[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 116 (Tuesday, June 16, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36342-36343]
[FR Doc No: 2020-11690]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2019-0699; FRL-10009-87-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Second Maintenance Plans for 1997
Ozone NAAQS; Door County, Kewaunee County, Manitowoc County and
Milwaukee-Racine Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
revision to the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan (SIP). On December
13, 2019, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
submitted the State's plans for maintaining the 1997 ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard) in the following
areas: Kewaunee County, Door County, Manitowoc County, and Milwaukee-
Racine area (Kenosha, Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine, Washington and
Waukesha counties). EPA is approving these maintenance plans because
they provide for the maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS through the
end of the second 10-year maintenance period. This action makes certain
commitments related to maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in these
areas federally enforceable as part of the Wisconsin SIP. EPA proposed
to approve this action on March 24, 2020 and received no adverse
comments.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2019-0699. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays and facility
closures due to COVID 19. We recommend that you telephone Emily
Crispell, Environmental Scientist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting
the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emily Crispell, Environmental
Scientist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. Background Information

    On March 24, 2020, EPA proposed to approve the 1997 ozone NAAQS
maintenance plans for the Door County, Kewaunee County, Manitowoc
County, and Milwaukee-Racine areas (85 FR 16590). An explanation of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, a detailed analysis of the revisions,
and EPA's reasons for proposing approval were provided in the proposed
rulemaking and will not be restated here. The public comment period for
this proposed rule ended on April 23, 2020. EPA received no comments on
the proposal.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving the Kewaunee County, Door County and Manitowoc
County, and the Milwaukee-Racine area second maintenance plans for the
1997 Ozone NAAQS, submitted by WDNR on December 13, 2019, as a revision
to the Wisconsin SIP. These second maintenance plans are designed to
keep the Kewaunee County area in attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
through 2028, Door County and Manitowoc County in attainment of the
1997 ozone NAAQS though 2030, and the Milwaukee-Racine area in
attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS through 2032.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 that reason, this
action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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 August 17, 2020. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 26, 2020.
Cheryl Newton,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    Accordingly, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. Section 52.2585 is amended by adding paragraph (kk) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.2585  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (kk) Second maintenance plan. Approval--On December 13, 2019
Wisconsin submitted 1997 Ozone NAAQS second maintenance plans for the
Kewaunee County, Door County, Manitowoc County, and Milwaukee-Racine
areas. These second maintenance plans are designed to keep the Kewaunee
County area in attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS through 2028, Door
County and Manitowoc County in attainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
though 2030, and the Milwaukee-Racine area in attainment of the 1997
ozone NAAQS through 2032.

[FR Doc. 2020-11690 Filed 6-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 3793]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00703]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 1141

[Docket No. FDA-2019-N-3065]
RIN 0910-AI39

Tobacco Products; Required Warnings for Cigarette Packages and
Advertisements; Delayed Effective Date

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: As required by an order issued by the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas, this action delays the effective date of
the final rule (``Tobacco Products; Required Warnings for Cigarette
Packages and Advertisements''), which published on March 18, 2020. The
new effective date is January 14, 2022.

DATES: The effective date of the rule amending 21 CFR part 1141
published at 85 FR 15638, March 18, 2020, is delayed until January 14,
2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Courtney Smith, Office of Regulations,
Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration, Document
Control Center, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. G335, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002, 1-877-287-1371, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of March 18, 2020,
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) issued a final rule
establishing new cigarette health warnings for cigarette packages and
advertisements. The final rule implements a provision of the Family
Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) (Pub.
L. 111-31) that requires FDA to issue regulations requiring color
graphics depicting the negative health consequences of smoking to
accompany new textual warning label statements. The Tobacco Control Act
amends the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 (Pub.
L. 89-92) to require each cigarette package and advertisement to bear
one of the new required warnings. The final rule specifies the 11 new
textual warning label statements and accompanying color graphics.
Pursuant to section 201(b) of the Tobacco Control Act, the rule was
published with an effective date of June 18, 2021, 15 months after the
date of publication of the final rule.
    On April 3, 2020, the final rule was challenged in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.\1\ On May 8, 2020,
the Court granted a joint motion to govern proceedings in that case and
postpone the effective date of the final rule by 120 days.\2\ On
December 2, 2020, the same Court granted a new motion by Plaintiffs in
the same case to postpone the effective date of the final rule by an
additional 90 days.\3\ The new effective date of the final rule is
January 14, 2022. Pursuant to the court order, any obligation to comply
with a deadline tied to the effective date of the final rule is
similarly postponed, and those obligations and deadlines are now tied
to the postponed effective date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al. v. United States Food and
Drug Administration et al., No. 6:20-cv-00176 (E.D. Tex. filed April
3, 2020).
    \2\ R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al., No. 6:20-cv-00176 (E.D.
Tex. May 8, 2020) (order granting joint motion and establishing
schedule), Doc. No. 33.
    \3\ R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. et al., No. 6:20-cv-00176 (E.D.
Tex. May 8, 2020) (order granting Plaintiffs' motion and postponing
effective date), Doc. No. 80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this action, the
Agency's implementation of this action without opportunity for public
comment, effective immediately upon publication today in the Federal
Register, is based on the good cause exception in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B).
Seeking public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to
the public interest. The 90-day postponement of the effective date,
until January 14, 2022, is required by court order in accordance with
the court's authority to postpone a rule's effective date pending
judicial review (5 U.S.C. 705). Seeking prior public comment on this
postponement would have been impracticable, as well as contrary to the
public interest in the orderly issue and implementation of regulations.

