[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 192 (Friday, October 2, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62365-62367]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21835]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0094; Notice 2]

Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Grant of Petition for Decision
of Inconsequential Noncompliance

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

ACTION: Grant of petition.

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

SUMMARY: Porsche Cars North America, Inc. has determined that certain
model year (MY) 2018 Porsche 911 GT3 motor vehicles do not fully comply
with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 108, Lamps,
Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. Porsche filed a
noncompliance report dated July 24, 2019. Porsche subsequently
petitioned NHTSA on August 20, 2019, for a decision that the subject
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
This document announces the grant of Porsche's petition for
inconsequential noncompliance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leroy Angeles, Office of Vehicle
Safety Compliance, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA), telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Overview

    Porsche has determined that certain MY 2018 Porsche 911 GT3 motor
vehicles do not fully comply with Paragraph S8.1.4 and Table I-a of
FMVSS No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment. (49
CFR 571.108). Porsche filed a noncompliance report dated July 24, 2019,
pursuant to 49 CFR part 573, Defect and Noncompliance Responsibility
and Reports. Porsche subsequently petitioned NHTSA on August 20, 2019,
for an exemption from the notification and remedy requirements of 49
U.S.C. Chapter 301 on the basis that this noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety, pursuant to 49
U.S.C. 30118(d) and 30120(h) and 49 CFR part 556, Exemption for
Inconsequential Defect or Noncompliance.
    Notice of receipt of Porsche's petition was published with a 30-day
public comment period, on January 3, 2020, in the Federal Register (85
FR 412). No comments were received. To view the petition and all
supporting documents log onto the Federal Docket Management System
(FDMS) website at https://www.regulations.gov/. Then follow the online
search instructions to locate docket number ``NHTSA-2019-0094.''

II. Vehicles Involved

    Approximately 2,610 MY 2018 Porsche 911 GT3 motor vehicles,
manufactured between August 30, 2017, and December 21, 2018, are
potentially involved.

III. Noncompliance

    Porsche explains that the noncompliance is that the subject
vehicles are equipped with rear reflex reflectors that do not meet the
height requirements as specified in paragraph S8.1.4 and Table I-a of
FMVSS No. 108. Specifically, the rear reflex reflectors are mounted
approximately 0.20 inches below the required 15 inches above the road
surface. The actual height above the road surface is approximately 14.8
inches.

IV. Rule Requirements

    Paragraph S8.1.4 and Table I-a of FMVSS No. 108 includes the
requirements relevant to this petition. The reflective devices should
not be mounted less than 15 inches and no more than 60 inches in
height.

V. Summary of Porsche's Petition

    The following views and arguments presented in this section are the
views and arguments provided by Porsche. They do not reflect the views
of the Agency.
    Porsche described the subject noncompliance and stated that the
noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
    Porsche submitted the following views and arguments in support of
its petition: \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Docket Number ``NHTSA-2019-0094-001''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. The installation height requirements of reflex reflectors as
defined by paragraph S8.1.4 of FMVSS No. 108 are intended to assure a
sufficient luminous intensity of the reflex reflectors towards the
source of illumination. Although the rear reflex reflectors'
installation height falls slightly below the specified minimum height
by 0.20 inches (5 mm), Porsche has confirmed that the rear reflex
reflectors meet or exceed all applicable FMVSS requirements regarding
the luminous intensity performance as stated under Sec.  571.108, S14
and all other relevant requirements of FMVSS No. 108 of paragraphs S8.1
and S8.2. Porsche provided a copy of the photometric test results for
the rear reflex reflectors, which Porsche believes shows that the
installation height does not affect the performance of the luminous
intensity of the rear reflex reflectors or the visibility of the
subject vehicles.
    2. Porsche is unaware of any accidents, injuries, warranty claims
or customer complaints related to the slight shortfall of the rear
reflex reflectors' installation height. The absence of indicant data
supports the conclusion that the minimal deviation in mounting height
does not affect the performance of the rear reflectors or the
visibility of the subject vehicles.
    3. Porsche notes that NHTSA has previously granted a similar
petition.\2\ In that petition, Harley-Davidson Motor Company, Inc.
described the noncompliance with FMVSS No. 108 where the rear reflex
reflectors were mounted an average of 0.3 inches to 0.7 inches below
the required 15-inch height. NHTSA determined that this noncompliance,
where the deviation from the specified height was even greater than in
the present case, was inconsequential to motor vehicle safety based
primarily on the lack of reduction in conspicuity as compared to
compliant vehicles. Porsche suggests that its noncompliant vehicles are
also equally conspicuous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 79 FR 69558, November 21, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. The purpose of the FMVSS No. 108 reflex reflector requirement is
to prevent crashes by permitting early detection of an unlighted motor
vehicle at an intersection or when parked on or by the side of the
road, and the height requirement is intended ``to ensure adequate
reflex reflector performance

