[Federal Register: October 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 210)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 61525-61528]
[DOCID:fr31oc07-11]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0459; FRL-8487-6]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Great
Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District and Mojave Desert Air
Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD) and Mojave
Desert Air Quality Management District (MDAQMD) portions of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
particulate matter (PM-10) emissions from wood burning appliances and
open outdoor fires. We are approving local rules under the Clean Air
Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on December 31, 2007 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 30, 2007. If
we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2007-0459, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow

the on-line instructions.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

     Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov,

including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

http://www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not

know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region

IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents
in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Petersen, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4118<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What are the purposes of the submitted rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendation to Further Improve a Rule
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that the
rules were amended by the local air agencies and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Local agency               Rule No.         Rule title            Revised or amended     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GBUAPCD..............................        405  Exceptions..............  07/07/05 Revised.......     10/20/05
GBUAPCD..............................        431  Particulate Matter......  12/04/06 Revised.......     05/08/07
MDAQMD...............................        444  Open Outdoor Fires......  09/25/06 Amended.......     05/08/07
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 22, 2005, the submittal of GBUAPCD Rule 405 was
determined to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 appendix
V, which must be met before formal EPA review. On July 23, 2007, the
submittal of GBUAPCD Rule 431 and MDAQMD Rule 444 was determined to
meet the completeness criteria.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    A version of GBUAPCD Rule 405 was approved into the SIP on June 6,
1977 (42 FR 28883). EPA has not acted on a version of Rule 405 revised
on May 8, 1996 and submitted on August 5, 2002. While we can act only
on the most recent version, we have considered the contents of the
superseded version.
    A version of GBUAPCD Rule 431 was approved into the SIP on June 24,
1996 (61 FR 32341).
    MDAQMD was previously comprised of the Riverside County Air
District (RCAD) and the San Bernardino County Air District (SBCAD). The
versions on which the current MDAQMD Rule 444 are based are RCAD Rule
444, SBCAD Rule 57, and SBCAD Rule 57.1, which were approved into the
SIP on September 8, 1978 (43 FR 40011), June 14, 1978 (43 FR 25684),
and June 14, 1978 (43 FR 25684), respectively.

C. What are the purposes of the submitted rule revisions?

    Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to submit
regulations that control volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides,
particulate matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health
and the environment. These rules were developed as part of local air
districts' programs to control these pollutants.
    The purposes of the submitted GBUAPCD Rule 405 revisions relative
to the SIP rule are as follows:
     (405.preamble): The rule extends the applicability of the
listed exceptions to Rule 404-A, Particulate Matter, and Rule 404-B,
Oxides of Nitrogen, from the original Rule 400, Ringlemann Chart.
     (405.C,E): The rule deletes the exceptions to open burning
regulations for agricultural operations and the use of other
agricultural equipment necessary in the growing of crops or raising of
fowl or animals.
     (405.F,G,H,I,J): The rule adds exceptions to open burning
regulations for (a) the treatment of waste propellants, explosives, and
pyrotechnics in open burning/open detonation operations on military
bases for operations approved in a burn plan as regulated by SIP Rule
432, (b) burning of materials for special effects in filming or video
operations, (c) the disposal of contraband by burning, (d) recreational
or ceremonial fires, and (e) a fire set for the purpose of eliminating
a public health hazard that cannot be abated by any other practical
means.
    The purposes of the submitted GBUAPCD Rule 431 revisions relative
to the SIP rule are as follows:
     431.A: The rule is expanded to include communities that
are determined by the Board of GBUAPCD to be High Road Dust Areas
(HRDA) or High Wood Smoke Areas (HWSA), which contribute to exceedences
of state or federal 24-hour PM-2.5 or PM-10 standards. The SIP rule
applies only to the Town of Mammoth Lakes.
     431.B: The rule adds appropriate definitions for HRDA and
HWSA in addition to the HRDA and HWSA government agencies that regulate
these areas.
     431.C.5: The rule adds the requirement that a HWSA keep a
record of all EPA Phase II certified wood-burning appliances.
     431.D.3 and 4: The rule adds the requirement to obtain a
building permit from the Town of Mammoth Lakes for the installation of
all solid fuel burning appliances. Outside the Town of

Mammoth Lakes, the building permit is obtained from the HWSA agency.
     431.D.5 and E: The rule adds requirements for inspectors
for verification of compliance with regulations for installation of new
certified solid fuel burning appliances and removal or replacement of
non-certified appliances.
     431.I and J: The rule adds requirements and thresholds for
mandatory curtailment and voluntary curtailment of solid fuel
combustion in the Town of Mammoth Lakes and HWSA areas.
    The purposes of the submitted MDAQMD Rule 444 revisions relative to
the SIP rules are as follows:
     444(A): The rule is revised to apply the District Smoke
Management Program to open burning while minimizing smoke impacts to
the public.
     444(B)(13): The rule replaces an ``Approved Burn Plan''
with a ``Smoke Management Plan.''
     444(C)(1): The rule adds the requirement for all burn
projects that are greater than 10 acres or that are estimated to
produce more than one ton of particulate matter shall be conducted in
accordance with the Smoke Management Program.
     444(C)(2): The rule adds a list of materials prohibited
from open burning.
     444(C)(3): The rule adds the permission to burn during
adverse meteorological conditions in a case where there would be an
imminent and substantial economic loss, providing a special permit is
obtained from the District and not a local fire agency.
     444(C)(4): The rule adds the provision for a prescribed
burn permittee to obtain from CARB up to 48 hours in advance of the
burn day a permissive-burn, marginal-burn, or no-burn forecast.
     444(C)(6): The rule adds requirements for ignition,
stacking, drying, and time of day for open burning, except for
prescribed burning.
     444(C)(7): The rule adds to the list of burning
applications with a permit (a) empty containers used for explosives,
(b) right-of-way clearance for a public entity or utility, or (c) wood
waste.
     444(C)(9): The rule adds the requirement for a Smoke
Management Plan for prescribed burning in (a) Forest Management, (b)
Range Improvement, and (c) Wildland Vegetation Management.
     444(D)(1): The rule deletes the exemptions for (a) open
fires in agricultural operations at over 3,000 feet elevation and (b)
open fires in agricultural burning at over 6,000 feet elevation.
    EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about
these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
CAA) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and
193). SIP rules in serious PM-10 nonattainment areas must require for
significant sources best available control measures (BACM), including
best available control technology (BACT) (see section 189(b)). GBUAPCD
regulates a serious PM-10 nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so
GBUAPCD Rules 405 and 431 must fulfill the requirements of BACM/BACT.
MDAQMD regulates a moderate PM-10 nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part
81), so MDAQMD Rule 444 must fulfill the requirements of RACM/RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate rules
consistently include the following:
     Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR part 51.
     PM-10 Guideline Document (EPA-452/R-93-008).
     Technical Information Document for Residential Wood
Combustion Best Available Control Measures, (EPA-450/2-92-002).
     Minimum BACM/RACM Control Measures for Residential Wood
Combustion Rules, EPA Region IX (August 8, 2007).