    Dated: January 6, 2021.
Stephen M. Hahn,
Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
    Dated: January 8, 2021.
Alex M. Azar II,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2021-00703 Filed 1-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 20, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7124-7125]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03416]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0637; FRL-9974-62--Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Emissions Statement Requirement for the 2008 Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Maryland. This revision fulfills Maryland's emissions
statement requirement for the 2008 ozone national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS). This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act
(CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 22, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2017-0637 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be confidential business information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gavin Huang,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 27, 2008, EPA strengthened the ozone standard from 0.08 to
0.075 parts per million (ppm). 73 FR 16436. On May 21, 2012, EPA
designated areas as nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including
the Baltimore and Washington, DC-MD-VA areas, which include the
following counties in Maryland: Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Baltimore
City, Carroll, Harford, Howard, Cecil, Calvert, Charles, Frederick,
Montgomery, and Prince George's Counties. See 40 CFR 81.321.
    Additionally, Maryland is located in the ozone transport region
(OTR) established by Congress in section 184 of the CAA. Pursuant to
section 184(b)(2), any stationary source that emits or has the
potential to emit at least 50 tons per year (tpy) of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) shall be considered a major stationary source and
subject to the requirements which would be applicable to major
stationary sources if the area were classified as a moderate
nonattainment area. See CAA section 184. Thus, states within the OTR
are subject to plan (or SIP) requirements in CAA section 182(b)
applicable to moderate nonattainment areas. Also, section 182(f)(1) of
the CAA requires that the plan provisions required for major stationary
sources of VOC also apply to major stationary sources of oxides of
nitrogen (NOX) for states with moderate (or worse) ozone
nonattainment areas. A major stationary source of NOX is
defined as stationary facility or source of air pollutants which
directly emits, or has the potential to emit 100 tpy or more of
NOX. See CAA section 302(j).
    Section 182 of the CAA identifies additional plan submissions and
requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. Specifically, section
182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA requires that states develop and submit rules
which establish annual reporting requirements for certain stationary
sources. Sources that are within marginal (or worse) ozone
nonattainment areas must annually report the actual emissions of
NOX and VOC to the state. However, states may waive sources
that emit under 25 tpy of NOX and VOC if the state provides
an inventory of emissions from such class or category of sources. See
CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii).
    In summary, because Maryland is located in the OTR, sources that
are located in ozone attainment areas and emit above 50 tpy of VOC or
100 tpy of NOX are considered major sources and subject to
the requirements of major stationary sources in moderate (or worse)
nonattainment area, such as an emissions statement submission as
required by CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). See CAA sections 182(f) and
184(b)(2). Sources that are located in designated marginal (or worse)
nonattainment areas must submit an emissions statement as required by
CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). As stated previously, states may waive
sources under that emit 25 tpy of NOX and 25 tpy of VOC
threshold if the state provides an inventory of emissions from such
class or category of sources as required by CAA sections 172 and
182.\1\ See section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For further information on the emissions statement reporting
requirements, see ``Guidance on the Implementation of an Emission
Statement Program (July 1992)'' https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/emission_statement_program_zypdf.pdf, pp. 5-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 25, 2017, the State of Maryland, through the Maryland
Department of the Environment (MDE), submitted a SIP revision to
satisfy the emissions statement requirement of section 182(a)(3)(B) of
the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On October 12, 1994 (59 FR 51517), EPA approved Maryland's SIP
submittal that satisfies CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). Maryland's emissions
reporting requirements are codified in Maryland regulation COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS>-1

``Emissions Statements.'' COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>-1 requires installations or
sources that emit above a particular threshold of NOX or VOC
and are within certain geographic areas to submit an emissions
statement to the State. The statement must be submitted by a certified
individual who can verify the source's actual emissions.
    COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>-1 requires that sources that emit 25 tons or more
of NOX or VOC during a calendar year in the following
counties (which include nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS)
submit an emissions statement: Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Baltimore City,
Calvert, Carroll, Cecil, Charles, Frederick, Harford, Howard, Kent,
Montgomery, Prince George's, and Queen Anne's counties. As previously
mentioned, per CAA section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii), states may waive sources
under 25 tpy of NOX and VOC if the state provides an
inventory of emissions from such class or category of sources as
required by CAA sections 172 and 182. Maryland does provide emissions
inventories for nonattainment areas as required by CAA section
172(c)(3). See e.g. 82 FR 44544 (September 25, 2017).
    Finally, COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>-1 also requires that sources that emit
50 tons or more of VOC or 100 tons or more of NOX during a
calendar year in the following counties (which are in ozone attainment
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS but still located within the OTR) submit an
emissions statement: Allegany, Caroline, Dorchester, Garrett, St.
Mary's, Somerset, Talbot, Washington, Wicomico, and Worcester counties.
Because Maryland is located in the OTR, sources that are located in
attainment areas for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and emit above 50 tpy of VOC
and 100 tpy of NOX are considered major sources and subject
to the requirements of major stationary sources in moderate (or worse)
nonattainment area, such as an emissions statement submission as
required by CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). See CAA sections 182(f) and
184(b)(2).
    In Maryland's September 25, 2017 SIP submittal, Maryland states
that the existing COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>-1 ``Emissions Statements''
continues to satisfy section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
because Maryland has not made any changes since EPA's prior approval
and COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>-1 meets the CAA requirements for emission
statements. See 59 FR 51517 (October 12, 1994). EPA finds that COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS>-1 continues to satisfy section 182(a)(3)(B) because the
existing rule is applicable to the entire State of Maryland and
requires stationary sources that emit NOX or VOC to submit
an emissions statement to the State detailing the sources' emissions.
EPA finds Maryland's emissions' thresholds for sources that are
required to submit an emissions statement meet CAA requirements in
sections 182 (plan submissions and requirements for ozone nonattainment
areas) and 184 (OTR requirements). See also ``Guidance on the
Implementation of an Emission Statement Program (July 1992).''
Therefore, EPA has determined that COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>-1, which is
currently in the Maryland SIP, is appropriate to address the emissions
statement requirement in section 182(a)(3)(B) and is proposing to
approve this SIP revision. EPA is soliciting public comments on the
issues discussed in this document. These comments will be considered
before taking final action.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the September 25, 2017 Maryland SIP
revision certifying that Maryland's existing SIP-approved emissions
statement regulation meets the emissions statement requirement of
section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule, which proposes to approve
Maryland's certification that Maryland's SIP-approved emissions
statement regulation meets the emissions statement requirement of
section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA, does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: February 9, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2018-03416 Filed 2-16-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 5, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 213)]
[Notices]
[Page 62470-62471]
[DOCID:fr05no07-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12936-000]

FFP Project 46, LLC; Notice of Application Accepted for Filing
and Soliciting Motions To Intervene, Protests, and Comments