relative to headlamps that would illuminate them.'' \3\ Porsche stated
that the photometry performance of the reflex reflectors in the subject
vehicles well exceeds the minimum performance standards outlined in
FMVSS No. 108, Table XVI. Based on the photometry performance of the
reflectors in the subject vehicles, and the fact that the vehicles meet
or exceed the requirements of paragraphs S8.l and S8.2 of FMVSS No.
108, with regard to reflection performance, Porsche believes the
vehicles satisfy the safety objectives of the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 82 FR 24204, May 25, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. The noncompliance issue has been corrected in production
vehicles and all vehicles currently being produced meet applicable
mounting height requirements.
    6. The mounting height of the reflex reflectors complies with the
minimum height requirements of the United Nations ECE regulations.
Those regulations specify a minimum mounting height of 250 mm (9.84
inches) for rear retro-reflectors. See UN R48, Sec.  <IP_ADDRESS>. The
reflex reflectors in the subject Porsche vehicles, with a mounting
height of 14.8 inches, are well within this requirement.
    Porsche concluded that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential
as it relates to motor vehicle safety and that its petition, to be
exempted from providing notification of the noncompliance, as required
by 49 U.S.C. 30118, and a remedy for the noncompliance, as required by
49 U.S.C. 30120, should be granted.
    In response to a request from NHTSA for clarification, Porsche
specified the dimensions of the noncompliant reflex reflector as being
110.119 mm by 35.375mm (4.34 by 1.39 inches). Porsche also clarified
that the 0.2-inch deviation from the minimum required mounting height
is relative to the ``center of the item'' (centroid of the functional
reflective area). Porsche also provided a PowerPoint presentation that
included detailed test data which showed the results of several
photometric analyses performed on the subject reflex reflectors which
included partially masking the reflex reflector to artificially shift
the centroid thereby raising the mounting height.

VI. NHTSA's Analysis

    The primary function of a reflex reflector is to reduce crashes by
permitting early detection of a motor vehicle that is approaching an
intersection or parked by the side of the road. While NHTSA recognizes
the importance of this function to safety, each petition is evaluated
on its own merits. In some cases, the marginal nature of a
noncompliance might be one factor in analyzing if a noncompliance is
inconsequential to safety. In this case, Porsche showed the results of
several photometric analyses performed on the subject reflex reflectors
which included partially masking the reflex reflector to shift its
mounting center. The test data showed passing photometric results when
the photometric performance of the reflex reflector was measured for
all partially masked scenarios which set the center point at or above
the minimum required 15 inches. Given the specific circumstances of
this case, the Agency finds the petitioner's study helpful in assessing
the safety risk of this non-compliance. NHTSA has concluded that the
test data provided by Porsche is sufficient to grant this petition. The
purpose of the mounting height is to aid in the visibility of the
reflex reflector from other road users' line of sight. While the
centroid of the reflex reflector is mounted below the minimum height,
the size of the subject reflex reflector is large enough to ensure that
there is a sufficient surface area of the reflex reflector above the
minimum required height to meet the photometry requirements by more
than double the minimum requirement. Thus, the size of the reflex
reflector compensates for its mounting height and achieves the safety
need to aid in visibility.
    Porsche additionally cited a prior NHTSA ruling for a similar
noncompliance granting inconsequentiality to Harley-Davidson Motor
Company, Inc. for a reflex reflector mounted at an average of 0.3'' to
0.7'' below the required 15'' height.\4\ See 79 FR 69558, November 21,
2014. The aforementioned petition concerned a similar noncompliance for
a reflex reflector that was mounted 0.3'' to 0.7'' below the minimum
mounting height vs 0.2''. NHTSA believes Porsche has provided
compelling information supporting the grant of its petition.
Specifically, we found Porsche's analysis by masking a portion of the
reflex reflector to demonstrate the performance of the remaining
unmasked portion of the reflex reflector that met the mounting height
requirement especially compelling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 79 FR 69558, November 21, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that the noncompliance at issue concerns a failure to meet
a performance requirement. The burden of establishing the
inconsequentiality of a failure to comply with a performance
requirement in a standard--as opposed to a labeling requirement--is
more substantial and difficult to meet. Accordingly, the Agency has not
found many such noncompliances inconsequential.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Cf. Gen. Motors Corporation; Ruling on Petition for
Determination of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19899
(Apr. 14, 2004) (citing prior cases where noncompliance was expected
to be imperceptible, or nearly so, to vehicle occupants or
approaching drivers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An important issue to consider in determining inconsequentiality
based upon NHTSA's prior decisions on noncompliance issues was the
safety risk to individuals who experience the type of event against
which the recall would otherwise protect.\6\ NHTSA also does not
consider the absence of complaints or injuries to show that the issue
is inconsequential to safety. ``Most importantly, the absence of a
complaint does not mean there have not been any safety issues, nor does
it mean that there will not be safety issues in the future.'' \7\
``[T]he fact that in past reported cases good luck and swift reaction
have prevented many serious injuries does not mean that good luck will
continue to work.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Gen. Motors, LLC; Grant of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 78 FR 35355 (June 12, 2013) (finding
noncompliance had no effect on occupant safety because it had no
effect on the proper operation of the occupant classification system
and the correct deployment of an air bag); Osram Sylvania Prods.
Inc.; Grant of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 78 FR 46000 (July 30, 2013) (finding occupant using
noncompliant light source would not be exposed to significantly
greater risk than occupant using similar compliant light source).
    \7\ Morgan 3 Wheeler Limited; Denial of Petition for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663, 21666 (Apr. 12, 2016).
    \8\ United States v. Gen. Motors Corp., 565 F.2d 754, 759 (D.C.
Cir. 1977) (finding defect poses an unreasonable risk when it
``results in hazards as potentially dangerous as sudden engine fire,
and where there is no dispute that at least some such hazards, in
this case fires, can definitely be expected to occur in the
future'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Arguments that only a small number of vehicles or items of motor
vehicle equipment are affected have also not justified granting an
inconsequentiality petition.\9\ Similarly, NHTSA has rejected petitions
based on the assertion that only a small percentage of vehicles or
items of equipment are likely to

