Index for OPPTS 80016 Doc. No. Organization Dated Title Notes Pages A1 01 USEPA 7/ 13/ 1993 TSCA Section 8( e); Notice of Clarification and FRL 4053 5 ( 58 FR 37735). Action: 7 Solicitation of Public Comment Notice of Clarification; Solicitation of Public Comment.

A1 02 USEPA 9/ 3/ 1993 TSCA Section 8( e); Notice of Clarification and FRL 4645 3 ( 58 FR 46970). Action: 1 Solicitation of Public Comment Notice of Clarification; Extension of Comment Period.

A1 03 USEPA 3/ 20/ 1995 TSCA Section 8( e); Notice of Availability of Draft Action: Notice of Availability and 2 Policy and Reopening of Comment Period Reopening of Comment Period.

A2 01 USEPA 3/ 20/ 1995 TSCA Section 8( e); Notice of Availability of Draft FRL 4937 6. Action: Notice of Availability 2 Policy and Reopening of Comment Period and Reopening of Comment Period.

B1 01 The Upjohn Company 4/ 10/ 1995 TSCA Section 8( e); Notice of Availability of Draft 1 Policy and Reopening of Comment Period B1 02 Reporting Environmental Monitoring Data under 2 EPA Proposed TSCA 8( e) Guidance B1 03 USEPA 1/ 26/ 1995 Letter from J. Carra, USEPA, to C. Walton, 1 Chemical Manufacturers Association C1 01 American Petroleum Institute 8/ 10/ 1993 Request for Extension of Comment Period Comment 2 ( API)

C1 02 Chevron 8/ 9/ 1993 Request for Extension of Comment Period Comment 1 C1 03 Chemical Manufacturers 8/ 10/ 1993 Request for Extension of Comment Period Comment 2 Association ( CMA)

C1 04 General Electric Company ( GE) 7/ 15/ 1993 Request for Extension of Comment Period Comment 1 C1 05 Synthetic Organic Chemical 8/ 13/ 1993 Request for Extension of Comment Period Comment 1 Manufacturers Association ( SOCMA)

C1 06 Rohm & Haas Company 8/ 17/ 1993 Request for Extension of Comment Period Comment 2 C1 07 Texaco Inc 8/ 25/ 1993 Request for Extension of Comment Period Comment 1 C1 08 D. L. Thompson, P. C. 9/ 13/ 1993 Comment 3 C1 09 Alyeska Pipeline 9/ 10/ 1993 Comment 3 C1 10 Martin Marietta 9/ 9/ 1993 Comment 3 Tuesday, May 13, 2003 Page 1 of 6 OPPT 2002 0067 0012 RECEIVED OPPT NCIC 2003 MAY 14 12: 39PM Doc. No. Organization Dated Title Notes Pages C1 11 National Paint & Coatings 8/ 26/ 1993 Comment 3 C1 12 Hewlett Packard 9/ 9/ 1993 Comment 2 C1 13 American Petroleum Institute 10/ 26/ 1993 Comment 39 ( API)

C1 14 Aerospace Industries 10/ 21/ 1993 Comment 35 Association C1 14a Allied Signal 10/ 26/ 1993 Comment 2 C1 15 ARCO Chemical Company 10/ 25/ 1993 Comment 6 C1 17 General Electric Company ( GE) 10/ 28/ 1993 Comment 91 C1 18 Rhone Poulenc 10/ 25/ 1993 Comment 2 C1 19 Union Carbide Corporation 10/ 26/ 1993 Comment 29 C1 20 American Gas Association 10/ 28/ 1993 Comment 1 ( AGA)

C1 21 American Forest & Paper 10/ 28/ 1993 Comment 10 Association ( AF& PA)

C1 22 ARCO Chemical Company 10/ 28/ 1993 Comment 48 C1 23 Ashland Chemical 10/ 25/ 1993 Comment 2 C1 24 Exxon Company, USA 10/ 27/ 1993 Comment 5 C1 25 Procter & Gamble 10/ 26/ 1993 Comment 7 C1 26 Ashland Petroleum Co. 10/ 26/ 1993 Comment 6 C1 26 Mallinckrodt Specialty Chemicals 10/ 27/ 1993 Comment 3 C1 27 McKenna & Cuneo 10/ 28/ 1993 Comment 8 C1 27a Occidental Chemical Corporation 10/ 25/ 1993 Comment 4 ( OxyChem)