October 29, 2007.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Preliminary Permit.
    b. Project No.: 12936-000.
    c. Date filed: August 6, 2007.
    d. Applicant: FFP Project 46, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Little Prairie Bend Project.
    f. Location: The project would be located on the Mississippi River
in Pemiscot County, Missouri and Lake County, Tennessee. The project
uses no dam or impoundment.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Mr. Dan Irvin, FFP Project 46, LLC, 69 Bridge
Street, Manchester, MA 01944, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Robert Bell,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. Deadline for filing comments, protests, and motions to
intervene: 60 days from the issuance date of this notice.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments, protests, and
interventions 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. Please include the project
number (P-12936-000) on any comments or motions filed.
    The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all
intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of
that document on each person in the official service list for the
project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency.
    k. Description of Project: The proposed project consists of: (1)
2,700 proposed 20 kilowatt Free Flow generating units having a total
installed capacity of 54 megawatts, (2) a proposed transmission line,
and (3) appurtenant facilities. The FFP Project 46, LLC, project would
have an average annual generation of 236.52 gigawatt-hours and be sold
to a local utility.
    l. Locations of Applications: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room, located at 888 First Street, NE., Room 2A,
Washington DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also
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, call toll-free 1-866-208-3676 or e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is

also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Competing Preliminary Permit--Anyone desiring to file a
competing application for preliminary permit for a proposed project
must submit the competing application itself, or a notice of intent to
file such an application, to the Commission on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application (see 18 CFR 4.36).
Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to
file the competing preliminary permit application no later than 30 days
after the specified comment date for the particular application. A
competing preliminary permit application must conform with 18 CFR 4.30
and 4.36.
    o. Competing Development Application--Any qualified development
applicant desiring to file a competing development application must
submit to the Commission, on or before a specified comment date for the
particular application, either a competing development application or a
notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely
notice of intent to file a development application allows an interested
person to file the competing application no later than 120 days after
the specified comment date for the particular application. A competing
license application must conform with18 CFR 4.30 and 4.36.
    p. Notice of Intent--A notice of intent must specify the exact
name, business address, and telephone number of the

prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of
intent to submit, if such an application may be filed, either a
preliminary permit application or a development application (specify
which type of application). A notice of intent must be served on the
applicant(s) named in this public notice.
    q. Proposed Scope of Studies under Permit--A preliminary permit, if
issued, does not authorize construction. The term of the proposed
preliminary permit would be 36 months. The work proposed under the
preliminary permit would include economic analysis, preparation of
preliminary engineering plans, and a study of environmental impacts.
Based on the results of these studies, the Applicant would decide
whether to proceed with the preparation of a development application to
construct and operate the project.
    r. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene--Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    Comments, protests and interventions 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 ``e-filing'' link.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing.
    Filing and Service of Responsive Documents--Any filings must bear
in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``COMPETING
APPLICATION'', ``RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TERMS AND CONDITIONS'',
``PROTEST'', OR ``MOTION TO INTERVENE'', as applicable, and the Project
Number of the particular application to which the filing refers. Any of
the above-named documents must be filed by providing the original and
the number of copies provided by the Commission's regulations to: The
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. A copy of any motion to intervene must also be
served upon each representative of the Applicant specified in the
particular application.
    t. Agency Comments--Federal, state, and local agencies are invited
to file comments on the described application. A copy of the
application may be obtained by agencies directly from the Applicant. If
an agency does not file comments within the time specified for filing
comments, it will be presumed to have no comments. One copy of an
agency's comments must also be sent to the Applicant's representatives.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-21656 Filed 11-2-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


10456 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2003 / Notices and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA); environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; pesticide users; and the public interested in the use of pesticides. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0014. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

II. Background A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

This notice constitutes and announces the closing of the comment period for the norflurazon TRED. This decision has been developed as part of the public participation process that EPA and the U. S. Department of Agriculture ( USDA) are using to involve the public in the reassessment of pesticide tolerances under FFDCA. EPA must review tolerances and tolerance exemptions that were in effect when the Food Quality Protection Act ( FQPA) was enacted in August 1996, to ensure that these existing pesticide residue limits for food and feed commodities meet the safety standard of the new law. In reviewing these tolerances, the Agency must consider, among other things, aggregate risks from nonoccupational sources of pesticide exposure, whether there is increased susceptibility to infants and children, and the cumulative effects of pesticides with a common mechanism of toxicity. The tolerances are considered reassessed once the safety finding has been made that aggregate risks are not of concern. A reregistration eligibility decision ( RED) was completed for norflurazon in June 1996, prior to FQPA enactment, and therefore, needed an updated assessment to consider the provisions of the Act.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action? The legal authority for this TRED falls under FIFRA, as amended in 1988 and 1996. Section 4( g)( 2)( A) of FIFRA directs that, after submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient ( a. i.), `` the Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such a. i. are eligible for reregistration,'' and either reregister products or take `` other appropriate regulatory action.''

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticide tolerances.

Dated: January 17, 2003. Lois Ann Rossi, Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [ FR Doc. 03   5033 Filed 3   4   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0029; FRL   7290   4]

Benomyl; Cancellation Order AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces a cancellation order requested by Hi Yield Chemical Company for their registration of the pesticide product containing methyl 1( butylcarbamoyl) 2 benzimidazole carbamate, or benomyl, and accepted by EPA, pursuant to section 6( f) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA). This order follows up a September 9, 2002, notice of receipt of request for the above mentioned voluntary registration cancellation. In that notice, EPA requested comments on the proposed cancellation and indicated that it would issue an order confirming the cancellation. Any distribution, sale, or use of canceled benomyl products is permitted only in accordance with the terms of the existing stocks provisions of this cancellation order. DATES: The cancellation is effective March 5, 2003. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Demson Fuller, Special Review and Reregistration Division ( 7508C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone number: ( 703) 308   8062; fax number: ( 703) 308   7042; e mail address: fuller. demson@ epamail. epa. gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general. You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, sell, distribute, or use benomyl products. The Congressional Review Act, 5 U. S. C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply because this action is not a rule, for purposes of 5 U. S. C. 804( 3). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Additional Information, Including Copies of this Document and Other Related Documents? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0029. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI)

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 23: 46 Mar 04, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 05MRN1. SGM 05MRN1 10457 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2003 / Notices or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. To access RED documents and RED fact sheets electronically, go directly to the REDs table on the EPA Office of Pesticide Programs Home Page, at http:// www. epa. gov/ pesticides/ reregistration/ status. htm. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff.

II. Receipt of Request to Cancel Registrations A. Background Benomyl is a benzimidazole carbamate and systemic foliar fungicide which was registered for use on a variety of fruit and vegetable crops. The technical registrant, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company ( DuPont), met with the Agency on April 18, 2001, and requested a voluntary cancellation of all their registrations for products containing benomyl. DuPont stated that this decision was based on business reasons. Following a public comment period on the proposed cancellations and consideration of comments received, the cancellation order was published in the Federal Register and became effective on August 8, 2001 ( 66 FR 41589) ( FRL   6794   9). In addition, the Agency also received letters from the following registrants requesting voluntary cancellation of all their products containing benomyl: American Mushroom Institute, Amvac Chemical Corp., Pursell Industries, Inc., the Scotts Company, Value Garden Supply LLC, and Voluntary Purchasing Groups, Inc. In their letter dated July 31, 2002, Hi Yield ( represented by their agent, Brazos Associates Inc.) stated that they no longer manufacture or distribute the end use product that contained benomyl and there are no inventories of remaining stocks. Pursuant to section 6( f)( 1) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA), EPA announced receipt of the request from Hi Yield Chemical Company in a Federal Register notice published on September 9, 2002 ( 67 FR 57726) ( FRL   7197   5). In that notice, EPA provided a 30   day comment period. The registrant requested the Administrator waive the 180   day comment period provided under FIFRA section 6( f)( 1)( c), and EPA granted this request. No public comments were received during the 30   day comment period.