actually exhibit a noncompliance. The percentage of potential occupants
that could be adversely affected by a noncompliance does not determine
the question of inconsequentiality. Rather, the issue to consider is
the consequence to an occupant who is exposed to the consequence of
that noncompliance.\10\ These considerations are also relevant when
considering whether a defect is inconsequential to motor vehicle
safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Mercedes-Benz, U.S.A., L.L.C.; Denial of Application for
Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 66 FR 38342 (July 23,
2001) (rejecting argument that noncompliance was inconsequential
because of the small number of vehicles affected); Aston Martin
Lagonda Ltd.; Denial of Petition for Decision of Inconsequential
Noncompliance, 81 FR 41370 (June 24, 2016) (noting that situations
involving individuals trapped in motor vehicles--while infrequent--
are consequential to safety); Morgan 3 Wheeler Ltd.; Denial of
Petition for Decision of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 81 FR 21663,
21664 (Apr. 12, 2016) (rejecting argument that petition should be
granted because the vehicle was produced in very low numbers and
likely to be operated on a limited basis).
    \10\ See Gen. Motors Corp.; Ruling on Petition for Determination
of Inconsequential Noncompliance, 69 FR 19897, 19900 (Apr. 14,
2004); Cosco Inc.; Denial of Application for Decision of
Inconsequential Noncompliance, 64 FR 29408, 29409 (June 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. NHTSA's Decision

    In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA finds that Porsche has met
its burden of persuasion that the FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is
inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly,
Porsche's petition is hereby granted and Porsche is exempted from the
obligation to provide notification of and remedy for the subject
noncompliance in the affected vehicles under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.
    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, the granting of
this petition only applies to the subject vehicles that Porsche no
longer controlled at the time it determined that the noncompliance
existed. However, this decision does not relieve vehicle distributors
and dealers of the prohibitions on the sale, offer for sale, or
introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of
the noncompliant vehicles under their control after Porsche notified
them that the subject noncompliance existed.

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

Otto G. Matheke III,
Director, Office of Vehicle Safety Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2020-21835 Filed 10-1-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6607-6608]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01266]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1666]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard
determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any
Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the
supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities
listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek
general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and
where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and
FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the
community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in
effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, the FIRM and FIS
report, once effective, will be used by insurance agents and others to
calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings
and the contents of those buildings.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before January 19, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the tables below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1666, to
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering
Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA,
400 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and also are used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS
report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b)
is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
become effective.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.
    The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables
below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each
community are available for inspection at both the online location and
the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables.
For communities with multiple ongoing Preliminary studies, the studies
can be identified by the unique project number and Preliminary FIRM
date listed in the tables. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and
FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA
Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: December 21, 2016.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Community map repository
               Community                             address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Wateree Watershed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Maps Available for Inspection Online at:  http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Fairfield County, South Carolina and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Fairfield        Fairfield County Planning,
 County.                                  Building and Zoning
                                          Department, 117 South Congress
                                          Street, Winnsboro, SC 29180.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Kershaw County, South Carolina and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Camden.........................  City Hall, Building and Zoning
                                          Department, 1000 Lyttleton
                                          Street, Camden, SC 29020.
Unincorporated Areas of Kershaw County.  Kershaw County Government
                                          Center, Planning and Zoning
                                          Department, 515 Walnut Street,
                                          Camden, SC 29020.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Lancaster County, South Carolina and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unincorporated Areas of Lancaster        Lancaster County Administration
 County.                                  Building, Zoning Department,
                                          101 North Main Street,
                                          Lancaster, SC 29720.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Sumter County, South Carolina and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Sumter.........................  The Liberty Center, City-County
                                          Planning Department, 12 West
                                          Liberty Street, Sumter, SC
                                          29150.
Unincorporated Areas of Sumter County..  The Liberty Center, Sumter City-
                                          County Planning Department, 12
                                          West Liberty Street, Sumter,
                                          SC 29150.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-01266 Filed 1-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


                                  Appendix F

   1. Maine Workplace Safety and Health Division Organizational Chart
   2. Workplace Safety and Health Director Job Description
   3. Workplace Safety and Health Manager Job Description
   4. Occupational Safety Engineer Job Description
   5. Occupational Health Specialist Job Description
   6. Office Associate Job Description
   7. Maine Human Resources Policy and Practices Manual: Merit Principles
   8. Maine Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Policy Statement


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 73 (Monday, April 17, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23349-23350]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08040]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 105

[Docket No. USCG-2023-0265]

Transportation Worker Identification Credential--Facility Reader
Requirement; Conforming Amendment

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule; conforming amendments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending its Risk Group A facility
regulations so that their provisions to implement Transportation Worker
Identification Credential (TWIC) electronic inspection requirements by
May 8, 2023, is changed to May 8, 2026. This will revise our
regulations to conform with recently passed legislation. The James M.
Inhofe National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023
(Authorization Act) was enacted December 23, 2022. A provision within
the Authorization Act directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to not
implement TWIC reader regulations for certain facilities before May 8,
2026. This conforming amendment will have no substantive effect.
Controlling statutory authority already nullifies the May 8, 2023,
implementing dates in our regulations. We note there is a separate
ongoing rulemaking to address whether the implementation date should
remain May 8, 2026, or be moved to a later date. The Authorization Act
was enacted after the Coast Guard published the proposed rule for that
separate rulemaking.