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe that GBUAPCD Rules 405 and 431 and MDAQMD Rule 444 are
consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding
enforceability, BACM/BACT, RACM/RACT, and SIP relaxations and should be
given full approval. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve a Rule

    The TSD describes an additional rule revision that does not affect
EPA's current action but is recommended for the next time the local
agency modifies GBAPCD Rule 431.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is fully
approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rule. If we
receive adverse comments by November 30, 2007, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective
without further notice on December 31, 2007. This will incorporate the
rule into the federally enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
State law, it 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).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States,

on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a State rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a State rule
implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 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
rule 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.
section 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 31, 2007. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule 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, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 22, 2007.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(342)(i)(D) and
(c)(350) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (342) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 405, adopted on September 5, 1974 and revised on July 7,
2005.
* * * * *
    (350) New and amended regulations were submitted on May 8, 2007, by
the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 431, adopted on December 7, 1990 and revised on December
4, 2006.
    (B) Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Rule 444, adopted on October 8, 1976 and amended on September
25, 2006.

[FR Doc. E7-21318 Filed 10-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 87 (Monday, May 6, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19799-19800]
[FR Doc No: 2019-09171]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4420-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2019-0001]

Nebraska; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Nebraska (FEMA-4420-DR), dated March 21, 2019, and
related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued April 10, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Nebraska is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of March 21, 2019.

    Antelope, Boyd, Burt, Cuming, Hall, Howard, Madison, Nance,
Pierce, Platte, and Saline Counties for Individual Assistance
(already designed for Public Assistance).
    Stanton County for Individual Assistance (already designated for
debris removal and emergency protective measures [Categories A and
B], including direct federal assistance, under the Public assistance
program).

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially

Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and
Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to
Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--
Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039,
Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-09171 Filed 5-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: April 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 66)]
[Notices]
[Page 17830-17831]
[DOCID:fr07ap10-130]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2010-0024; Notice 1]

Continental Tire North America, Inc., Receipt of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

    Continental Tire North America, Inc.,(Continental), has determined
that certain passenger car tires manufactured between March of 2007 and
June of 2009 did not fully comply with paragraphs S5.5(e) and S5.5(f)
of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 139, New
Pneumatic Radial Tires for Light Vehicles. Continental has filed an
appropriate report 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), Continental has petitioned for an exemption from
the notification and remedy requirements of 49 U.S.C. Chapter 301 on
the basis that this noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
    This notice of receipt of Continental's petition is published under
49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120 and does not represent any agency decision or
other exercise of judgment concerning the merits of the petition.
    Affected are approximately 28,169 size 235/55R18 100V SL
Continental brand CrossContact UHP model passenger car tires
manufactured between March of 2007 and June of 2009 at Continental's
plant located in Otrokovice, Czech Republic. A total of 8,858 of these
tires have been delivered to Continental's customers. The remaining
tires (approximately 19,311) are being held in Continental's possession
until they can be correctly relabeled.
    NHTSA notes that the statutory provisions (49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and
30120(h)) that permit manufacturers to file petitions for a
determination of inconsequentiality allow NHTSA to exempt manufacturers
only from the duties found in sections 30118 and 30120, respectively,
to notify owners, purchasers, and dealers of a defect or noncompliance
and to remedy the defect or noncompliance. Therefore, these provisions
only apply to the tires that have already passed from the manufacturer
to an owner, purchaser, or dealer.
    Paragraphs S5.5(e) and S5.5(f) of FMVSS No. 139 require in
pertinent part:

    S5.5 Tire markings. Except as specified in paragraphs (a)
through (i) of S5.5, each tire must be marked on each sidewall with
the information specified in S5.5(a) through (d) and on one sidewall
with the information specified in S5.5(e) through (i) according to
the phase-in schedule specified in S7 of this standard. The markings
must be placed between the maximum section width and the bead on at
least one sidewall, unless the maximum section width of the tire is
located in an area that is not more than one-fourth of the distance
from the bead to the shoulder of the tire. If the maximum section
width falls within that area, those markings must appear between the
bead and a point one-half the distance from the bead to the shoulder
of the tire, on at least one sidewall. The markings must be in
letters and numerals not less than 0.078 inches high and raised
above or sunk below the tire surface not less than 0.015 inches * *
*
    (e) The generic name of each cord material used in the plies
(both sidewall and tread area) of the tire;
    (f) The actual number of plies in the sidewall, and the actual
number of plies in the tread area, if different * * *

    Continental explains that the noncompliance is that, due to a mold
stamping anomaly, the sidewall marking on the tires incorrectly
describes the actual generic name and number of the body plies.
Specifically, the tires in question were inadvertently manufactured
with ``TREAD 6 PLIES: 2 POLYESTER + 2 STEEL + 2 NYLON; SIDEWALL 2 PLY
POLYESTER.'' The labeling should have been ``TREAD 5 PLIES: 1 RAYON + 2
STEEL + 2 NYLON; SIDEWALL 1 PLY RAYON.'' Continental states that all
other sidewall identification markings and safety information are
correct.
    Continental states that it discovered the mold stamping problem
that caused the non-compliance during a specification change.
    Continental argues that this non-compliant sidewall marking is
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety as it ``does not affect the
safety, performance and durability of the tire; the tires were built as
designed.'' In addition, Continental states that the tires comply with
all other NHTSA requirements.
    Continental said that it performs ongoing compliance testing ``to
assure tire performance'' and that ``all tires included in this
petition will meet or exceed the performance requirements of FMVSS
139.'' Continental further states that ``there will be no operational
impact on the performance or safety of vehicles on which these tires
are mounted.''
    Continental points out that NHTSA has previously granted similar
petitions for non-compliances in sidewall marking.
    Continental also stated that it has corrected the problem that
caused these errors so that they will not be repeated in future
production.
    In summation, Continental states that it believes that because the
noncompliances are inconsequential to motor vehicle safety that no
corrective action is warranted.
    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments on this petition. Comments must refer to the docket and
notice number cited at the beginning of this notice and be submitted by
any of the following methods:
    a. By mail addressed to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    b. By hand delivery to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Section is open on
weekdays from 10 am to 5 pm except Federal Holidays.
    c. Electronically: by logging onto the Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Web site at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may also be faxed
to 1-202-493-2251.
    Comments must be written in the English language, and be no greater
than 15 pages in length, although there is no limit to the length of
necessary attachments to the comments. If comments are submitted in
hard copy form, please ensure that two copies are provided. If you wish
to receive confirmation that your comments were received, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the comments. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy
Act Statement in the Federal Register was published on April 11, 2000
(65 FR 19477-78).
    You may view documents submitted to a docket at the address and
times given above. You may also view the documents on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by following the online instructions for
accessing the dockets available at that Web site.
    The petition, supporting materials, and all comments received
before the close of business on the closing date indicated below will
be filed and will be considered. All comments and supporting materials
received after the closing date will also be filed and will be
considered to the extent possible. When the petition is granted or
denied, notice of the decision will be published in the Federal
Register pursuant to the authority indicated below.
    Dates: Comment closing date: May 7, 2010.