B. Requests for Voluntary Cancellation of Products Pursuant to FIFRA section 6( f)( 1)( A), Hi Yield Chemical Company has submitted a request for voluntary cancellation of registration for their product containing benomyl. The registration for which the cancellation was requested is identified in the following table.

PRODUCT REGISTRATION CANCELLATION REQUEST Company Registration No. Product Hi Yield Chemical Company 34911   27 Hi Yield Benomyl III. Cancellation Order Pursuant to section 6( f)( 1)( A) of FIFRA, EPA is approving the requested cancellation. Accordingly, EPA orders that the registration identified in the table in Unit II. B., is hereby canceled. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the products identified in the table above in a manner inconsistent with the terms of this Order or the Existing Stock Provisions in Unit IV. of this document will be considered a violation of section 12( a)( 2)( K) of FIFRA and/ or section 12( a)( 1)( A) of FIFRA.

IV. Existing Stocks Provisions For purposes of this Order, the term `` existing stocks'' is defined, pursuant to EPA's existing stocks policy ( 56 FR 29362, June 26, 1991) ( FRL   3846   4), as those stocks of a registered pesticide product which are currently in the United States and which have been packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of cancellation.

A. Distribution or Sale by the Registrant Cancellation orders generally permit a registrant to sell or distribute existing stocks for 1 year after the date the cancellation request was received. However, the registrant has stated that they no longer manufacture or distribute end use products that contain benomyl.

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 21: 44 Mar 04, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 05MRN1. SGM 05MRN1 10458 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2003 / Notices In addition, the distribution of benomyl products in the channels of trade ended on December 31, 2002, prohibiting the sale of these products. Therefore, the distribution or sale of existing stocks by the registrant is not lawful under FIFRA after March 5, 2003 except for the purposes of returns and shipping such stocks for export consistent with the requirements of section 17 of FIFRA, or for proper disposal.

B. Distribution and Sale by Other Persons Sale or distribution by any person of existing stocks of the product identified in the table in Unit II. B. is not lawful under FIFRA after March 5, 2003. The legal sale and distribution of benomyl products ended on December 31, 2002.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

Dated: February 6, 2003. Lois A. Rossi, Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[ FR Doc. 03   4777 Filed 3   4   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0009; FRL   7291   2]

Pyrimethanil; Notice of Filing Pesticide Petitions to Establish a Tolerance for a Certain Pesticide Chemical in or on Food AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the initial filing of pesticide petitions proposing the establishment of regulations for residues of a certain pesticide chemical in or on various food commodities. DATES: Comments, identified by docket ID number OPP   2003   0009, must be received on or before April 4, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary L. Waller, Registration Division ( 7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 308   9354; e mail address: waller. mary@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:   Crop production ( NAICS 111)   Animal production ( NAICS 112)   Food manufacturing ( NAICS 311)   Pesticide manufacturing ( NAICS 32532) This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be affected. The North American Industrial Classification System ( NAICS) codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining whether this action might apply to certain entities. To determine whether you or your business may be affected by this action, you should carefully examine the applicability provisions in OPP   2003   0009. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket identification ( ID) number OPP   2003   0009. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 21: 44 Mar 04, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 05MRN1. SGM 05MRN1


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 155 (Friday, August 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49876-49877]
[FR Doc No: 2022-17396]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0344]

National Chemical Transportation Safety Advisory Committee;
Vacancies

AGENCY: U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Request for applications.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Coast Guard is accepting applications to fill eight
vacancies on the National Chemical Transportation Safety Advisory
Committee (Committee). This Committee advises the Secretary of Homeland
Security, through the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard, on matters
relating to the safe and secure marine transportation of hazardous
materials.

DATES: Completed applications must reach the U.S. Coast Guard on or
before September 12, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Applications must be emailed to [email protected] with
subject line ``Application for NCTSAC''.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Ethan Beard, Alternate
Designated Federal Officer of the National Chemical Transportation
Safety Advisory Committee; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Chemical Transportation Safety
Advisory Committee was established on December 4, 2018, by section 601
of the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018, Public Law
No 115-282 (codified at 46 U.S.C. 15101). The Committee advises the
Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Commandant of the U.S.
Coast Guard, on matter relating to the safe and secure marine
transportation of hazardous material. The Committee operates under the
provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (5 U.S.C. Appendix),
and 46 U.S.C. 15109.
    The Committee is statutorily required to meet at least once a year;
however, it typically holds meetings at least twice a year. Meetings
are held at a location selected by the U.S. Coast Guard. All members
serve at their own expense and receive no salary or other compensation
from the Federal Government. Members will not be reimbursed for travel
in accordance with the Committee's charter.
    In this solicitation for Committee members, applicants will be
considered for eight (8) positions to represent the following entities:
     Chemical manufacturing entities;
     Entities related to marine handling or transportation of
chemicals;
     Vessel design and construction entities;
     Marine safety or security entities; and
     Marine environmental protection entities.
    Each member of the Committee must have particular expertise,
knowledge, and experience on matters related to the

safe and secure marine transportation of hazardous materials. The
Secretary of Homeland Security may require an individual to have passed
an appropriate security background examination before appointment to
the Committee, 46 U.S.C. 15109(f)(4). As required by 46 U.S.C.
15109(f)(6), if you are appointed as a member of the Committee, your
membership term will expire on December 31st of the third full year
after the effective date of your appointment. Members serve at the
pleasure of the Secretary of Homeland Security and may be removed prior
to the end of their term for just cause.
    In order for the Department to fully leverage broad-ranging
experience and education, the National Chemical Transportation Safety
Advisory Committee must be diverse with regard to professional and
technical expertise. The Department is committed to pursuing
opportunities, consistent with applicable law, to compose a committee
that reflects the diversity of the nation's people.
    If you are interested in applying to become a member of the
Committee, email your application to [email protected] as provided
in the ADDRESSES section of this notice. Applications must include: (1)
a cover letter expressing interest in an appointment to the National
Chemical Transportation Safety Advisory Committee; (2) a resume
detailing the applicant's relevant experience and (3) a brief biography
of the applicant. The Coast Guard will not consider incomplete or late
applications.