DATES: This final rule is effective April 17, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this document or
technical inquiries, call or email Lieutenant William Gasperetti, U.S.
Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
[email protected]. General information and press inquiries:
Contact Chief Warrant Officer 3 Kurt Fredrickson, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 23, 2016, the Coast Guard
published the Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)--
Reader Requirements final rule (81 FR 57652). Among other things, it
added 33 CFR 105.253 to 33 CFR part 105. Section 105.253 identifies
certain facilities as being in Risk Group A. And Sec.  105.255 imposes
certain electronic TWIC inspection requirements for facilities in Risk
Group A.
    The Coast Guard last amended the list of facilities in Risk Group A
in 2020 through the TWIC--Reader Requirements; Delay of Effective Date
final rule (85 FR 13493, March 9, 2020). That rule expanded the
categories of facilities in Risk Group A and inserted implementation
dates for each category. The facilities identified in Sec.
105.253(a)(2) through (4) were given a May 8, 2023, implementation
date. And those same three categories of facilities correspond to what
are called ``covered facilities'' in Sec. 11804 of the Authorization
Act that was enacted December 23, 2022 (Pub. L. 117-263, 136 Stat
2395).
    The Authorization Act directs the Secretary not to implement the
2016 TWIC Reader Requirements rule ``for covered facilities before May
8, 2026.'' The Authorization Act identifies covered facilities as:
     Facilities that handle Certain Dangerous Cargoes in bulk
and transfer such cargoes from or to a vessel;
     Facilities that handle Certain Dangerous Cargoes in bulk,
but do not transfer it from or to a vessel; and
     Facilities that receive vessels carrying Certain Dangerous
Cargoes in bulk but, during the vessel-to-facility interface, do not
transfer it from or to the vessel.
    And these three categories are identical to facilities identified
in paragraphs (a)(2) through (4) of 33 CFR 105.253, a section
established by the 2016 TWIC Reader rule and amended by the 2020 Reader
Delay rule. This rule changes the implementation date in those three
paragraphs from May 8, 2023, to May 8, 2026, thereby conforming these
regulations with the Authorization Act.
    This conforming amendment to 33 CFR 105.253 will have no
substantive effect. The controlling statutory authority enacted
December 23, 2022, has nullified the May 8, 2023, implementing dates in
our regulations. The Coast Guard may not implement requirements in
Sec.  105.253(a)(2) through (4) before May 8, 2026.
    Two weeks before the Authorization Act was enacted, the Coast Guard
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) entitled
``Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC)-Reader
Requirements; Second Delay of Effective Date'' (87 FR 74563, December
6, 2022). In it we proposed to change the implementation dates in Sec.
105.253(a)(2) through (4) to May 8, 2026, and requested comments on
whether we should extend the date as late as May 8, 2029. In that
rulemaking we are considering comments received on that

proposed rule and other relevant matter presented, including the
Authorization Act.
    We do not anticipate issuing a final rule in that rulemaking until
after May 8, 2023. In that rulemaking we will consider either keeping
the implementation date introduced by this rule, May 8, 2026, or
changing it to an even later date. To view the status of that
rulemaking, TWIC--Reader Requirements; Second Delay of Effective Date,
search for RIN 1625-AC80 in the Unified Agenda via www.reginfo.gov.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this final rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision
authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a NPRM with respect to this rule. This
rule simply conforms the regulations with the applicable statute,
notice and comment procedures are unnecessary. We have referenced the
separate, ongoing rulemaking that will address whether the implementing
date in our regulations should be changed to a date beyond the earliest
date, May 8, 2026, permitted by the Authorization Act.
    Also, we find good cause under provisions in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to
make this rule effective upon publication because delaying the
effective date is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest.
Given the nullification of the May 6, 2023 date by the Authorization
Act, changing the date immediately will have no effect on the public.
In addition, waiting 30 days after publication to remove the
conflicting dates from Sec.  105.253(a)(2) through (4) is contrary to
the public's interest in having access to accurate regulations.
    We have analyzed this final rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 4370f), and have made
a determination that this action is one of a category of actions that
do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the
human environment. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting
this determination is available in the docket. This rule is
categorically excluded under paragraph L54 of Appendix A, Table 1 of
DHS Instruction Manual 023-01(series). Paragraph L54 pertains to
regulations that are editorial or procedural.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 105

    Maritime security, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons listed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 105 as follows:

PART 105--MARITIME SECURITY: FACILITIES

0
1. The authority citation for part 105 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70103, 70116; sec. 811, Pub. L.
111-281, 124 Stat. 2905 (46 U.S.C. 70103 note); 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
11, 6.14, 6.16, and 6.19; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No.
01.3.

0
2. In Sec.  105.253, paragraphs (a)(2) through (4), remove the date
``May 8, 2023'', and add, in its place, the date ``May 8, 2026''.