C1 27b Dickstein, Shapiro 10/ 28/ 1993 Comment 3 C1 28 Mobil Oil Corporation 10/ 27/ 1993 Comment 6 C1 29 American Automobile 10/ 28/ 1993 Comment 18 Manufacturers Association C1 30 BFGoodrich 10/ 27/ 1993 Comment 3 C1 31 Chemical Manufacturers 10/ 28/ 1993 Comment 200 Association ( CMA)

Tuesday, May 13, 2003 Page 2 of 6 Doc. No. Organization Dated Title Notes Pages C1 32 Chemical Specialties 10/ 28/ 1993 Comment 3 Manufacturers Association C1 33 Ciba Geigy Corporation 10/ 28/ 1993 Comment 27 C1 34 Citgo Petroleum 10/ 27/ 1993 Comment 7 C1 35 Columbia Gas 10/ 27/ 1993 Comment 11 C1 36 Dow Chemical Company 10/ 29/ 1993 Comment 11 C1 37 Grace Specialty Chemicals 10/ 27/ 1993 Comment 5 C1 38 Martin Marietta 10/ 27/ 1993 Comment 3 C1 39 Monsanto Company 10/ 27/ 1993 Comment 11 C1 40 Motorola Inc 10/ 26/ 1993 Comment 1 C1 41 NAIMA 10/ 28/ 1993 Comment 3 C1 42 Pennzoil Company 11/ 1/ 1993 Comment 18 C1 43 PPG Industries Inc 10/ 26/ 1993 Comment 2 C1 44 Rohm & Haas Company 10/ 27/ 1993 Comment 9 C1 45 Synthetic Organic Chemical 10/ 28/ 1993 Comment 8 Manufacturers Association ( SOCMA)

C1 46 Thiokol Corporation 10/ 25/ 1993 Comment 3 C1 47 Texaco Inc 10/ 27/ 1993 Comment 11 C1 48 United Tech 10/ 27/ 1993 Comment 3 C1 49 Unocal 10/ 27/ 1993 Comment 4 C1 50 BASF Corporation 10/ 27/ 1993 Comment 4 C1 51 E. I. du Pont de Nemours & 10/ 28/ 1993 Comment 4 Company C1 52 Phillips Petroleum 10/ 28/ 1993 Comment 6 C1 53 3M 10/ 29/ 1993 Comment 8 C1 55 General Electric Company ( GE) 11/ 23/ 1993 Comment 2 C1 56 3/ 9/ 1995 Draft Section 8( e) Policy Text for Public 9 Comment Tuesday, May 13, 2003 Page 3 of 6 Doc. No. Organization Dated Title Notes Pages C1 57 2/ 7/ 1994 TSCA 8( e) Notice of Clarification Summary of 22 Comments Submitted by Industry, Law Firms and Trade Associations regarding the Federal Register July 13, 1993 Proposed Guidance C2 01 Vista Chemical Company 4/ 24/ 1995 Comment Vista Chemical Company is Submitting the 2 Following Comment on the TSCA Section 8( e) Notice in the March 20, 1995 Federal Register C2 02 Dow Corning 5/ 2/ 1995 Comment Dow Corning Corporation is Supportive of 1 the Revisions to the TSCA Section 8( e) 1978 Policy Statement which are Described in the Draft TSCA Sec. 8( e) Policy Text published in 03/ 20/ 95 C2 03 Kodak 5/ 2/ 1995 Re: TSCA Section 8( e) Notice of Availability of 4 Draft Policy and Reopening of Comment Period C2 04 Procter & Gamble 5/ 3/ 1995 Re: Docket No OPPTS  80016  TSCA Sec. 8( e); Comment 11 Notice of Availability of Draft Policy and Reopening of Comment Period C2 05 Monsanto Company 5/ 3/ 1995 Comment The comment is submitted on behalf of 6 Monsanto Company, a life science based company.