    Dated: August 8, 2022.
Jeffrey G. Lantz,
Director of Commercial Regulations and Standards.
[FR Doc. 2022-17396 Filed 8-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 61 (Monday, March 31, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18115-18117]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07108]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0038; Notice 2]

RECARO Child Safety, LLC, Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Denial of petition.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies RECARO Child Safety, LLC's (RECARO) \1\
petition for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements
of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that a noncompliance with Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems,
is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA has decided that
RECARO has not met its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 213
noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
RECARO must notify owners, purchasers, and dealers pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118 and provide a remedy in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30120.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ RECARO Child Safety, LLC is a manufacturer of motor vehicle
equipment and is registered under the laws of the state of Michigan.

ADDRESSES: To view the petition and all supporting documents, log onto
the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) Web site at: http://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online search instructions to
locate docket number ``NHTSA-2013-0038.''
    Contact Information: For further information on this decision
contact Mr. Zack Fraser, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone (202)
366-5754, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: RECARO determined that certain RECARO brand
ProSport child restraint systems produced between June 16, 2010 and
January 31, 2013 do not fully comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (FMVSS) No. 213, Child Restraint Systems. RECARO filed a
report with NHTSA dated February 6, 2013, pursuant to 49 CFR part 573,
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports.
    Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) (see implementing rule
at 49 CFR part 556), RECARO submitted a petition for an exemption from
the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on
the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    NHTSA published a notice of receipt of the petition, with a 30-day
public comment period, on June 3, 2013, in the Federal Register (78 FR
33150). NHTSA did not receive any comments in response to the petition.
    Equipment Involved: Affected are approximately 39,181 RECARO brand
ProSport child restraint systems produced between June 16, 2010, and
January 31, 2013.
    Rule Text: Paragraph S5.3.1(a)(1) of FMVSS No. 213 lays out head
excursion requirements for child restraint systems. This paragraph
states, in relevant part:

    S<IP_ADDRESS> Child restraint systems other than rear-facing ones and
car beds.
    Each child restraint system, other than a rear-facing child
restraint system or a car bed, shall retain the test dummy's torso
within the system.
    (a) For each add-on child restraint system:
    (1) No portion of the test dummy's head shall pass through a
vertical transverse plane that is 720 mm or 813 mm (as specified in
the table in this S<IP_ADDRESS>) forward of point Z on the standard seat
assembly, measured along the center SORL (as illustrated in figure
1B of this standard) . . .

    Paragraph S5.3.2 of FMVSS No. 213 identifies the various
installation configurations (i.e. with a lap belt only, with a lap belt
and upper torso restraint, etc.) that must be tested for each type of
child restraint system. This paragraph states, in relevant part:

    S5.3.2 Each add-on child restraint system shall be capable of
meeting the requirements of this standard when installed solely by
each of the means indicated in the following table for the
particular type of child restraint system.

    This is followed by Table S5.3.2 which lists the different child
restraint systems (``Harness . . . ,'' ``Other harnesses,'' ``Car
beds,'' ``Rear-facing restraints,'' ``Belt-positioning seats,'' and
``All other child restraints''). For each type of child restraint
system, the table identifies various means of installation (``Type 1
seat belt assembly,'' ``Type 1 seat belt assembly plus a tether
anchorage, if needed,'' ``Child restraint anchorage system,'' ``Type II
seat belt assembly,'' and ``Seat back mount''). The ProSport, which is
a forward facing only child restraint system, falls under the category
of ``All other child restraints'' in table S5.3.2 of FMVSS No. 213.
According to Paragraph S5.3.2 of FMVSS No. 213, the ProSport must meet
FMVSS No. 213's requirements when installed with a ``Type 1 seat belt
assembly'' or a lap belt only, among other things. See 49 CFR Sec.
571.209 S.3, Seat Belt Assemblies (A ``[t]ype 1 seat belt assembly is a
lap belt for pelvic restraint'').
    The test procedure for restraint systems installed with a lap belt
only is set forth in Paragraph S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(D) of FMVSS No. 213,
which states, in relevant part:

    S6.1.2 Dynamic Test Procedure.
    (a) Activate the built-in child restraint or attach the add-on
child restraint to the seat assembly as described below:
    1. Test Configuration I.
    i. Child restraints other than belt-positioning seats. Attach
the child restraint in any of the following manners specified in
S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A) through (D), unless otherwise specified in this
standard.
* * * * *

    (D) Install the child restraint system using only the lower
anchorages of the child restraint system as in S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(C).
No tether strap (or any other supplemental device) is used.
    The other test configurations (described in Paragraph
S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(A)-(C)) do not correspond to the lap belt only test.
    Summary of RECARO's Position: RECARO explains that its ProSport
child restraint system does not comply with the head excursion
requirements of FMVSS 213 S<IP_ADDRESS>(a)(1) when subjected to the dynamic
test requirements of S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(D) of FMVSS No. 213, using a six
year old test dummy secured to the test bench by lower anchors and no
tether. RECARO believes that this noncompliance is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety, and requests an exemption from the notification
requirements of 49 U.S.C. 30118 and the remedy requirements of 49
U.S.C. 30120.
    In support of its petition for exemption, RECARO submits the
following comments and data:

    1. The dynamic test requirements of FMVSS No. 213
S6.1.2(a)(1)(i)(D) require using a six year old test dummy secured
to the test bench using lower anchors and no tether. This test
procedure is a direct violation of the instructions and warnings in
the instruction manual included with each ProSport child restraint
system and would constitute a major misuse of the child restraint by
the consumer. (RECARO provided the entire manual as part of its
petition.)
    2. RECARO has received over 9,000 registration cards returned by
purchasers of the ProSport. Using the online survey system Survey
Monkey, RECARO instituted a survey of 3,690 registered owners by
emailing each purchaser the following survey questions:
    a. Are you currently using your ProSport child restraint?
    b. How is (was) your ProSport installed in the vehicle?
    i. Vehicle lap/shoulder belt
    ii. Lower anchors provided with child restraint (LATCH)
    c. Did you use the top tether included on the ProSport to
install the child restraint into the vehicle?