    Dated: April 12, 2023.
J.E. McLeod,
Acting Chief, Office of Regulations and Administrative Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-08040 Filed 4-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 30 (Wednesday, February 13, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3677-3678]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02054]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0350; Airspace Docket No. 17-AAL-6]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Alaska Towns;
Toksook Bay, AK; Unalakleet, AK; Wainwright, AK; and Yakutat, AK

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E airspace extending upward from
1,200 feet above the surface at Toksook Bay Airport, Toksook Bay, AK;
Unalakleet Airport, Unalakleet, AK; Wainwright Airport, Wainwright, AK;
and Yakutat Airport, Yakutat, AK. This action adds exclusionary
language to the legal descriptions of these airports for Class E
airspace extending beyond 12 miles from the shoreline, and ensures the
safety and management of aircraft within the National Airspace System.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, April 25, 2019. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1
Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bonnie Malgarini, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 2200
S 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198-6547; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. 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 Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above
the surface at Toksook Bay Airport, AK; Unalakleet Airport, AK;
Wainwright Airport, AK; and Yakutat Airport, AK, to support IFR
operations in standard instrument approach and departure procedures at
these airports and to limit Class E airspace to within 12 miles of the
shoreline.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (83 FR 37778; August 2, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2017-0350 to
modify Class E airspace for Toksook Bay Airport, AK; Unalakleet
Airport, AK; Wainwright Airport, AK; and Yakutat

Airport, AK. Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the
FAA. No comments were received.
    A legal description of Wales, AK, was accidently included in the
NPRM. It does not belong with this amendment and has been removed.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet
above the surface at Toksook Bay Airport, Toksook, AK; Unalakleet
Airport, Unalakleet, AK; Wainwright Airport, Wainwright, AK; and
Yakutat Airport, Yakutat, AK. This action adds language to the legal
descriptions of these airports that reads ``excluding that airspace
extending beyond 12 miles of the shoreline'', and supports IFR
operations in standard instrument approach and departure procedures at
these airports. A legal description was accidently included in the NPRM
for Wales, AK, and it has been removed from this amendment.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    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,
and is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (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.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    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(f), 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 FAA Order
7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13,
2018, and effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Toksook Bay, AK [Amended]

Toksook Bay Airport, AK
    (Lat. 60[deg]32'29'' N, long. 165[deg]05'14'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of Toksook Bay Airport; and that airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 73-mile
radius of the Toksook Bay Airport, excluding that airspace that
extends beyond 12 miles of the shoreline.
* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Unalakleet, AK [Amended]

Unalakleet Airport, AK
    (Lat. 63[deg]53'19'' N, long. 160[deg]47'57'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of Unalakleet Airport beginning at the
360[deg] bearing of the airport clockwise to the 260[deg] bearing of
the airport, and within a 13.5-mile radius of the airport beginning
at the 260[deg] bearing of the airport clockwise to the 360[deg]
bearing of the airport, and within 6 miles each side of the
Unalakleet Airport 185[deg] bearing of the airport extending from
the 7-mile radius to 10 miles south of the airport; and that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a
74-mile radius of Unalakleet Airport, excluding that airspace that
extends beyond 12 miles of the shoreline.
* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Wainwright, AK [Amended]

Wainwright Airport, AK
    (Lat. 70[deg]38'17'' N, long. 159[deg]59'41'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 8.5-mile radius of Wainwright Airport; and that airspace
extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a 73-mile
radius of the Wainwright Airport, AK, excluding that portion
extending outside the Anchorage Arctic CTA/FIR (PAZA) boundary, and
excluding that airspace that extends beyond 12 miles of the
shoreline.
* * * * *

AAL AK E5 Yakutat, AK [Amended]

Yakutat Airport, AK
    (Lat. 59[deg]30'12'' N, long. 139[deg]39'37'' W)
Yakutat VOR/DME
    (Lat. 59[deg]30'39'' N, long. 139[deg]38'53'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within the area bounded by lat. 59[deg]47'42'' N, 139[deg] 58'48''
W, to lat. 59[deg]37'33'' N, long. 139[deg]40'54'' W, then along the
7 mile radius of the Yakutat VOR/DME clockwise to lat.
59[deg]28'54'' N, long. 139[deg]25'36'' W, to lat. 59[deg]20'16'' N,
long. 139[deg]10'20'' W, to lat. 59[deg]02'49'' N long.
139[deg]47'45'' W, to lat. 59[deg]30'15'' N long. 140[deg]36'43'' W,
to the point of beginning, excluding that area beyond 12 miles from
the shoreline within Gulf of Alaska Low Control Area; and that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a
75-mile radius of the Yakutat VOR/DME, excluding that area extending
over Canada, and that airspace that extends beyond 12 miles of the
shoreline within Control 1487L.
* * * * *

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on January 31, 2019.
Shawn M. Kozica,
Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2019-02054 Filed 2-12-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8987-8988]
[FR Doc No: 2018-04310]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OARM-2018-0028; FRL-9974-93-OARM]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Contractor Conflicts of Interest; EPA ICR 1550.11, OMB
Control No. 2030-0023