C2 06 Ashland Chemical 5/ 3/ 1995 Re: TSCA Sec. 8( e) Draft Policy Statement, from Comment. 4 K. M. Woods C2 07 Rohm & Haas Company 5/ 3/ 1995 Re: Comments on TSCA Sec. 8e Notice of Comment 2 Clarification C2 08 Pennzoil Company 5/ 3/ 1995 Re: Proposed Policy Guidance TSCA Section Comment 4 8( e); Notice of Availability of Draft Policy and Reopening of Comment Period 03 20 95 60 Fed. Reg. 14756 C2 09 Texaco Inc 5/ 3/ 1995 Texaco's Comments on the Draft Policy Comment 2 Guidelines C2 10 Synthetic Organic Chemical 5/ 4/ 1995 Re: TSCA Sec. 8( e) Notice of Availability of Draft Comment Manufacturers Association Policy; Reopening of Comment Period: 60 Fed. ( SOCMA) Reg 14758 C2 11 Chemical Specialties 5/ 4/ 1995 TSCA Section 8( e) Notice of Availability of Draft Comment 17 Manufacturers Association Policy and Reopening of Comment Period Tuesday, May 13, 2003 Page 4 of 6 Doc. No. Organization Dated Title Notes Pages C2 12 Aerospace Industries 5/ 4/ 1995 Re: TSCA Sec. 8( e) Notice of Availability of Aerospace Industry comments submitted 6 Association Draft Policy and Reopening of Comment Period  10/ 21/ 93 on Notice of Clarification and Draft Sec. 8( e) Policy Text for Public Comment Solicitation of Public Comment, 58 Fed. dated 03/ 09/ 95 Reg. 3735.

C2 13 Thiokol Corporation 5/ 4/ 1995 TSCA Sec. 8e Notice of Availability of Draft The comment is submitted on behalf of 2 Policy and Reopening of Comment Period Thiokol Corporation a manufacturer of published in the 20 March 1995 FR rocket motors and precision fastening systems.

C2 14 General Electric Company ( GE) 5/ 4/ 1995 Comments of the General Electric Company on 108 the Agency's TSCA 83 Notice of Availability of Draft Policy and Reopening of Comment Period 60 FR 14756 C2 15 Buckman Laboratories 5/ 3/ 1995 Subject: Comments on TSCA 8e Draft Policy 60 Comment 2 International, Inc. FR 14756 03 20 95 C2 16 Piper & Marbury 5/ 4/ 1995 Comments submitted on behalf of the Utility Solid The Edison Electric Institute ( EEI), the 5 Waste Activities Group ( USWAG) American Public Power Association ( APPA) and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association ( NRECA) Colletively referred to as USWAG with respect to these comments.

C2 17 Chemical Manufacturers 5/ 3/ 1995 CMA Comments on the EPA Draft TSCA Sec. 8e Comments regarding certain refinements 37 Association ( CMA) Policy Text to EPA's policy concerning the mandatory reporting of information under Section 8e   the Substantial Risk Information Reporting Provision of TSCA, proposed in the FR on July 13, 1993.

C2 18 Ciba Geigy Corporation 5/ 3/ 1995 TSCA Sec. 8e Notice of Availability of Draft Comment 11 Policy and Reopening of Comment Period C2 19 Union Carbide Corporation 5/ 11/ 1995 TSCA Section 8e Draft Policy Union Carbide is a CAP Participant and 3 has commented on earlier drafts.

C2 20 American Petroleum Institute 5/ 4/ 1995 API Comments on the EPA March 9,1995 Draft 24 ( API) Sec 8e Policy Text for Public Comment concerning TSCA 8E Reporting of Substantial Risk Information 60 FR 14756 C2 21 Owens Corning World 5/ 5/ 1995 Comments in Response to EPA's Notice 1 Headquarters Requesting Same regarding Reporting of Substantial Risk Information under TSCA Sec. 8e 60 FR 14756 03/ 20/ 95 Tuesday, May 13, 2003 Page 5 of 6 Doc. No. Organization Dated Title Notes Pages C2 22 E. I. du Pont de Nemours & 5/ 3/ 1995 TSCA Sec. 8( e); Notice of Availability of Draft Company Policy and Reopening of Comment Period D1 01 Chemical Manufacturers 3/ 10/ 1994 TSCA 8( E) Environmental Release & Detection 4 Association ( CMA) Scoping Meeting Tentative Agenda D1 02 EPA/ Chemical Manufacturers 12/ 12/ 1994 EPA/ CMA TSCA 8( e) Meeting Status of CAP 3 Association ( CMA) Program and Environmental Release and Detection Guidance D1 02a USEPA 12/ 12/ 1994 Agenda  8( e) / CAP Discussion 1 D1 03 Chemical Manufacturers 1/ 6/ 1995 Letter from C. Walton, CMA, to J. Carra, USEPA 2 Association ( CMA)