RECARO noted that 929 registered owners responded to the survey by
confirming that they installed the child restraint with lower LATCH
anchors. Of those responding, 837 or 90.1% confirmed that the top
tether was being used to install their ProSport when installing the
child restraint with lower LATCH anchors. (RECARO included a copy of
the survey details and results as part of its petition.) RECARO
stated its belief that the survey is a statistically significant
confirmation that a very small percentage of ProSport consumers are
misusing the child restraint by not using the top tether when
installing the child restraint with lower LATCH anchors and that the
effectiveness of any noncompliance notification campaign will be
minimal, given the historically low response rate to technical
noncompliance notification campaigns of child restraints. For
example, the survey results indicate that only those ProSport
consumers not properly using the top tether when installing the
child restraint with lower LATCH anchors are likely to respond to a
noncompliance notification. Assuming a response rate of 10% by this
group, only 400 of the estimated 4,000 consumers misusing the child
restraint are likely to respond. This statistically insignificant
response renders the technical noncompliance at issue
inconsequential.
    3. All vehicles equipped with lower child restraint (LATCH)
anchors are also equipped with top tether anchors. RECARO has
received 82 consumer calls regarding the ProSport. (RECARO included
copies of consumer call reports as part of its petition.) No
consumer has questioned the use of the tether when securing the
ProSport with the lower anchors. RECARO has no information of this
misuse actually occurring in the field or of any injuries sustained
by a child when restrained in a ProSport in this misuse condition.
    4. RECARO has received notice of three crashes involving four
children seated in ProSport child restraint systems. In these
incidents, the ProSport performed well and the occupant was not
injured. It is not known if the ProSports involved were installed
using the lower LATCH anchors, whether the top tethers were used, or
both.
    5. RECARO has implemented an engineering/structural modification
to the ProSport. Dynamic tests of the modified ProSport using a
Hybrid II six year old test dummy secured to the test bench using
lower anchors and no tether confirm that the head excursion
requirements of FMVSS No. 213 S<IP_ADDRESS>(a)(1) are met. (RECARO
included copies of the test reports as part of its petition.)
    6. RECARO stated its belief that the ProSport outperforms any
comparable child restraint with regards to head excursions when
installed with the lap/shoulder belt.
    7. Given the relative small number of ProSport child restraints
distributed since introduction in June 2010 (39,181), the
effectiveness of any notification campaign regarding this technical
noncompliance will be limited. Additionally, any noncompliance
notice campaign may result in consumers deciding to discontinue
using their ProSport for a period of time, increasing the risk of
injury to a higher degree than the risk resulting from the small
number of consumers misusing the child restraint by not using the
top tether when installing the child restraint with lower LATCH
anchors.

    RECARO has additionally informed NHTSA that it has stopped
production of the ProSport as of January 31, 2013.
    Standard of Review: Federal motor vehicle safety standards are
adopted only after the agency has determined, following notice and
comment, that the performance requirements are objective and
practicable and ``meet the need for motor vehicle safety.'' 49 U.S.C.
30111(a). Thus, there is a general presumption that the failure of a
motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment to comply with a FMVSS
increases the risk to motor vehicle safety beyond the level deemed
appropriate by NHTSA through the rulemaking process. General Motors
Corp; Ruling on Petition for Determination of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897 (April 14, 2004). To protect the public from
such risks, manufacturers whose products fail to comply with a FMVSS
are normally required to conduct a safety recall under which they must
notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of the noncompliance and provide
a remedy without charge. 49 U.S.C. 30118-30120.
    However, Congress recognized that under some limited circumstances,
a noncompliance may be ``inconsequential'' to motor vehicle safety. It
established a procedure under which NHTSA may consider whether it is
appropriate to exempt the manufacturer from the duty to conduct a
notification and remedy (recall) campaign. 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h). The agency's regulations governing the filing and
consideration of petitions for inconsequentiality exemptions are set
out in 49 CFR Part 556. The manufacturer bears the burden of
demonstrating that the noncompliance is inconsequential to motor
vehicle safety. General Motors, 69 FR 19899.
    NHTSA rarely grants inconsequentiality petitions for noncompliance
of performance standards. The majority of the inconsequentiality
petitions NHTSA has granted have been for noncompliances with labeling
requirements. For a performance-related petition to be granted, NHTSA
has determined the issue to be ``whether [the] particular noncompliance
is likely to increase the risk to safety.'' Cosco, Inc.: Denial of
Application for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408
(June 1, 1999). In evaluating whether there is an increased safety
risk, NHTSA examines the motor vehicles or equipment exhibiting the
noncompliance at issue. Cosco, 64 FR 29409.
    NHTSA's Decision: NHTSA has reviewed RECARO's arguments and is not
convinced that the ProSport child restraint's noncompliance is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The petition is denied. Below,
we address each of RECARO's arguments in the order presented.
    In its petition, RECARO first characterizes the installation of the
ProSport without a top tether as misuse, citing the ProSport
instruction manual. The instruction manual, however, does