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to
submit an information collection request (ICR), ``Conflict of
Interest'' (EPA ICR No. 1550.11, OMB Control No. 2030-0023) to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is
soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed
information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension
of the ICR, which is currently approved through June 30, 2018. 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 OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before May 1, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OARM-
2018-0028, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to [email protected], or by mail to: EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pamela Leftrict, Policy, Training, and
Oversight Division, Acquisition Policy and Training Service Center
(3802R), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public

docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: EPA contractors will be required to disclose business
relationships and corporate affiliations to determine whether EPA's
interests are jeopardized by such relationships. Because EPA has the
dual responsibility of cleanup and enforcement and because its
contractors are often involved in both activities, it is imperative
that contractors are free from conflicts of interest so as not to
prejudice response and enforcement actions. Contractors will be
required to maintain a database of business relationships and report
information to EPA on either an annual basis or when each work order is
issued.
    Form numbers: ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 1550.11, OMB Control No.
2030-0023.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are businesses or organizations performing contracts for
the EPA.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory to continue
performance on the respective contract, in accordance with respective
contract clause terms.
    Estimated number of respondents: 45 (total).
    Frequency of response: 1,245.67 hours per response.
    Total estimated burden: 14,652 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: Estimated total annual costs are
$3,214,288.05. This includes an estimated contractor burden cost of
$2,798,168.85 and an estimated agency burden cost of $416,119.20. These
amounts were calculated using the hours above and the labor rates from
the 2017 Bureau of Labor National Mean Statistics and the General
Schedule.
    Changes in estimates: There is no change in the number of hours in
the total estimated respondent burden compared to the ICR currently
approved by OMB.

    Dated: February 21, 2018.
Kimberly Y. Patrick,
Director, Office of Acquisition Management.
[FR Doc. 2018-04310 Filed 3-1-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 21, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43591-43592]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18005]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: CP19-499-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Abbreviation Application of Columbia Gas Transmission,
LLC for Authorization to Abandon Exchange Service under Rate Schedule
X-103.
    Filed Date: 8/12/19.
    Accession Number: 20190812-5093.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/3/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1039-001.
    Applicants: Venice Gathering System, L.L.C.

    Description: Request for a Limited Extension of Time to Implement
Certain NAESB WGQ Version 3.1 Standards of Venice Gathering System,
L.L.C. under RP19-1039.
    Filed Date: 8/7/19.
    Accession Number: 20190807-5059.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/19/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1468-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 20190813 Carlton Flow
Obligations to be effective 11/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 8/13/19.
    Accession Number: 20190813-5043.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1469-000.
    Applicants: DTE Midstream Appalachia, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Order No. 587-Y Compliance Filing to
be effective 8/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 8/13/19.
    Accession Number: 20190813-5069.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1470-000.
    Applicants: WestGas InterState, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing 20190813_RP19-1097_Order No. 587-Y
to be effective 8/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 8/13/19.
    Accession Number: 20190813-5122.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1471-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Non-Conforming Negotiated Rate
Agreement (Targa) to be effective 9/20/2019.
    Filed Date: 8/13/19.
    Accession Number: 20190813-5213.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-910-001.
    Applicants: Gulf Shore Energy Partners, LP.
    Description: Compliance filing Compliance to 275 to be effective 8/
1/2019.
    Filed Date: 8/13/19.
    Accession Number: 20190813-5175.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-1472-000.
    Applicants: El Paso Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate Agreements
Filing (MRC Permian) to be effective 8/14/2019.
    Filed Date: 8/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20190814-5097.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-857-001.
    Applicants: Garden Banks Gas Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Garden Banks 587-Y Compliance Filing
to be effective 8/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 8/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20190814-5020.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/19.

    Docket Numbers: RP19-864-001.
    Applicants: Mississippi Canyon Gas Pipeline, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing Mississippi Canyon--Compliance
Filing to be effective 8/1/2019.
    Filed Date: 8/14/19.
    Accession Number: 20190814-5029.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 8/26/19.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 15, 2019.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-18005 Filed 8-20-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 27 (Thursday, February 8, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5576-5579]
[FR Doc No: 2018-02085]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0031; Product Identifier 2017-NM-127-AD]
RIN 2120-AA6417

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain The Boeing Company Model 727 airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by significant changes made to the airworthiness limitations
(AWLs) related to fuel tank ignition prevention. This proposed AD would
require revising the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable,
to incorporate the latest revision of the AWLs. We are proposing this
AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by March 26, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch,
1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on
the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0031.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0031; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher Baker, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW,
Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0031;
Product Identifier 2017-NM-127-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because
of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this NPRM.

Discussion

    The FAA has examined the underlying safety issues involved in fuel
tank explosions on several large transport airplanes, including the
adequacy of existing regulations, the service history of airplanes
subject to those regulations, and existing maintenance practices for
fuel tank systems. As a result of those findings, we issued a final
rule titled ``Transport Airplane Fuel Tank System Design Review,
Flammability Reduction and Maintenance and Inspection Requirements''
(66 FR 23086, May 7, 2001). In addition to new airworthiness standards
for transport airplanes and new maintenance requirements, that rule
included Amendment 21-78, which established Special Federal Aviation
Regulation No. 88 (``SFAR 88'') at 14 CFR part 21. Subsequently, SFAR
88 was amended by Amendment 21-82 (67 FR 57490, September 20, 2002;
corrected at 67 FR 70809, November 26, 2002) and Amendment 21-83 (67 FR
72830, December 9, 2002; corrected at 68 FR 37735, June 25, 2003, to
change ``21-72'' to ``21-83'').
    Among other actions, SFAR 88 requires certain type design (i.e.,
type certificate (TC) and supplemental type certificate (STC)) holders
to substantiate that their fuel tank systems can prevent ignition
sources in the fuel tanks. This requirement applies to type design
holders for large turbine-powered transport airplanes and for
subsequent modifications to those airplanes. It requires them to
perform design reviews and to develop design changes and maintenance
procedures if their designs do not meet the new fuel tank safety
standards. As explained in the preamble to the final rule published on
May 7, 2001, we intended to adopt airworthiness directives to mandate
any changes found necessary to address unsafe conditions identified as
a result of these reviews.
    In evaluating these design reviews, we have established four
criteria intended