D1 04 Chemical Manufacturers 4/ 14/ 1994 TSCA 8( e) Environmental Release & Detection 4 Association ( CMA) EPA/ CMA/ API/ SOCMA Meeting # 1 D1 05 GE Silicones 1/ 28/ 1994 Letter from M. Moses, Site Environmental 22 Compliance Operation, to M. Stawarz, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Tuesday, May 13, 2003 Page 6 of 6


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 34 (Wednesday, February 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11869-11870]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03839]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0525; FRL-9782-3]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives--Health-Effects Research
Requirements for Manufacturers; EPA ICR No. 1696.07

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
Information Collection Request (ICR), Registration of Fuels and Fuel
Additives--Health-Effects Research Requirements for Manufacturers, EPA
ICR No. 1696.07, OMB Control No. 2060-0297, to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 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 August 31, 2013. 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 April 22, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2006-0525, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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: James W. Caldwell, Compliance
Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Mailcode: 6406J,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:
(202) 343-2802; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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, EPA West,
Room B102, 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: In accordance with the regulations at 40 CFR 79, Subparts
A, B, C, and D, Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives, manufacturers
(including importers) of motor-vehicle gasoline, motor-vehicle diesel
fuel, and additives for those fuels, are required to have these
products registered by the EPA prior to their introduction into
commerce. Registration involves providing a chemical description of the
fuel or additive, and certain technical, marketing, and health-effects
information. The development of health-effects data, as required by 40
CFR 79, Subpart F, is the subject of this ICR. The information
collection requirements for Subparts A through D, and the supplemental
notification requirements of Subpart F (indicating how the manufacturer
will satisfy the health-effects data requirements) are covered by a
separate ICR (EPA ICR Number 309.13, OMB Control Number 2060-1050). The
health-effects data will be used to determine if there are any products
which have evaporative or combustion emissions that may pose an
unreasonable risk to public health, thus meriting further investigation
and potential regulation. This information is required for specific
groups of fuels and additives as defined in the regulations. For
example, gasoline and gasoline additives which consist of only carbon,
hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and/or sulfur, and which involve a gasoline
oxygen content of less than 1.5 weight percent, fall into a
``baseline'' group. Oxygenated additives, such as ethanol, when used in
gasoline at an oxygen level of at least 1.5 weight percent, define
separate ``nonbaseline'' groups for each oxygenate. Additives which
contain elements other than carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and
sulfur fall into separate ``atypical'' groups. There are similar
grouping requirements for diesel fuel and diesel fuel additives.
    Manufacturers may perform the research independently or may join
with other manufacturers to share in the costs for each applicable
group. Several research consortiums (groups of manufacturers) have been
formed. The largest consortium, organized by the American Petroleum
Institute (API), represents most of the manufacturers of baseline
gasoline, baseline diesel fuel, baseline fuel additives, and the
prominent nonbaseline oxygenated additives for gasoline. The research
is structured into three tiers of requirements for each group. Tier 1