not exempt the ProSport from the requirements of FMVSS No. 213.
Independent of any instruction manual, FMVSS No. 213 requires that the
ProSport meet FMVSS No. 213's dynamic test requirements when installed
without the top tether. The ProSport's head excursion measurements were
above the acceptable limit prescribed in paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>(a) of FMVSS
No. 213. The head excursion limit is 813 millimeters. When tested,
ProSport had a head excursion measurement of 907 millimeters according
to NHTSA's test, and an even greater deviation according to RECARO's
test. Failure of a child restraint system in this manner increases the
likelihood of head injury to the occupant, which is not insignificant
or inconsequential to safety. See Cosco, 64 FR 29409-29410. NHTSA
requires child restraint systems to be tested without the tether strap
attached to the vehicle to ``ensure that a minimum level of safety is
provided by child restraints which have safety features likely to be
misused or unused by some owners.'' See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
50 FR 27634 (July 5, 1985); Final Rule, 51 FR 5335 (February 13, 1986)
(amending FMVSS No. 213 by requiring child restraints equipped with a
tether strap to pass the 30 mile per hour (mph) test without attaching
the tether strap due to evidence of misuse by owners). Because the test
the ProSport failed was intended to protect those children whose
parents misused the child restraint system by not attaching the top
tether strap, Recaro's argument is unavailing. NHTSA has concerns that
there is an unreasonable risk of head injury to children in the event
of a crash when the ProSport is not installed properly. The head
excursion limit is a fundamental requirement that represents basic
parameters of survival in a crash environment. California Strolee,
Inc.; Denial of Petition for Determination of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 51 FR 13389 (April 2, 1986). Any relaxation would reduce
child safety below an acceptable level. Id.
    Second, RECARO conducted a survey which found that 9.9% of ProSport
consumers do not use the top tether when installing the child restraint
system.\2\ Based on this statistic, RECARO concludes that a ``very
small percentage'' of ProSport consumers do not use the top tether.
This survey does not convince NHTSA that the ProSport's noncompliance
is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. While 9.9% of 39,181 child
restraint systems is by no means a small number, arguments that only a
small number of items of motor vehicle equipment are affected by a
noncompliance will not justify granting an inconsequentiality petition.
General Motors, 69 FR 19990. The key issue in determining
inconsequentiality is not the aggregate safety consequence among all
drivers, but rather, ``whether the noncompliance is likely to increase
the safety risk to the individual occupants who experience the type of
injurious events against which the standard is designed to protect.''
Id.; See also Cosco, 64 FR 29409.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ RECARO noted that 929 registered owners responded to the
survey by confirming that they installed the child restraint with
lower LATCH anchors. Of those responding, 837 or 90.1% confirmed
that the top tether was being used to install their ProSport. The
remaining 89 individuals, or 9.9% of respondents indicated that they
did not use the top tether.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, RECARO states that based on 82 consumer calls regarding the
ProSport (presumably out of a population of 39,181 child restraint
systems), it has no information that a consumer has (1) failed to use
the top tether; or (2) sustained injury due to failure to use the top
tether. This claim does not advance RECARO's argument. RECARO's own
survey indicated that 9.9% of survey respondents failed to use the top
tether. More importantly, the statute does not require children to
sustain injuries for a manufacturer to conduct a recall. The statue
calls for notification and remedy when the manufacturer ``decides in
good faith that the . . . equipment does not comply with an applicable
motor vehicle safety standard . . .'' 49 U.S.C. 30118(c)(2); 49 U.S.C.
30120.
    Fourth, RECARO indicated in its petition that it received notice of
three crashes involving four children seated in the subject child
restraint systems. The children survived the crashes without injury.
However, this information does not advance RECARO's position that the
ProSport's noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety
because RECARO has not proven that the top tether was not attached in
those cases.
    Fifth, RECARO also stated that it implemented engineering/
structural modifications to the ProSport. RECARO performed dynamic
tests of the modified ProSport and confirmed that the modified child
seats met the requirements of FMVSS No. 213. However, these
modifications were not made to the 39,181 restraints that are the
subject of this petition. This argument is not relevant to RECARO's
petition. If anything, it may indicate that RECARO recognizes that the
noncompliance in its earlier ProSport models must be rectified.
    Sixth, RECARO contends that a recall campaign would have limited
effectiveness based on its survey results. However, RECARO has
presented no evidence to support this claim. NHTSA does not agree that
optional responses to a survey are indicative of responsiveness to a
recall campaign, which has direct safety consequences.
    Finally, RECARO contends that a recall campaign may result in
consumers deciding to discontinue use of their ProSport child
restraints. RECARO claims that non-use of the ProSport increases the
risk of injury to a higher degree than misuse of the ProSport. Yet
RECARO has provided no evidence that owners will discontinue use of a
child restraint system altogether in the face of a RECARO recall.
Further, child restraint recall campaign notices for similar
noncompliances have generally instructed owners to continue using a
restraint until a remedy is available (rather than not using any child
restraint). NHTSA does not consider this to be a compelling argument.
    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that the
ProSport's noncompliance is likely to increase the risk to safety, and
is therefore not inconsequential. Recaro has not met its burden of
persuasion that the FMVSS No. 213 noncompliance identified in RECARO's
noncompliance information report is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety. Accordingly, RECARO's petition is hereby denied, and RECARO
must notify owners, purchasers, and dealers pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118
and provide a remedy in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30120.

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

    Issued on: March 25, 2014.
Nancy Lummen Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2014-07108 Filed 3-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 71 (Wednesday, April 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21950-21951]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08507]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Request To Release Airport Property

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Rule on Request to Release Airport Property
at the Humboldt Municipal Airport, Humboldt, Iowa.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the
release of land at the Humboldt Municipal, Humboldt, Iowa, under the
provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 13, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to
the FAA at the following address: Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-
610C, 901 Locust Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to: Humboldt Airport Commission, Dave Dodgen, City
of Humboldt 29 Fifth Street South, Humboldt, IA 50548,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn D. Martin, Airports Compliance
Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-
610C, 901 Locust Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The request to release property may be reviewed,
by appointment, in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release approximately 1.42 acres of airport property at the
Humboldt Municipal Airport (0K7) under the provisions of 49 U.S.C.
47107(h)(2). On January 18, 2016, the Airport Commission at the
Humboldt Municipal Airport requested from the FAA that approximately
1.42 acres of property be released for sale to B&N Auto for dual use as
a farming rental in the summer and snow storage in the winter. On March
10, 2016, the FAA determined that the request to release property at
the Humboldt Municipal Airport (0K7) submitted by the Sponsor meets the
procedural requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration and the
release of the property does not and will not impact future aviation
needs at the airport. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in
part, no sooner than thirty days after the publication of this Notice.
The following is a brief overview of the request:
    Humboldt Municipal Airport (0K7) is proposing the release of one
parcel, of 1.42 acres, more or less. The release of land is necessary
to comply with Federal Aviation Administration Grant Assurances that do
not allow federally acquired airport property to be used for non-
aviation purposes. The sale of the subject property will result in the
land at the Humboldt Municipal Airport (0K7) being changed from
aeronautical to non-aeronautical use and release the lands from the
conditions of the Airport Improvement Program Grant Agreement Grant
Assurances. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B)(i) and (iii),
the airport will receive fair market value for the property, which will
be subsequently reinvested in another eligible airport improvement
project for general aviation facilities at the Humboldt Municipal
Airport.
    Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at
the FAA office listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In

addition, any person may, upon appointment and request, inspect the
application, notice and other documents determined by the FAA to be
related to the application in person at the Humboldt Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Kansas City, MO, on April 7, 2016.
Jim A. Johnson,
Manager, Airports Division.
[FR Doc. 2016-08507 Filed 4-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 7, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 173)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 51384-51386]
[DOCID:fr07se07-22]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29001; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-36-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company CF34-8C1/-8C5/
-8C5B1/-8E5/-8E5A1, and CF34-10E Series Turbofan Engines

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for General Electric Company (GE) CF34-8C1/-8C5/-8C5B1/-8E5/-8E5A1, and
CF34-10E series turbofan engines with certain part number (P/N) and
serial number (SN) fuel metering units (FMU) installed. This proposed
AD would require a onetime test of the FMU for a miswired (reversed
polarity) condition of the input wires to the overspeed solenoid. This
proposed AD results from the discovery of miswired FMU overspeed
solenoids in the field. We are proposing this AD to prevent the engine
from failing to shutdown as commanded during an overspeed, leading to
uncontained engine failure.