to define the unsafe conditions associated with fuel tank systems that
require corrective actions. The percentage of operating time during
which fuel tanks are exposed to flammable conditions is one of these
criteria. The other three criteria address the failure types under
evaluation: Single failures, single failures in combination with
another latent condition(s), and in-service failure experience. For all
four criteria, the evaluations included consideration of previous
actions taken that may mitigate the need for further action.
    We have determined that the actions identified in this proposed AD
are necessary to reduce the potential of ignition sources inside fuel
tanks, which, in combination with flammable fuel vapors, could result
in fuel tank explosions and consequent loss of the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing 727-100/200 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) D6-
8766-AWL, dated December 2016. The service information describes AWL
tasks that include airworthiness limitation instructions (ALIs) and
critical design configuration control limitations (CDCCLs) related to
fuel tank ignition prevention. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require revision of the maintenance or
inspection program to incorporate the ALI and CDCCL tasks described
previously.
    This proposed AD would require revisions to certain operator
maintenance documents to include new actions (e.g., inspections) and
CDCCLs. Compliance with these actions and CDCCLs is required by 14 CFR
91.403(c). For airplanes that have been previously modified, altered,
or repaired in the areas addressed by this proposed AD, the operator
may not be able to accomplish the actions described in the revisions.
In this situation, to comply with 14 CFR 91.403(c), the operator must
request approval for an alternative method of compliance according to
paragraph (k) of this proposed AD. The request should include a
description of changes to the required inspections that will ensure the
continued operational safety of the airplane.
    Notwithstanding any other maintenance or operational requirements,
components that have been identified as airworthy or installed on the
affected airplanes before accomplishing the revision of the airplane
maintenance or inspection program specified in this proposed AD do not
need to be reworked in accordance with the latest revision of the
CDCCLs specified by this proposed AD for incorporation. However, once
the airplane maintenance or inspection program has been revised as
specified by this proposed AD, future maintenance actions on these
components must be done in accordance with the CDCCLs specified by this
proposed AD.

Related Rulemaking

    Five ADs are related to this NPRM. We have determined that certain
requirements of those ADs may be terminated when the referenced AWLs
specified in this proposed AD have been incorporated, as follows:
     The revision required by paragraph (g) of AD 2008-04-10
R1, Amendment 39-16121 (74 FR 66227, December 15, 2009).
     The revision required by paragraph (h) of AD 2009-05-03,
Amendment 39-15827 (74 FR 8851, February 27, 2009).
     The revision required by paragraph (j) of AD 2011-12-05,
Amendment 39-16712 (76 FR 33991, June 10, 2011).
     The revision required by paragraph (h) of AD 2013-22-03,
Amendment 39-17635 (78 FR 65193, October 31, 2013).
     The revision required by paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) of
AD 2013-24-15, Amendment 39-17692 (78 FR 72791, December 4, 2013).

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the Service Information

    AWL No. 28-AWL-03 identifies certain wire types. Paragraph (h)(1)
of this proposed AD specifies additional acceptable wire types and
cables.
    AWL No. 28-AWL-03 identifies certain sleeving materials. Paragraph
(h)(2) of this proposed AD specifies additional acceptable sleeving
materials.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 20 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts  cost       product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintenance or inspection program    1 work-hour x $85 per hour               $0             $85          $1,700
 revision.                            = $85.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the
Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2018-0031; Product Identifier
2017-NM-127-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by March 26, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD affects the ADs specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through
(b)(5) of this AD.
    (1) AD 2008-04-10 R1, Amendment 39-16121 (74 FR 66227, December
15, 2009) (``AD 2008-04-10 R1'').
    (2) AD 2009-05-03, Amendment 39-15827 (74 FR 8851, February 27,
2009) (``AD 2009-05-03'').
    (3) AD 2011-12-05, Amendment 39-16712 (76 FR 33991, June 10,
2011) (``AD 2011-12-05'').
    (4) AD 2013-22-03, Amendment 39-17635 (78 FR 65193, October 31,
2013) (``AD 2013-22-03'').
    (5) AD 2013-24-15, Amendment 39-17692 (78 FR 72791, December 4,
2013) (``AD 2013-24-15'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 727, 727C, 727-100,
727-100C, 727-200, and 727-200F series airplanes, certificated in
any category, with an original standard airworthiness certificate or
original export certificate of airworthiness issued on or before the
effective date of this AD.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 28, Fuel.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by significant changes made to the
airworthiness limitations (AWLs) related to fuel tank ignition
prevention. We are issuing this AD to prevent the potential for
ignition sources inside fuel tanks caused by latent failures,
alterations, repairs, or maintenance actions, which, in combination
with flammable fuel vapors, could result in fuel tank explosions and
consequent loss of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Maintenance or Inspection Program Revision