requires an emissions characterization and a literature search for
information on the health effects of those emissions. Voluminous Tier 1
data for gasoline and diesel fuel were submitted by API and others in
1997. Tier 1 data have been submitted for biodiesel, water/diesel
emulsions, several atypical additives, and renewable gasoline and
diesel fuels. Tier 2 requires short-term inhalation exposures of
laboratory animals to emissions to screen for adverse health effects.
Tier 2 data have been submitted for baseline diesel, biodiesel, and
water/diesel emulsions. Alternative Tier 2 testing can be required in
lieu of standard Tier 2 testing if EPA concludes that such testing
would be more appropriate. EPA reached that conclusion with respect to
gasoline and gasoline-oxygenate blends, and alternative requirements
were established for the API consortium for baseline gasoline and six
gasoline-oxygenate blends. Alternative Tier 2 requirements have also
been established for the manganese additive MMT manufactured by the
Afton Chemical Corporation (formerly the Ethyl Corporation). Tier 3
provides for follow-up research, at EPA's discretion, when remaining
uncertainties as to the significance of observed health effects,
welfare effects, and/or emissions exposures from a fuel or fuel/
additive mixture interfere with EPA's ability to make reasonable
estimates of the potential risks posed by emissions from a fuel or
additive. To date, EPA has not imposed any Tier 3 requirements. Under
regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 211 of the Clean Air Act,
(1) submission of the health-effects information is necessary for a
manufacturer to obtain registration of a motor-vehicle gasoline, diesel
fuel, or fuel additive, and thus be allowed to introduce that product
into commerce, and (2) the information shall not be considered
confidential.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Manufacturers of motor-vehicle
gasoline, motor-vehicle diesel fuel, and additives for those fuels.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory per 40 CFR 79.
    Estimated number of respondents: 2.
    Frequency of response: On occasion.
    Total estimated burden: 19,200 hours per year. Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $2 million per year, includes $0.5 million
annualized capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease of 2,000 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease is due to the conclusion of a testing
program included in the previous ICR.

    Dated: February 13, 2013.
Byron J. Bunker,
 Director, Compliance Division.
[FR Doc. 2013-03839 Filed 2-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                      Container-Containment ICR Questions

Kip Landwehr
Winfield United
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
CONTAINER

(1) Publicly Available Data
(A) Is the data that the Agency seeks available from any public source, or already collected by another office at EPA or by another agency?  I do not know of any publicly available source of the information that contains records for container design, residue removal and cleaning instructions, etc. Refillers snd registrants have repackaging agreements on file but there is no central repository for this type of information at a state of federal level.

(B) If yes, where can you find the data? There is no publicly available source for container information.

 (2) Frequency of Collection
Can the Agency collect the information less frequently and still produce the same outcome?
There isn't currently a requirement to submit records to EPA under the PCCR. Registrants do maintain records as required by the PCCR. These records can be made available to EPA or a state agency upon request. Since there isn't a current requirement to submit, this question is not applicable.

 (3) Clarity of Instructions
(A) The ICR is intended to require that respondents provide certain data so that the Agency can utilize them.
      (1) Based on the instructions (regulations, PR Notices, etc.), is it clear what you are required to do and how to submit such data?
      Yes, it is clear what recordkeeping is required. Registrants and refillers have been informed of the recordkeeping requirements. EPA has provided a tremendous outreach program to educate the regulated community in all requirements relating to the PCCR.
      (2) If not, what suggestions do you have to clarify the instructions? Continuing education is always a good idea. Registrants have dedicated personnel who are responsible for container recordkeeping requirements. However, many dealers don't have dedicated EHS staff. Operations/management personnel are responsible for managing regulatory requirements. Continuing education would be a very good idea. This could be accomplished by working with industry associations like ARA and CLA to provide compliance reminders, bulletins or other information.

(B) Do you understand that you are required to maintain records? Yes.

(C) Considering that there is no required submission format, is it difficult to submit information in ways that are clear, logical and easy to complete? Currently there isn't any requirement to submit records. Records are available but there aren't any requirements that I'm aware to use a designated form or format. Therefore, if EPA did request or require submissions it might be quite a task to sort through of the information in various forms/formats.

(D) Regarding any pesticide container-containment forms, do you use them? Are they clear, logical and easy to complete? Containment inspection forms were developed in house.  They are clear and easy to complete. Some container documentation is captured electronically using the company ERP and some container information is kept manually on spreadsheets, forms or other types of documents. There is no standard form or format that the industry uses that I'm aware of.

(4) Electronic Reporting and Record keeping
The Government Paperwork Elimination Act requires agencies make available to the public electronic reporting alternatives to paper-based submissions by 2003, unless there is a strong reason for not doing so. One such reason is that, at the present time, the Agency is unable to ensure the security of CBI that might be transmitted over the Internet.

(A) What do you think about electronic alternatives to paper-based records and data submissions? Current electronic reporting alternatives include the use of "web forms"/XML based submissions via the Agency's Internet site and magnetic media-based submissions, e.g., diskette, CD-ROM, etc. If reporting becomes necessary, electronic submittals would be preferred.