DATES: We must receive any comments on this proposed AD by November 6,
2007.

ADDRESSES: Use one of the following addresses to comment on this
proposed AD.
     DOT Docket Web site: Go to http://dms.dot.gov and follow

the instructions for sending your comments electronically.
     Government-wide rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov
 and follow the instructions for sending your

comments electronically.
     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: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You can get the service information identified in this proposed AD
from General Electric Company via Lockheed Martin Technology Services,
10525 Chester Road, Suite C, Cincinnati, Ohio 45215; telephone (513)
672-8400; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara Chaidez, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send us any written relevant data, views, or
arguments regarding this proposal. Send your comments to an address
listed under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2007-29001;
Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-36-AD'' in the subject line of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed AD. We will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the
proposed AD in light of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov
, including any personal information you provide. We will

also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA
personnel concerning this proposed AD. Using the search function of the
DOT Web site, anyone can find and read the comments in any of our
dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or
signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union,
etc.). You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the
Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you
may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov
; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any

comments received, and other information. The street address for the
Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is the same as the
Mail address provided in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be
available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

Discussion

    Woodward Governor Company has discovered in the field a miswired
(reversed polarity) condition of the input wires to the overspeed
solenoid, on some FMUs. Investigation of FMU manufacturing records
shows that there is a possibility that a population of FMUs might be
miswired. If the solenoid is miswired, the engine will fail to shut
down as commanded. This condition, if not corrected, could result in
failure of the engine to shutdown as commanded during an overspeed,
leading to uncontained engine failure.

Relevant Service Information

    We have reviewed and approved the technical contents of GE Service
Bulletin (SB) No. CF34-8C-AL S/B 73-0030, Revision 1, dated July 19,
2007, SB No. CF34-8E-AL S/B 73-0015, Revision 1, dated July 19, 2007,
and SB No. CF34-10E S/B 72-0067, Revision 1, dated July 26, 2007 that
describe procedures for performing a onetime test of suspect FMUs for a
miswired (reversed polarity) condition of the input wires to the
overspeed solenoid.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    We have evaluated all pertinent information and identified an
unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on other products
of this same type design. We are proposing this AD, which would require
a onetime test of suspect FMUs for a miswired (reversed polarity)
condition of the input wires to the overspeed solenoid. The proposed AD
would require you to use the service information described previously
to perform these actions.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 1,055 engines
installed on airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would
take about 0.25 work-hour per engine to perform the proposed actions,
and that the average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. We estimate that
about 2 percent of the inspected solenoids are defective, and it will
cost about $5,000 to replace each FMU. Based on these figures, we
estimate the total cost of the proposed AD to U.S. operators to be
$180,000. Our cost estimate is exclusive of possible warranty coverage.

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 have 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 that the proposed AD:

    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD. You may get a copy of this summary at the
address listed under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the
Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as
follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    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]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:

General Electric Company: Docket No. FAA-2007-29001; Directorate
Identifier 2007-NE-36-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must receive
comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) action by November 6,
2007.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to:
    (1) General Electric Company (GE) CF34-8C1/-8C5/-8C5B1/-8E5/-
8E5A1 turbofan engines, with GE fuel metering unit (FMU) part number
(P/N) 4120T01P02, serial numbers (SNs) WYG94939 through WYGB4222,
and Woodward Governor FMU Vendor Identification Number (VIN) 8061-
926, SNs 11954378 through 15140071.
    (2) GE CF34-10E series turbofan engines, with GE FMU P/N
2043M10P05, SNs WYGA3251 through WYGB4085, and Woodward Governor FMU
VIN 8063-884, SNs 13335695 through 15028283.
    (3) CF34-8C1/-8C5/-8C5B1 turbofan engines are installed on, but
not limited to, Bombardier Inc. Model CL-600-2C10 (CRJ-700 & -701),
and CL-600-2D24/-2D15 (CRJ-900) airplanes.
    (4) CF34-8E5/-8E5A1 turbofan engines are installed on, but not
limited to, Embraer ERJ 170-100/-200 series airplanes.
    (5) CF34-10E series turbofan engines are installed on, but not
limited to, Embraer ERJ 190-100/-200 series airplanes.

Unsafe Condition

    (d) This AD results from the discovery of miswired FMU overspeed
solenoids in the field. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of
the engine to shutdown as commanded during an overspeed, leading to
uncontained engine failure.

Compliance

    (e) You are responsible for having the actions required by this
AD performed within 2,200 flight hours after the effective date of
this AD, but not to exceed 24 months after the effective date of
this AD, unless the actions have already been done.

Onetime Test of the FMU

    (f) Perform a onetime test of the FMU for a miswired (reversed
polarity) condition of the input wires to the overspeed solenoid.
    (g) Use paragraph 3A of the Accomplishment Instructions of GE
Service Bulletin (SB) No. CF34-8C-AL S/B 73-0030, Revision 1, dated
July 19, 2007, SB No. CF34-8E-AL S/B 73-0015, Revision 1, dated July
19, 2007, or SB No. CF34-10E S/B 72-0067, Revision 1, dated July 26,
2007, as applicable, to do the test.
    (h) If the FMU fails the test, remove the FMU.

Previous Credit

    (i) If you performed the actions specified in paragraphs (f)
through (h) of this AD, using the inspection procedures in GE SB No.
CF34-8C-AL S/B 73-0030, dated May 25, 2007, SB No. CF34-8E-AL S/B
73-0015, dated June 1, 2007, or SB No. CF34-10E S/B 72-0067, dated
June 7, 2007, before the effective date of this AD, you have
satisfied the compliance requirements of this AD.

Reporting Requirements

    (j) At the applicable time specified in paragraph (j)(4) or
(j)(5) of this AD:
    (1) Submit a report of all findings (both positive and negative)
of the testing required by paragraph (f) of this AD to Customer
Support Manager, Woodward Governor Company, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    (2) The report must include date of inspection, serial number of
FMU, and results of the inspection.
    (3) Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements contained in this
AD and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056.
    (4) If the inspection is done after the effective date of this
AD, submit the report within 10 days after the inspection.
    (5) If the inspection was done before the effective date of this
AD, submit the report within 10 days after the effective date of
this AD.

Alternative Methods of Compliance

    (k) The Manager, Engine Certification Office, has the authority
to approve alternative methods of compliance for this AD if
requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.

Related Information

    (l) None.
    (m) Contact Tara Chaidez, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,

for more information about this AD.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on August 28, 2007.
Peter A. White,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E7-17680 Filed 9-6-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P