1\              Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-OH:

                                 * * * *
Boyd County.....................  This action is      Attainment
                                   effective 12/26/
                                   12.
Lawrence County (part)..........  This action is      Attainment
                                   effective 12/26/
                                   12.

                                 * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-30954 Filed 12-21-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 72 (Tuesday, April 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20805-20806]
[FR Doc No: 2020-07787]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2020-0030]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that on March 31, 2020,
the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA), on
behalf of its member railroads Allegheny Valley Railroad, Southwest
Pennsylvania Railroad, Ohio Terminal Railway, and Delmarva Central
Railroad, petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a
waiver of compliance from

certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained
at 49 CFR part 236. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2020-
0030.
    Specifically, ASLRRA seeks relief from 49 CFR 236.586, Daily or
after trip test, and Sec.  236.588, Periodic test. Section 236.586(a)
provides that, except where tests prescribed by Sec.  236.588 are
performed at intervals of not more than two months, each locomotive
equipped with an automatic cab signal or train stop or train control
device operating in equipped territory shall be inspected for damage to
the equipment and tested at least once each calendar day or within 24
hours before departure upon each trip. Section 236.588 requires that
except as provided in Sec.  236.586, periodic tests of the automatic
train stop, train control, or cab signal apparatus be made at least
once every 92 days, and on multiple-unit cars as specified by the
carrier, subject to approval by FRA. ASLRRA petitions to increase the
time between inspections under Sec.  236.588 to 184 days for a five-
year waiver period, subject to conditions, during which time it aims to
show that there would be no degradation in safety resulting from this
change.
    ASLRRA states that like the locomotive controls covered under 49
CFR 229.23, today's automatic train stop, train control, and cab signal
apparatus devices use microprocessor-based technology. This technology
provides enhanced safety for the following reasons: (1) The
microprocessor-based system has diagnostics that monitor the
functioning of cab signal equipment and records faults, particularly
with respect to features relevant to the periodic inspection; (2) major
faults are instantly addressed; (3) minor faults are addressed through
later data analysis; (4) in some cases, railroads have the capability
of analyzing the data remotely, without the need for the locomotive to
be shopped; and (5) if the system detects a failure, the system goes
into fail-safe mode and triggers a penalty air brake application.
ALSRRA contends performing signal inspections pursuant to Sec.  236.588
in conjunction with and under the same schedule as the locomotive
inspections under Sec.  229.23(b) would increase efficiency without
compromising safety.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the Department of Transportation's
Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is open from 9
a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by May 29, 2020 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. 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. See also
http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice of
regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2020-07787 Filed 4-13-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 159 (Monday, August 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48814-48815]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19478]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72822; File No. SR-CBOE-2014-061]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fees Schedule

August 12, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on August 1, 2014, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. The text of the
proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's
Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule applicable to the
PULSe workstation monthly fee. By way of background, the PULSe
workstation is a front-end order entry system designed for use with
respect to orders that may be sent to the trading systems of CBOE. The
Exchange currently charges firms a fee of $350 per month for the first
10 Trading Permit Holder workstations (``TPH Workstations'') and $100
per month for all subsequent TPH Workstations. TPHs may also make a
workstation available to their customers, which may include non-broker
dealer public customers and non-TPH broker dealers (referred to herein
as ``non-TPH Workstations''). For such non-TPH Workstations, the
Exchange currently charges a fee of $350 per month per workstation.\3\
In addition, the Exchange waives the monthly workstation fees for the
first month for the first new user of a TPH or non-TPH using a PULSe
workstation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In instances where two or more TPHs wish to make a PULSe
workstation available to the same non-TPH customer, a fee reduction
applies. Under the reduction, if two or more TPHs make the PULSe
workstation available to the same non-TPH.
    \4\ A TPH or non-TPH Workstation is utilized by a ``user'' with
a specific user login. When a firm with an existing workstation,
either TPH or non-TPH, adds another workstation another user login
is generated. Currently, the firm receives a one month fee waiver
for the workstation utilized by the new user login, but continues to
pay the fee for the previous workstation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to modify the limited
fee waiver available to new users of a TPH or non-TPH Workstation.
Specifically, in order to give new users time to become familiar with
and fully acclimated to the PULSe workstation functionality, the
Exchange proposes to waive the monthly workstation fees for the first
two months for all new users \5\ between August 1, 2014 and December
31, 2014.\6\ In addition, the fee for August 2014 is waived for any
users that became new users in July 2014. After December 31, 2014, the
PULSe workstation fee will revert to its current form, which provides
that the fee is waived for the first month for the first new user of a
TPH or non-TPH workstation. The proposed fee waivers are based on
CBOE's billing period, which is based on a calendar month (i.e., begins
on the first day of each month and ends on the last day of each month).
For example, if a firm has a new user that begins using a PULSe
workstation on August 15th, the firm's workstation fees for the new
user would be waived from August 15th--September 30th (i.e., their
August and September bills would not have a charge for the new user's
workstation) or if a firm has a new user that begins using a PULSe
workstation on September 25th, the firm's workstation fees for the new
user would be waived from September 25th--October 31st (i.e., their
September and October bills would not have a charge for the new user's
workstation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A firm that is currently utilizing a TPH or non-TPH
Workstation but seeks to add another workstation is adding a new
user. The proposal allows for a fee waiver for all new users between
August 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014. For example, if a firm has one
workstation and adds three more in August, the firm will get a fee
waiver for the three new workstations for two months (i.e., their
August and December [sic] bill will not have a charge for the three
new workstations). A firm that is not currently utilizing a TPH or
non-TPH Workstation may also add any number of workstations from
August 1, 2014 and December 31, 2014, and receive the same two month
fee waiver.
    \6\ If a firm has a new user in December, the firm will receive
a fee waiver for that user for December 2014 and January 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\7\ Specifically,

the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitation
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers. The Exchange also believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\10\ which
requires that Exchange rules provide for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its Trading Permit
Holders and other persons using its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the fee waiver is reasonable
because the fee waivers will serve as an incentive for TPHs and their
sponsored user customers to use the PULSe workstation as an additional
trading tool on their trading desks. In addition, it is an incentive
for firms that had new users in July 2014 to remain users of their
workstation. The Exchange believes that it is equitable and not
unfairly discriminatory because all firms with new users after August
1, 2014 and prior to December 31, 2014, are eligible for the fee
waiver. In addition, allowing firms with new users in July 2014 to
receive a fee waiver for August 2014 is not retroactive because under
the current rules the firms are already receiving a fee waiver for
July. Although firms that were already utilizing PULSe prior to July
2014 only received a one month fee waiver, which may be perceived as
unfair discrimination, they too may have new users in the coming months
and will benefit from the two month fee waiver for new users.

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

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \12\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2014-061 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2014-061. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2014-061 and should be
submitted on or before September 8, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-19478 Filed 8-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P