(B) Would you be interested in pursuing electronic reporting? Are you keeping your records electronically? If yes, in what format? Yes (see comment above). If EPA came up with a form that can be completed on a web site (CDX) that would be one method. If dealers are just submitting copies of paper forms, these could be scanned and sent as pdf documents. I'd suggest standard forms be developed for all aspects of the regulated community to help the data gathering and review process.

(C) Although the Agency does not offer an electronic reporting option because of CBI-related security concerns at this time, would you be more inclined to submit CBI on diskette than on paper? I would suggest using an on-line option like CDX rather than a disk or manual forms.

(D) What benefits would electronic submission bring you in terms of burden reduction or greater efficiency in compiling the information? At this point since there is currently no data collection requirements, there is no real benefit to electronic data collection. If records are required to the submitted in the future, electronic submission would be preferred to reduce printing, reproduction and mailing costs.

(5) Burden and Costs
(A) Are the labor rates accurate? Cost estimates seem reasonable taking into account variability across the country.

(B) The Agency assumes there is no capital cost associated with this activity. Is that correct?
There are no capital costs currently associated with generating the records associated with containment requirements.

(C) Bearing in mind that the burden and cost estimates include only burden hours and costs associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR, e.g., the ICR does not include estimated burden hours and costs for conducting studies, are the estimated burden hours and labor rates accurate? If you provide burden and cost estimates that are substantially different from EPA's, please provide an explanation of how you arrived at your estimates. I don't know how accurate the cost estimates are but I would say they are in the ballpark for the current collection requirements for the compliance information using checklists/forms.

(D) Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been missed? There are costs for continuing education and training, and costs for AASA inspections for dealers and refillers

CONTAINMENT

(1) Publicly Available Data
(A) Is the data that the Agency seeks available from any public source, or already collected by another office at EPA or by another agency?  A number of state agencies require distributors and refillers to submit containment design specifications prior to constructing containment. This data is a matter of public record. Also an industry association, the American Agronomic Stewardship Alliance (AASA) audits pesticide dealers on a three-year circle collecting data on containment structures condition and size, number of primary containers, products repackaged, etc. This data isn't publicly available but is available through the basic suppliers of pesticide products.

(B) If yes, where can you find the data? Data for containment structures for dealers in all states isn't publicly available. However, a number of Midwest states (through Dept. of Ag or state environmental agency) have secondary containment information on file for active pesticide dealers.

 (2) Frequency of Collection
Can the Agency collect the information less frequently and still produce the same outcome?
There is no formal data collection process for containment at this time at a federal level that I'm aware of. However, since states regulate the installation of secondary containment structures and once a structure is installed it's not very easy to modify it, and there aren't many new facilities being built (none that wouldn't follow state/federal guidelines for containment installation) if EPA did require a formal data collection process for containment structures it could be collected on a less frequent basis (five-year basis). If monthly compliance recordkeeping for containment structures would be required, a three year cycle would be adequate.

 (3) Clarity of Instructions
(A) The ICR is intended to require that respondents provide certain data so that the Agency can utilize them.
      (1) Based on the instructions (regulations, PR Notices, etc.), is it clear what you are required to do and how to submit such data?
      Yes, it is clear what recordkeeping is required. Dealers and refillers have been informed of the recordkeeping requirements. EPA has provided a tremendous outreach program to educate the regulated community in all requirements relating to the PCCR.
      (2) If not, what suggestions do you have to clarify the instructions? Continuing education is always a good idea. Many dealers don't have dedicated EHS staff. Operations/management personnel are responsible for managing regulatory requirements.
      Continuing education would be a very good idea. This could be accomplished by working with industry associations like ARA and CLA to provide compliance reminders, bulletins or other information.

(B) Do you understand that you are required to maintain records? Yes

(C) Considering that there is no required submission format, is it difficult to submit information in ways that are clear, logical and easy to complete? Currently there isn't any requirement to submit records. State agencies and industry audits (AASA) do review compliance with containment requirements.

(D) Regarding any pesticide container-containment forms, do you use them? Are they clear, logical and easy to complete? Containment inspection forms were developed in house.  They are clear and easy to complete.

(4) Electronic Reporting and Record keeping
The Government Paperwork Elimination Act requires agencies make available to the public electronic reporting alternatives to paper-based submissions by 2003, unless there is a strong reason for not doing so. One such reason is that, at the present time, the Agency is unable to ensure the security of CBI that might be transmitted over the Internet.