    Authority: (49 U.S.C. 30118, 30120: delegations of authority at
CFR 1.50 and 501.8).

    Issued on: April 1, 2010.
Claude H. Harris,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2010-7870 Filed 4-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 52 (Monday, March 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16756-16757]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06050]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) Dangerous
Goods Panel; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In preparation for the International Civil Aviation
Organization's (ICAO) Dangerous Goods Panel's (DGP's) Spring Working
Group to be held April 15-19, 2013, in Montreal, Canada, the FAA's
Office of Hazardous Materials Safety and the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) Office of Hazardous Materials
Safety announce a public meeting.

DATES: The public meeting will be held on April 8, 2013 from 10:00 a.m.
until 12:00 p.m. (EDT).

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held at FAA Headquarters (FOB
10A), Bessie Coleman Conference Center, 2nd Floor, 800 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591.
    Participants are requested to register by using the following email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Please include your name, organization, email address, and whether
you will be attending in person or participating via conference call.
Conference call connection information will be provided to those who
register and indicate that they will participate via conference call.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding the meeting should
be directed to Ms. Janet McLaughlin, Deputy Director, Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety, ADG-2, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 385-
4900. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    We are committed to providing equal access to this meeting for all
participants. If you need alternative formats or other reasonable
accommodations, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with your request by close of business on April 1st.

Purpose of the Public Meeting

    Information and viewpoints provided by stakeholders are requested
as the United States delegation prepares for the International Civil
Aviation Organization's Dangerous Goods Panel's (ICAO DGP's) Working
Group of the

Whole 13. The agenda for the Working Group is as follows:

Agenda Item 1: Development of proposals, if necessary, for amendments
to Annex 18--The Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air
Agenda Item 2: Development of recommendations for amendments to the
Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air
(Doc 9284) for incorporation in the 2015-2016 Edition
    2.1: Part 1--General
    2.2: Part 2--Classification
    2.3: Part 3--Dangerous Goods List, Special Provisions and Limited
and Excepted Quantities
    2.4: Part 4--Packing Instructions
    2.5: Part 5--Shipper's Responsibilities
    2.6: Part 6--Packaging Nomenclature, Marking, Requirements and
Tests
    2.7: Part 7--Operator's Responsibilities
    2.8: Part 8--Provisions Concerning Passengers and Crew
Agenda Item 3: Development of recommendations for amendments to the
Supplement to the Technical Instructions for the Safe Transport of
Dangerous Goods by Air (Doc 9284SU) for incorporation in the 2015-2016
Edition
Agenda Item 4: Development of recommendations for amendments to the
Emergency Response Guidance for Aircraft Incidents involving Dangerous
Goods (Doc 9481) for incorporation in the 2015-2016 Edition
Agenda Item 5: Review of provisions for the transport of lithium
batteries including:
    5.1: Improved hazard communication for energy storage devices
    5.2: Simplification and clarification of provisions
    5.3: Development of guidance material
    5.4: Monitoring activities in States including the sharing of
knowledge and information, training programmes, and outreach activities
Agenda Item 6: Resolution, where possible, of the non-recurrent work
items identified by Air Navigation Commission or the Dangerous Goods
Panel:
    6.1: Dangerous incident and accident data collection
    6.2: Dangerous goods requirements in Annex 6--Operation of Aircraft
    6.3: Development of guidance material on countering the potential
use of dangerous goods in an act of unlawful interference
    6.4: Development of performance standards for air operators and
designated postal operators
Agenda Item 7: Other business

    Papers relevant to these agenda items can be viewed at the
following Web page: http://www.icao.int/safety/DangerousGoods/Pages/DGP.aspx.

Public Meeting Procedures

    A panel of representatives from the FAA and PHMSA will be present.
The meetings are intended to be informal, non-adversarial, and to
facilitate the public comment process. No individual will be subject to
questioning by any other participant. Government representatives on the
panel may ask questions to clarify statements. Unless otherwise stated,
any statement made during the meetings by a panel member should not be
construed as an official position of the US government.
    The meeting will be open to all persons, subject to the capacity of
the meeting room and phone lines available for those participating via
conference call. Every effort will be made to accommodate all persons
wishing to attend. The FAA and PHMSA will try to accommodate all
speakers, subject to time constraints.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 12, 2013.
Christopher Glasow,
Director, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety.
[FR Doc. 2013-06050 Filed 3-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 206 (Thursday, October 26, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 49636]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23302]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2017-0953]

Information Collection Request to Office of Management and
Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0029

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Sixty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of
its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0029,
Self-propelled Liquefied Gas Vessels; without change. Our ICR describes
the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting
this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described
below.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before December 26,
2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2017-0953] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public
participation and request for comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-612), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2703 Martin Luther King, Jr. Ave. SE., STOP 7710, Washington, DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be
granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection;
(3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information
subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the
Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. In response to
your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an
extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments
and material received during the comment period.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of
the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2017-0953], and
must be received by December 26, 2017.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).

Information Collection Request

    Title: Self-propelled Liquefied Gas Vessels.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0029.
    Summary: The information is needed to ensure compliance with our
rules for the design and operation of liquefied gas carriers.
    Need: Title 46 U.S.C. 3703 and 9101 authorizes the Coast Guard to
establish regulations to protect life, property, and the environment
from the hazards associated with the carriage of dangerous liquid cargo
in bulk. Title 46 CFR part 154 prescribes the rules for the carriage of
liquefied gases in bulk on self-propelled vessels by governing the
design, construction, equipment, and operation of these vessels and the
safety of personnel aboard them.
    Forms: None.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of self-propelled vessels
carrying liquefied gas.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 7,890
hours to 8,169 hours a year due to an increase in the estimated number
of respondents.