    Within 60 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate all
information in Section A, including Subsections A.1 and A.2, of
Boeing 727-100/200 Airworthiness Limitations (AWLs) D6-8766-AWL,
dated December 2016. The initial compliance times for the
airworthiness limitation instruction (ALI) items are within the
applicable compliance times specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through
(g)(6) of this AD.
    (1) For AWL No. 28-AWL-01, ``External Wires Over Center Fuel
Tank (Tank No. 2)'': at the applicable time specified in paragraph
(g)(1)(i) or (g)(1)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) For airplanes that have been previously inspected as
specified in 28-AWL-01 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct
the inspection within 120 months after the most recent inspection.
    (ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in
28-AWL-01 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the
inspection within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (2) For AWL No. 28-AWL-16, ``Over-Current and Arcing Protection
Electrical Design Features Operation--Boost Pump Ground Fault
Interrupter (GFI)'': at the applicable time specified in paragraph
(g)(2)(i) or (g)(2)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) For airplanes that have been previously inspected as
specified in 28-AWL-16 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct
the inspection within 12 months after the most recent inspection.
    (ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in
28-AWL-16 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the
inspection within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
    (3) For AWL No. 28-AWL-17, ``Auxiliary Tank Fuel Boost Pump
Power Failed On Protection System'': at the applicable time
specified in paragraph (g)(3)(i) or (g)(3)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) For airplanes that have been previously inspected as
specified in 28-AWL-17 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct
the inspection within 12 months after the most recent inspection.
    (ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in
28-AWL-17 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the
inspection within 90 days after the effective date of this AD.
    (4) For AWL No. 28-AWL-18, ``Fuel Quantity Indicating System
(FQIS)--Out-Tank Wiring Lightning Shield to Ground Termination and
Joint Resistance for the Volumetric Top-Off (VTO) Unit (If
Installed)'': at the applicable time specified in paragraph
(g)(4)(i) or (g)(4)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) For airplanes that have been previously inspected as
specified in 28-AWL-18 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct
the inspection within 120 months after the most recent inspection.
    (ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in
28-AWL-18: Conduct the inspection within 12 months after the
effective date of this AD.
    (5) For AWL No. 28-AWL-22, ``AC Fuel Boost Pump Bonding
Installation'': at the applicable time specified in paragraph
(g)(5)(i) or (g)(5)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) For airplanes that have been previously inspected as
specified in 28-AWL-22 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct
the inspection within 72 months after the most recent inspection.
    (ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in
28-AWL-22 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the
inspection within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.
    (6) For AWL No. 28-AWL-24, ``Motor Operated Valve Bonding Jumper
Installation--Fault Current Protection'': at the applicable time
specified in paragraph (g)(6)(i) or (g)(6)(ii) of this AD.
    (i) For airplanes that have been previously inspected as
specified in 28-AWL-24 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct
the inspection within 60 months after the most recent inspection.
    (ii) For airplanes that have not been inspected as specified in
28-AWL-24 as of the effective date of this AD: Conduct the
inspection within 12 months after the effective date of this AD.

(h) Additional Acceptable Wire Types and Sleeving

    (1) Where AWL No. 28-AWL-03 identifies wire types BMS 13-48, BMS
13-58, and BMS 13-60, the following acceptable wire types and cables
can be added to AWL No. 28-AWL-03: MIL-W-22759/16, SAE AS22759/16
(Formerly M22759/16), MIL-W-22759/32, SAE AS22759/32 (Formerly
M22759/32), MIL-W-22759/34, SAE AS22759/34 (Formerly M22759/34),
MIL-W-22759/41, SAE AS22759/41 (Formerly M22759/41), MIL-W-22759/86,
SAE AS22759/86 (Formerly M22759/86), MIL-W-22759/87, SAE AS22759/87
(Formerly M22759/87), MIL-W-22759/92 and SAE AS22759/92 (Formerly
M22759/92); and MIL-C-27500 cables that are constructed from the MIL

specification wire types identified above; and NEMA WC 27500 cables
that are constructed from the SAE specification wire types
identified above.
    (2) Where AWL No. 28-AWL-03 identifies TFE-2X Standard wall for
wire sleeving, the following acceptable sleeving materials can be
added to AWL No. 28-AWL-03: Roundit 2000NX and Varglas Type HO, HP,
or HM, Grade A.

(i) No Alternative Actions, Intervals, and Critical Design
Configuration Control Limitations (CDCCLs)

    After the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, has
been revised as required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative
actions (e.g., inspections), intervals, and CDCCLs may be used
unless the actions, intervals, and CDCCLs are approved as an
alternative method of compliance (AMOC), in accordance with the
procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.

(j) Terminating Actions

    Accomplishment of the revision required by paragraph (g) of this
AD terminates the actions specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through
(j)(5) of this AD for the airplane on which the revision has been
incorporated.
    (1) The revision required by paragraph (g) of AD 2008-04-10 R1.
    (2) The revision required by paragraph (h) of AD 2009-05-03.
    (3) The revision required by paragraph (j) of AD 2011-12-05.
    (4) The revision required by paragraph (h) of AD 2013-22-03.
    (5) The revision required by paragraphs (n)(1) and (n)(2) of AD
2013-24-15.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by the Boeing Commercial Airplanes Organization
Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the
Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, to make those findings. To be approved,
the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation
must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval
must specifically refer to this AD.

(l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Christopher
Baker, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO
Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA 98057-3356; phone: 425-917-
6498; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view this service information at the
FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 1601 Lind Avenue SW, Renton, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on January 26, 2018.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-02085 Filed 2-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P