(A) What do you think about electronic alternatives to paper-based records and data submissions? Current electronic reporting alternatives include the use of "web forms"/XML based submissions via the Agency's Internet site and magnetic media-based submissions, e.g., diskette, CD-ROM, etc. If reporting becomes necessary, electronic submittals would be preferred.

(B) Would you be interested in pursuing electronic reporting? Are you keeping your records electronically? If yes, in what format? Yes (see comment above). If EPA came up with a form that can be completed on a web site (CDX) that would be one method. If dealers are just submitting copies of paper forms, these could be scanned and sent as pdf documents.

(C) Although the Agency does not offer an electronic reporting option because of CBI-related security concerns at this time, would you be more inclined to submit CBI on diskette than on paper?  I would suggest using an on-line option like CDX rather than a disk or manual forms.

(D) What benefits would electronic submission bring you in terms of burden reduction or greater efficiency in compiling the information? At this point since there are currently no data collection requirements, there is no benefit to electronic data collection. If records are required to the submitted in the future, electronic submission would be preferred to reduce printing, reproduction and mailing costs.

(5) Burden and Costs

(A) Are the labor rates accurate? Cost estimates seem reasonable taking into account variability across the country.

(B) The Agency assumes there is no capital cost associated with this activity. Is that correct?
There are no capital costs associated with generating the records associated with containment requirements.

(C) Bearing in mind that the burden and cost estimates include only burden hours and costs associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR, e.g., the ICR does not include estimated burden hours and costs for conducting studies, are the estimated burden hours and labor rates accurate? If you provide burden and cost estimates that are substantially different from EPA's, please provide an explanation of how you arrived at your estimates. I don't know how accurate the cost estimates are but I would say they are in the ballpark for the collection of the compliance information using checklists/forms.

(D) Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been missed? There are costs for continuing education and training, and costs for AASA inspections (not directly to the dealer).
 (not directly to the dealer). No additional costs for registrants.

                                                  Container-Containment ICR Questions

Paul Derig
JR Simplot Company
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(1) Publicly Available Data
(A) Is the data that the Agency seeks available from any public source, or already collected by another office at EPA or by another agency?

No, The data is made available to EPA or an Agent of the EPA (Dept. of Ag or other agency with primacy). Others may see the data during internal inspections, which may be done by a third party or local agency inspections such as the Fire Department but it is for information only and not collected.
(B) If yes, where can you find the data?

(2) Frequency of Collection
Can the Agency collect the information less frequently and still produce the same outcome?

The information regarding container and containment is maintained and produced on request from the Agency or an agent representing EPA. Reports for repackaging are submitted annually to support the volumes used in filling containers. This seems to be an appropriate time schedule.

(3) Clarity of Instructions
(A) The ICR is intended to require that respondents provide certain data so that the Agency can utilize them.

(1) Based on the instructions (regulations, PR Notices, etc.), is it clear what you are required to do and how to submit such data?

Yes, for the most part the instructions are clear and understandable. There are certain isolated instances though where it is difficult to get clarification and to determine appropriate actions. It is difficult for some in the Ag industry as they depend upon industry associations and University Extension or Department of Ag outreach to learn of the rules and rule changes. I believe there is still a number of small businesses that do not know where or how to search out the answers of find the instructions.

      (2) If not, what suggestions do you have to clarify the instructions?
(B) Do you understand that you are required to maintain records?

Yes

(C) Considering that there is no required submission format, is it difficult to submit information in ways that are clear, logical and easy to complete? N/A

(D) Regarding any pesticide container-containment forms, do you use them? Are they clear, logical and easy to complete?  N/A

(4) Electronic Reporting and Record keeping
The Government Paperwork Elimination Act requires agencies make available to the public electronic reporting alternatives to paper-based submissions by 2003, unless there is a strong reason for not doing so. One such reason is that, at the present time, the Agency is unable to ensure the security of CBI that might be transmitted over the Internet.
(A) What do you think about electronic alternatives to paper-based records and data submissions? Current electronic reporting alternatives include the use of "web forms"/XML based submissions via the Agency's Internet site and magnetic media-based submissions, e.g., diskette, CD-ROM, etc.