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

    Dated: October 16, 2017.
James D. Roppel,
U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Chief, Office of Information Management.
[FR Doc. 2017-23302 Filed 10-25-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 68415]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28100]

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

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

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2010 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0606; Airspace Docket No. 10-ACE-8]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Kennett, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace for Kennett, MO.
Decommissioning of the Kennett non-directional beacon (NDB) at Kennett
Memorial Airport, Kennett, MO, has made this action necessary to
enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR)
operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, January 13, 2011. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On August 18, 2010, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Class E airspace for Kennett,
MO, reconfiguring controlled airspace at Kennett Memorial Airport (75
FR 50948) Docket No. FAA-2010-0606. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace
designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9U dated
August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface for standard instrument approach procedures at
Kennett Memorial Airport, Kennett, MO. Decommissioning of the Kennett
NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach has made it necessary to
reconfigure the airspace to within a 6.6-mile radius of the airport for
the safety and management of IFR operations. The FAA has determined
that this regulation only involves an established body of technical
regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to
keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not
a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is
not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at Kennett Memorial Airport, Kennett,
MO.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9U, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15,
2010 is amended as follows:
* * * * *

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface.

* * * * *

ACE MO E5 Kennett, MO [Amended]

Kennett Memorial Airport, MO
    (Lat. 36[deg]13'33'' N., long. 90[deg]02'12'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Kennett Memorial Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on October 26, 2010.
Anthony D. Roetzel,
Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2010-28100 Filed 11-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 71261]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27150]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12766-000]

Green Mountain Power Corporation; Notice of Authorization for
Continued Project Operation

    On November 22, 2019, Green Mountain Power Corporation, licensee
for the Clay Hill Road Line 66 Transmission Project No.12766, filed an
Application for a New License for the project pursuant to the Federal
Power Act (FPA) and the Commission's regulations thereunder. The Clay
Hill Road Line 66 Transmission Line Project is located along Clay Hill
Road in Windsor County, Vermont.
    The license for Project No. 12766 was issued for a period ending
November 30, 2021. Section 15(a)(1) of the FPA, 16 U.S.C. 808(a)(1),
requires the Commission, at the expiration of a license term, to issue
from year-to-year an annual license to the then licensee(s) under the
terms and conditions of the prior license until a new license is
issued, or the project is otherwise disposed of as provided in section
15 or any other applicable section of the FPA. If the project's prior
license waived the applicability of section 15 of the FPA, then, based
on section 9(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 558(c),
and as set forth at 18 CFR 16.21(a), if the licensee of such project
has filed an application for a subsequent license, the licensee may
continue to operate the project in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the license after the minor or minor part license
expires, until the Commission acts on its application. If the licensee
of such a project has not filed an application for a subsequent
license, then it may be required, pursuant to 18 CFR 16.21(b), to
continue project operations until the Commission issues someone else a
license for the project or otherwise orders disposition of the project.
    If the project is subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that an annual license for Project No. 12766 is issued to
Green Mountain Power Corporation, for a period effective December 1,
2021 through November 30, 2022, or until the issuance of a new license
for the project or other disposition under the FPA, whichever comes
first. If issuance of a new license (or other disposition) does not
take place on or before November 30, 2022, notice is hereby given that,
pursuant to 18 CFR 16.18(c), an annual license under section 15(a)(1)
of the FPA is renewed automatically without further order or notice by
the Commission, unless the Commission orders otherwise.
    If the project is not subject to section 15 of the FPA, notice is
hereby given that Green Mountain Power Corporation is authorized to
continue operation of the Clay Hill Road Line 66 Transmission Line
Project, until such time as the Commission acts on its application for
a new major license.

    Dated: December 9, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-27150 Filed 12-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 18546]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7854]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice Announcing Filing Priority for Preliminary Permit
Applications

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Project
                                                                  No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLVI...............................   13734-000
FFP Missouri 17, LLC........................................    3754-000
Solia 3 Hydroelectric, LLC..................................   13765-000
Three Rivers Hydro LLC......................................   13783-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 24, 2011, the Commission held a drawing to determine
priority among competing preliminary permit applications with identical
filing times. In the event that the Commission concludes that none of
the applicants' plans are better adapted than the others to develop,
conserve, and utilize in the public interest the water resources of the
region at issue, the priority established by this drawing will serve as
the tiebreaker. Based on the drawing, the order of priority is as
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Project
                                                                  No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLVI............................   13734-000
2. Three Rivers Hydro LLC...................................   13783-000
3. Solia 3 Hydroelectric, LLC...............................   13765-000
4. FFP Missouri 17, LLC.....................................   13754-000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: March 25, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-7854 Filed 4-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 27, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 142)]
[Notices]
[Page 37027-37028]
[DOCID:fr27jy09-37]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

July 20, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER98-4289-007.
    Applicants: Montana-Dakota Utilities Company.
    Description: Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. submits amended tariff
sheets, FERC Electric Tariff 1st Revised Volume 2, etc.
    Filed Date: 07/16/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090716-0086.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 6, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER99-3151-013.
    Applicants: PSEG Energy Resources & Trade LLC.
    Description: Public Service Electric and Gas Company et al submits
Substitute Fourth Revised Sheet 3 et al to FERC Electric Tariff,
Original Volume 1, effective 6/1/09.
    Filed Date: 07/15/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090716-0073.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 5, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER01-316-033.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. submits Index of Customers for
the second quarter of 2009 under the ISO's FERC Tariff for Transmission
Dispatch and Power Administration Services.
    Filed Date: 07/15/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090716-0070.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 5, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-889-002.
    Applicants: City Of Dover Delaware.
    Description: City of Dover submits Original Sheet 1 to Rate
Schedule FERC 1.
    Filed Date: 07/16/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090717-0036.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 6, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1359-001.
    Applicants: PECO Energy Company.
    Description: PECO Energy Company submits missing pages 2 and 3 of
the Transmission Facilities Agreement.
    Filed Date: 07/15/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090716-0046.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 5, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1450-000.
    Applicants: Energy Productivity Services Inc.
    Description: Energy Productivity Services, Inc. submits FERC
Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 07/16/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090717-0022.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 6, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1453-000.
    Applicants: Gateway Energy Services Corporation.
    Description: Getaway Energy Services Corporation submits the
Petition for Acceptance of Initial Tariff, Waivers and Blanket
Authorization submitted by Gateway.
    Filed Date: 07/16/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090716-0085.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 6, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1454-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc.
    Description: ISO New England Inc. submits State Certification of
the Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control.
    Filed Date: 07/15/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090716-0071.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 5, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1455-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits executed
interconnection service agreement among PJM, AES Fox Wind, LLC, and
Pennsylvania Electric Company.
    Filed Date: 07/15/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090716-0072.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 5, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1356-000.
    Applicants: Grand Ridge Energy LL.
    Description: Supplement to Filing of Assignment, Co-Tenancy and
Shared Facilities Agreement and Request for Waivers of the Grand Ridge
Companies under ER09-1356, et al.
    Filed Date: 07/16/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090716-5099.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 6, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1450-000.
    Applicants: Energy Productivity Services Inc.
    Description: Energy Productivity Services, Inc submits FERC
Electric Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 07/16/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090717-0022.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 6, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1453-000.
    Applicants: Gateway Energy Services Corporation.
    Description: Getaway Energy Services Corporation submits the
Petition for Acceptance of Initial Tariff, Waivers and Blanket
Authorization submitted by Gateway.
    Filed Date: 07/16/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090716-0085.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 6, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1456-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Company submits a Small
Generator Interconnection Agreement and a Service Agreement for
Wholesale Distribution Service etc.
    Filed Date: 07/16/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090716-0084.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 6, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1457-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits notices of
cancellation for six Network Integration Transmission Service
Agreements and the corresponding Network Operating Agreements.
    Filed Date: 07/16/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090717-0034.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 6, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-1458-000; ER09-1459-000; ER09-1460-000; ER09-
1461-000.
    Applicants: WPS Canada Generation, Inc.; Integrys Energy Services,
Inc.; WPS

Westwood Generation, LLC; WPS New England Generation, Inc.
    Description: Integrys Energy Services, Inc et al submits revised
cover sheets cancelling several inter-affiliate market based rate
service agreements and a brokering and dispatch agreement under ER09-
1458 et al.
    Filed Date: 07/16/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090717-0035.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, August 6, 2009.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-17759 Filed 7-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 15, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 31)]
[Notices]
[Page 8006]
[DOCID:fr15fe06-134]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

    Extension:
    Rule 15Aj-1; SEC File No. 270-25; OMB Control No. 3235-0044.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget requests for extension of the previously approved
collections of information discussed below.
    Rule 15Aj-1 implements the requirements of Sections 15A, 17, and 19
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by requiring every association
registered as, or applying for registration as, a national securities
association or as an affiliated securities association to keep its
registration statement up-to-date by making periodic filings with the
Commission on Form X-15AJ-1 and Form X-15AJ-2.
    Rule 15Aj-1 requires a securities association to promptly notify
the Commission after the discovery of any inaccuracy in its
registration statement or in any amendment or supplement thereto by
filing an amendment to its registration statement on Form X-15AJ-1
correcting such inaccuracy. The Rule also requires an association to
promptly notify the Commission of any change which renders no longer
accurate any information contained or incorporated in its registration
statement or in any amendment or supplement thereto by filing a current
supplement on Form X-15AJ-1. Rule 15A-1 further requires an association
to file each year with the Commission an annual consolidated supplement
on Form X-15AJ-2.
    The information required by Rule 15Aj-1 and Forms X-15AJ-1 and X-
15AJ-2 is intended to enable the Commission to carry out its
statutorily mandated oversight functions and to assure that registered
securities associations are in compliance with the Act. This
information is also made available to members of the public. Without
the requirements imposed by the Rule, the Commission would be unable to
fulfill its regulatory responsibilities.
    There is presently only one registered securities association,
which registered in 1939, subject to the Rule. The burdens associated
with Rule 15Aj-1 requirements have been borne by only one securities
association since Rule 15Aj-1 was adopted. Furthermore, the burdens
associated with Rule 15Aj-1 vary depending on whether amendments and
current supplements are filed on Form X-15AJ-1 in addition to an annual
consolidated supplement filed on Form X-15AJ-2. The Commission staff
estimates the burden hours necessary to comply with the Rule by filing
an amendment or a current supplement on Form X-15AJ-1 to be
approximately one-half hour, with a related cost of $11, per response.
The Commission staff estimates the burden hours necessary to comply
with the Rule by filing an annual consolidated supplement on Form X-
15AJ-2 to be approximately three hours, with a related cost of $90.
Therefore, the Commission staff estimates that the total annual related
reporting cost associated with the Rule to be upwards of $90, assuming
a minimum filing of an annual consolidated statement on Form X-15AJ-2,
with additional filings on Form X-15AJ-1 correspondingly increasing
such reporting cost.
    Compliance with Rule 15Aj-1 is mandatory. Information received in
response to Rule 15Aj-1 shall not be kept confidential; the information
collected is public information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Written comments regarding the above information should be directed
to (i) the Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503
or by sending an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R.
Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Comments
must be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget within 30 days
of this notice.

     Dated: February 7, 2006.
J. Lynn Taylor,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-2101 Filed 2-14-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 164 (Monday, August 25, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50733-50735]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20140]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2012-0166; Notice 2]

Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Daimler AG, Denial of Petition for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of petition denial.

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

SUMMARY: Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA) on behalf of itself and its
parent company Daimler AG (DAG), has determined that certain model year
(MY) 2013 Mercedes-Benz GLK-Class (X204 platform) multipurpose
passenger vehicles (MPVs), do not fully comply with paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>
\1\ of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps,
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. MBUSA filed an
appropriate report dated October 9, 2012 pursuant to 49 CFR Part 573
Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility and Reports. MBUSA then filed a
petition for exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of
49 U.S.C. 30118 on the basis that the defect is inconsequential to
motor vehicle safety. We are denying this petition because we believe
that the noncompliant parking lamp is not inconsequential to motor
vehicles safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As published in the 2011 version of 49 CFR 571.108.

ADDRESSES: For further information on this decision contact Mike Cole,
Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(202) 366-5930.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    I. MBUSA's petition: Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h)
and the rule implementing those provisions at 49 CFR Part 556, MBUSA
has petitioned 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.
    Notice of receipt of the petition was published, with a 30-day
public comment period, on August 9, 2013, in the Federal Register (78
FR 448769). No comments were received. 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-2012-0166.''
    II. Vehicles involved: Affected are approximately 2,951 MY 2013
Mercedes-Benz GLK-Class (X204 platform) MPVs manufactured from January
1, 2012 through August 15, 2012.
    III. Noncompliance: MBUSA explains that the subject vehicles
contain parking lamps that exceed the maximum designated candlepower
output level provided in FMVSS No. 108 paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS>; id. Figure
1b (listing maximum candlepower value of 125 cd for parking lamps). Due
to a programming issue in the electronic control unit, the voltage in
the parking lamp circuit is 12.8 volts which is higher than the design
voltage specification of 7 volts in the affected vehicles. This higher
voltage causes the lamps to exceed the maximum value listed in FMVSS
No. 108.
    IV. Rule Text: Paragraph S<IP_ADDRESS> of FMVSS No. 108 requires in
pertinent part:

S<IP_ADDRESS> Instead of the photometric values specified in Table 1 of
SAE Standards J222 December 1970, or J585e September 1977, a parking
lamp or tail lamp, respectively, shall meet the minimum percentage
specified in Figure 1a of the corresponding minimum allowable value
specified in Figure 1b. The maximum candlepower output of a parking
lamp shall not exceed that prescribed in Figure 1b, or of a
taillamp, that prescribed in Figure 1b at H or above. If the sum of
the percentages of the minimum candlepower measured at the test
points is not less than that specified for each group listed in
Figure 1c, a parking lamp or taillamp is not required to meet the
minimum photometric value at each test point specified in SAE
Standards J222 or J585e respectively.

    V. Summary of MBUSA's Analyses: MBUSA stated its belief that the
subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety for
the following reasons:
    Although the parking lamps in the subject vehicles exceed the
candlepower limits of FMVSS No. 108, the level of brightness of the
lamps is very low. As explained below, to evaluate the impact on motor
vehicle safety in actual use, MBUSA analyzed the brightness of the
lamps in use and has confirmed that the potential exceedance is
minimal, and below the level perceptible to the human eye during night-
time driving operations which would be pertinent to determining
potential safety relevance.
    MBUSA claims that the agency should consider how the non-compliance
affects how drivers perceive the lower beam headlamp and the parking
lamp together at night because FMVSS No. 108 requires both lamps to be
illuminated at the same time. As noted above, the output limit for
parking lamps is 125 cd. The maximum output value for lower beam
headlamps is 1,000 cd at 0.5U--1.5L to L test points (0.5 degrees up
from the H-point and from 1.5 degrees left of the vertical centerline
to the end of the leftward measurements) and 700 cd for 1 U--1.5L to L
test points (1 degree up from the H-point and from 1.5 degrees left of
the vertical centerline to the end of the leftward measurements). See
FMVSS No. 108 paragraph S7.7; id. Figure 17-2 (photometric test point
values for lower beams). Thus, the maximum output for the combined
parking lamp and lower beam headlamp is 1,125 cd (125 cd + 1,000 cd)
for the 0.5U test points and 825 cd (125 cd + 700 cd) for the 1U test
points.
    MBUSA measured the output of the combined parking lamp and lower
beam headlamp on the subject vehicles using two different headlamp
samples. Two samples were used to evaluate the impact of normal part to
part production variations on light output. In order to provide a
complete overview of the brightness of the lights, measurements were
done every 10 cm on the two horizontal lines at 0.5U and 1U, from 20 to
100 cm from the vertical centerline to the left, measured at a distance
of 25 meters. (This is the same method used for certification testing
for lower beam headlamps.)
    With the first sample headlamp, all candlepower measurements were
below 1,125 cd (for the 0.5U test points) and below 825 cd (for the 1U
test points). Thus, for this headlamp, there were no exceedances of the
combined brightness standard. For the second headlamp, the candlepower
measurements were below 1,125 cd at all measurements for the 0.5U test
points, and below 825 cd for half of the 1U test point measurements.
The candlepower measurement was slightly above 825 cd (840-920 cd) for
five of the 1U test point measurements with the second headlight. Thus,
even the maximum measurement of 920 cd for the worst-case measurement
location is only 11% above the reference value

of 825 cd. Overall, the testing indicates that due to these normal
production variations in lower beam headlamps, in many cases, there
will be no exceedance of the combined parking lamp/lower beam headlamp
maximum candlepower, even with the parking lamp over-voltage. The
testing indicated that even in the worst-case measurement locations,
with the worst-case lower beam headlamp sample, there was the potential
for only an 11% exceedance of the combined lamp brightness, which is
below the human detection threshold.
    MBUSA is not aware of any incidents or customer complaints related
to the subject noncompliant parking lamps.
    MBUSA also notes that NHTSA has granted petitions (55FR37601 and
59FR65428) for non-compliance from the maximum intensity requirements
for other lamps required by FMVSS No. 108 in the past that MBUSA
believes are similar to this petition. Specifically, MBUSA cited 55 FR
37601 (incorrectly cited as 53 FR 37601) and 59 FR 65428.
    MBUSA has informed NHTSA that it has corrected the noncompliance so
that all future production vehicles will comply with FMVSS No. 108.
    In summation, MBUSA believes that the described noncompliance of
its vehicles is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety, and that its
petition, to exempt from providing recall notification of noncompliance
as required by 49 U.S.C. 30118 and remedying the recall noncompliance
as required by 49 U.S.C. 30120 should be granted.
    VI. NHTSA's Analysis of MBUSA's Arguments: NHTSA has reviewed
MBUSA's petition and has determined that the noncompliance is not
inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. The agency believes that the
noncompliant parking lamp will be noticeably brighter than a compliant
lamp and potentially glaring to oncoming drivers, and will mask to some
extent the output of the front turn signal lamps, and that this is
consequential to safety.
    MBUSA argues that if the parking lamp output were to be combined
with the lower beam headlamp output, then the combination would only
exceed the combined theoretical maximum photometry requirement by 11%
for the worst case scenario, and that this amount would be below the
human detection threshold. To support this assertion, MBUSA referenced
two prior inconsequentiality petitions that were granted when candela
values exceeded the maximum required values by less than 20% and 25%.
    Regarding MBUSA's reference to 55 FR 37601, this notice granted an
inconsequentiality petition to Hella Inc., for taillamps that exceeded
the maximum candlepower upwards of 20% at certain test points. Hella
argued that: (1) As installed on the vehicle, the taillamps are driven
by a lower voltage than the laboratory test voltage and would have a
photometric output less than that seen in NHTSA testing; (2) that
studies have established that the human eye cannot detect a change in
intensity unless it is more than a 25% increase or decrease; (3) that
the intensity of the lamps does not present a safety hazard because of
glare; and (4) that Hella was not aware of any complaints, accidents,
or injuries related to the noncompliance.
    Regarding MBUSA's reference to 59 FR 65428, this notice granted an
inconsequentiality petition to General Motors for center high mounted
stop lamps (CHMSLs) whose photometric output was partially obscured by
a painted section of glazing. In general, with the largest obscuration
and lowest performing lamps tested, the CHMSL output failed to meet the
minimum photometry requirements by less than 20%.
    In both cases, the agency agreed that because the photometric
output was within 20% of the required output at the individual test
points, that this was not discernable by the naked eye. In fact, the
agency stated that up to 25% is a reasonable criterion for use in
inconsequentiality decisions.
    We are aware of a University of Michigan Transportation Research
Institute (UMTRI) report titled ``Just Noticeable Differences for Low-
Beam Headlamp Intensities'' (UMTRI-97-4, February 1997). This report
concludes that drivers in oncoming vehicles will not notice differences
in the intensity of headlamps that are less than 25 percent. We
believe, however, that it would not be appropriate to use this study to
judge the merits of MBUSA's application. This is based on two factors.
    First, the study focuses only on the lower beam of a headlamp
system. The MBUSA vehicles do not comply with the parking lamp
photometry requirements. We cannot presume that a study which examines
light intensity associated with the lower beam mode would also apply to
the light intensity of a lower beam lamp in combination with a parking
lamp. Plus, a lower beam lamp in actual use is susceptible to poor
aiming and increased voltage which could increase the lower beam
intensity significantly and thus become its own source of glare to
oncoming drivers in addition to the noncompliant parking lamp.
    Second, the research finds that the just noticeable differences,
under controlled conditions, are between 11 and 19 percent. UMTRI
concludes that, in real world conditions, the just noticeable
differences would be somewhat larger due to the rather simple and
uncluttered environment of a controlled study. In a controlled study,
observers can devote much more attention to small differences due to
the lack of other distractions that are common during driving. This
leads UMTRI to conclude that 25 percent is a reasonable value upon
which to judge inconsequential noncompliance applications. However, we
have noticed in the many complaints received that consumers are very
aware of and sensitive to the glare produced by oncoming drivers'
headlamps. This public sensitivity leads us to believe that glare in
the ``real-world'' is not necessarily like that in laboratory studies.
Many of these complaints can be found at http://www.regulations.gov
(see dockets: NHTSA-1998-4820; NHTSA-2001-8885; and NHTSA-2002-13957).
This demonstrates that glare is of great significance to the public.
    Furthermore, the agency previously rejected the argument that other
lamps can compensate for noncompliant lamps in two denials of
inconsequentiality petitions to Nissan in 1997 (62 FR 63416) and GM in
2004 (69 FR 1778).
    We are also aware of a NHTSA sponsored study titled ``Driver
Perception of Just Noticeable Difference[s] in [of Automotive] Signal
Lamp Intensities.'' [DOT HS 808 209, September 1994] This study
demonstrated that a change in luminous intensity of 25 percent or less
is not noticeable by most drivers. In applying the just noticeable
differences research to the maximums of a parking lamp, 25% would
equate to 156cd (for the 125cd maximum requirement) or 312cd (for the
250cd maximum requirement).
    In this case, MBUSA did not provide the photometric data for the
noncompliant lamp. Rather, it combined the requirements of the parking
lamp and the lower beam headlamp to create a theoretical requirement,
and argues that the failure of the combined light output is less than
20% of the theoretical requirement. By combining the lower beam and
parking lamps to create a theoretical requirement, MBUSA appears to be
inflating the ``25%'' range that the agency would use to evaluate its
petition.
    To learn more about the performance of the noncompliant parking
lamp, the agency requested photometry data from

MBUSA. (the data provided by MBUSA is included in Docket NHTSA-2012-
0166) In reviewing the information, the data shows that the
noncompliant parking lamp exceeded the maximum photometric requirements
at 12 of 18 test points. The overages ranged from 16% to 504% with the
majority (7 out of 12) of failures being over 200%. As such, the actual
performance of the noncompliant parking lamps is far beyond what the
agency would consider to be within the range of the just noticeable
differences research and we believe that it will be noticeably brighter
than a compliant lamp and potentially glaring to oncoming drivers.
    Further, MBUSA did not provide any information regarding the
proximity of the noncompliant parking lamp to the front turn signal
lamp. FMVSS No. 108 requires that any front turn signal lamp that is
within a certain distance of any lamp (such as an auxiliary lower beam
or fog lamp used to supplement the lower beam headlamp), to meet higher
intensities in order to comply with the standard. For instance, if the
front turn signal lamp is within 60mm of the lighted edge of the
auxiliary lamp, then the turn signal must be 2.5 times brighter than
the ``base'' turn signal lamp photometric requirements. Other
requirements exist as well depending on the proximity of the turn
signal lamp to the lighted edge of the auxiliary lamp, however no
information was provided by the petitioner on the noncompliant lamp's
key relationship to other lamps for the agency to evaluate. Because the
performance of these noncompliant parking lamps approaches the
performance of a fog lamp and the close proximity of these lamps to the
front turn signal lamps, the agency is concerned that the noncompliant
parking lamp may mask the output of a ``base'' front turn signal lamp.
To address our concerns, the agency requested information regarding the
certification of the front turn signal lamps. MBUSA responded that the
front turn signal lamps were indeed certified to the base photometric
requirements.
    VII. NHTSA Decision: In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has
decided that MBUSA has not met its burden of persuasion and that the
noncompliance described is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.
Accordingly, MBUSA's petition is hereby denied, and MBUSA 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)

Nancy Lummen Lewis,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2014-20140 Filed 8-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 229 (Wednesday, November 27, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65398-65400]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25757]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2019-0862]

Port Access Route Study: Approaches to the Chesapeake Bay,
Virginia

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of study; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is conducting a Port Access Route Study (PARS)
to determine whether existing or additional vessel routing measures are
necessary in the approaches to the Chesapeake Bay, VA. This PARS will
consider whether existing or additional routing measures are necessary
to improve navigation safety due to factors such as planned or
potential offshore development, current port capabilities and planned
improvements, increased vessel traffic, changing vessel traffic
patterns, weather conditions, or navigational difficulty. Vessel
routing measures are measures aimed at reducing the risk of casualties
and include among others, traffic separation schemes, two-way routes,
recommended tracks, deep-water routes, precautionary areas, and areas
to be avoided. The recommendations of the study may lead to future
rulemakings or appropriate international agreements.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received on or before
January 27, 2020. Requests for a public meeting must be submitted on or
before December 27, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2019-0862 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
notice or study, call or email Mr. Jerry Barnes, Fifth Coast Guard
District (dpw), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Mr. Matt Creelman, Fifth Coast Guard
District (dpw), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this study by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.
    A. Submitting Comments: If you submit comments to the online public
docket, please include the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-
2019-0862), indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. We accept anonymous comments.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
and insert ``USCG-2019-0862'' in the ``search box.'' Click ``Search''
and then click ``Comment Now.'' We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period.
    B. Public Meetings: The Coast Guard may hold public meeting(s) if
there is sufficient public interest. You must submit a request for one
on or before December 27, 2019. You may submit your request for a
public meeting online via http://www.regulations.gov. Please explain
why you believe a public meeting would be beneficial. If we determine
that a public meeting would aid in the study, we will hold a meeting at
a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.
    C. Viewing Comments and Documents: To view the comments and
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
go to http://www.regulations.gov, click on the ``read comments'' box,
which will then become highlighted in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box
insert ``USCG-2019-0862'' and click ``Search.'' Click the

``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
    D. Privacy Act: We accept anonymous comments. All comments received
will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov and will
include any personal information you have provided. For more about
privacy and submissions in response to this document, see DHS's
Correspondence System of Records notice (84 FR 48645, September 26,
2018). Documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the
docket, and all public comments, will be in our online docket at
https://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that
website's instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket
and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are
posted or a final rule is published.

II. Background and Purpose

    A. Requirements for Port Access Route Studies: Under Section 70003
of title 46 of the United States Code, the Commandant of the Coast
Guard may designate necessary fairways and traffic separation schemes
(TSSs) to provide safe access routes for vessels proceeding to and from
U.S. ports. The designation of fairways and TSSs recognizes the
paramount right of navigation over all other uses in the designated
areas.
    Before establishing or adjusting fairways or TSSs, the Coast Guard
must conduct a PARS, i.e., a study of potential traffic density and the
need for safe access routes for vessels. Through the study process, the
Coast Guard must coordinate with Federal, State, and foreign state
agencies (as appropriate) and consider the views of maritime community
representatives, environmental groups, and other interested
stakeholders. The primary purpose of this coordination is, to the
extent practicable, to reconcile the need for safe access routes with
other reasonable waterway uses such as construction and operation of
renewable energy facilities and other uses of the Atlantic Ocean in the
study area.
    In addition to aiding the Coast Guard in establishing new or
adjusting fairways or TSSs, the PARS may recommend establishing or
amending other vessel routing measures. Examples of other routing
measures, among others, include two-way routes, recommended tracks,
deep-water routes (for the benefit primarily of ships whose ability to
maneuver is constrained by their draft), precautionary areas (where
ships must navigate with particular caution), and areas to be avoided
(for reasons of exceptional danger or especially sensitive ecological
and environmental factors).
    B. Previous Port Access Route Studies: The Coast Guard last studied
the approaches to the Chesapeake Bay, VA in 2002, and published the
final results in 2004 (69 FR 3869, January 27, 2004). The study was
conducted in response to the slow, continuous southward movement of the
Nautilus Shoal and primarily examined the location of the Eastern
Approach to determine a location that would better accommodate vessels.
Study available at https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/PARS/CHESAPEAKE_BAY_PARS.pdf.
    C. Need for a New Port Access Route Study: In 2016, the Coast Guard
published a notice of its Atlantic Coast Port Access Route Study
(ACPARS) (81 FR 13307, March 14, 2016) that analyzed the Atlantic Coast
waters seaward of existing port approaches within the U.S. Exclusive
Economic Zone and announced the report as final in 2017 (82 FR 16510,
April 5, 2017). This multiyear study, began in 2011, included public
participation, and identified the navigation routes customarily
followed by ships engaged in commerce between international and
domestic U.S. ports. Study available at https://navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=PARSReports.
    In 2019, the Coast Guard announced a new study of routes used by
ships to access ports on the Atlantic Coast of the United States (84 FR
9541, March 15, 2019). This new study of routes supplements and builds
on the ACPARS. As part of the study, the Coast Guard will conduct
several PARS to examine ports along the Atlantic coast that are
economically significant, support military operations or critical
national defense and related international entry and departure transit
areas that are integral to the safe and efficient and unimpeded flow of
commerce to/from major international shipping lanes.
    The purpose of this notice is to announce commencement of the PARS
to examine the approaches to the Chesapeake Bay, VA, in conjunction
with the implementation of recommendations of the ACPARS, and to
solicit public comments. We encourage you to participate in the study
process by submitting comments in response to this notice. Comments
should address impacts to navigation in the approaches to the
Chesapeake Bay resulting from factors such as planned or potential
offshore development, current port capabilities and planned
improvements, increased vessel traffic, changing vessel traffic
patterns, weather conditions, or navigational difficulty. Similar to
the ACPARS, the PARS will use AIS data and information from
stakeholders to identify and verify customary navigation routes as well
as potential conflicts involving alternative activities, such as wind
energy generation and offshore mineral exploitation and exploration.

III. Chesapeake Bay PARS: Timeline, Study Area, and Process

    The Fifth Coast Guard District and Coast Guard Sector Hampton Roads
will conduct this PARS. The study will commence upon publication of
this notice and may take 12 months or more to complete.
    The study area is described as an area bounded by a line connecting
the following geographic positions:

 38[deg]16' N, 71[deg]16' W;
 35[deg]19' N, 71[deg]16' W;
 35[deg]19' N, 75[deg]21' W;
 36[deg]56' N, 76[deg]03' N;
 38[deg]16' N, 75[deg]16' W.

    This area extends approximately 220 nautical miles seaward of the
Chesapeake Bay, between Ocean City, MD, and Cape Hatteras, NC. An
illustration showing the study area is available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES. Additionally, the study area is available
for viewing on the Mid-Atlantic Ocean Data Portal at http://portal.midatlanticocean.org/visualize/. See the ``Maritime'' portion of
the Data Layers section.
    The PARS will analyze navigation routes to/from the Chesapeake Bay,
VA, to the proposed fairways outlined in the ACPRS as well as
international routes to/from the United States. Current capabilities
and planned improvements to handle maritime conveyances will be
considered. Analyses will be conducted in accordance with COMDTINST
16003.2B, Marine Planning to Operate and Maintain the Marine
Transportation System (MTS) and Implement National Policy. Instruction
available at https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jul/10/2002155400/-1/-1/0/CI_16003_2B.PDF.
    We will publish the results of the PARS in the Federal Register. It
is possible that the study may validate the status quo (no additional
fairways or routing measures) and conclude that no changes are
necessary. It is also possible that the study may recommend one or more
changes to address navigational safety and the efficiency of vessel
traffic management. The recommendations may lead to future rulemakings
or appropriate international agreements.
    This notice is published under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).

    Dated: November 21, 2019.
Keith M. Smith,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2019-25757 Filed 11-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P