With no data submission requirement in Container Containment there is not a need for this at this time. We do keep records electronically which could be transmitted in some form if it is required in the future.

(B) Would you be interested in pursuing electronic reporting? Are you keeping your records electronically? If yes, in what format? Yes (see comment above).

Not at this time.

(C) Although the Agency does not offer an electronic reporting option because of CBI-related security concerns at this time, would you be more inclined to submit CBI on diskette than on paper?

Today we do not have any computers with diskette options available. Information could be submitted on a flash drive or through other electronic file sharing protocols. Although this is a bit of a moot point until the Container Containment rule required data submission.

(D) What benefits would electronic submission bring you in terms of burden reduction or greater efficiency in compiling the information?

Certainly electronic submission is more efficient if required. The move to electronic reporting for producing establishment has greatly improved the efficiency in this process for us.

(5) Burden and Costs
(A) Are the labor rates accurate?

Yes, I think the labor rates are pretty close (in the ball park anyway).

(B) The Agency assumes there is no capital cost associated with this activity. Is that correct?

From an efficiency stand point there were some capital costs to implement the systems for record keeping. This cost was by choice to reduce the burden of maintaining hand written records.

(C) Bearing in mind that the burden and cost estimates include only burden hours and costs associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR, e.g., the ICR does not include estimated burden hours and costs for conducting studies, are the estimated burden hours and labor rates accurate?

I believe that the rates are close, although I am not sure that the time/burden estimates are. Although I have not gathered the information the times allotted per registrant/refiller seem to fall far short. I say this, as it seems that the time burden allotment would be more accurate if calculated per registered product which would escalate the numbers substantially. As an example; Refillers generally have more than one product and they are required to record information on both the product and container with each fill or turn of the container as well as record keeping for containment including monthly inspections (alone this can be easily more than the allotted annual burden estimate of 7.5 hours for all activities). 7.5 hours may be a close estimate per product refilled by an establishment.

 If you provide burden and cost estimates that are substantially different from EPA's, please provide an explanation of how you arrived at your estimates.
(D) Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been missed?
None that come to mind on the paperwork burden.


From:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Tuesday, August 6, 2019 3:22 PM
To:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Raymond, Gabrielle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
August 2019 QA/QC Review of Enclosure 1 Information for EPA 2016 ICR for selected Coke Manufacturing facilities

Hello - You have been identified as a reviewer for your company's information supplied to EPA for the 2016 Information Collection Request (ICR). If you are not correct person, please forward to the current employee responsible for this review.

Thank you again for your efforts in providing your facility information. Now is the time to correct, update, or add to your responses from 2016 for Enclosure 1. Attached is your facility's information in one Excel file (and combined file for Katie) and your facility's diagrams in a "zipped" file.

Please add a duplicate column with corrected information and any comments. Highlight the heading in the duplicate column YELLOW and use red font, as in the example in the next worksheet. If there are no changes, you do not need to do anything. See example corrections in the next worksheet called "Example-Edits." We will assume any data without a comment is correct for your facility in 2016 or the year indicated in the question.

Keep in mind we are NOT asking you to update your responses to 2019, but only to correct or supply information related to your 2016 facility and 2016 test data (if applicable). However, you may voluntarily provide any additional information for 2019, if you so choose, and label accordingly. Please make sure you indicate the year of the additional information with any new information.

Note clarification for Part IV, Q25 and Q27: This pertains to ALL pollution control equipment (for ALL air pollution, including both air toxics AND criteria pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, etc.)

If you have any questions, please first send an email to both Gabrielle Raymond,  the RTI Contractor, and me at the email addresses below. If we need to speak on the phone, we can follow-up with a call, but we need an email first to ensure contact.
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Note that we will be summarizing CBI data in Enclosure 1 separately at some not yet determined point in the future. However, we will be sending you your Enclosure 2 data soon, hopefully by mid to end of August. The review of Enclosure 1 likely will not take that long for most of the Coke facilities, so I advise you to review Enclosure 1 soon so that you can focus on Enclosure 2 when it arrives.

_____________________________________________________________
Regards,
Donna Lee Jones, Ph.D.
Senior Technical Advisor, Metals Sector
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Sector Policies and Programs Division / Metals & Inorganic Chemicals Gr (D 243-02)
Research Triangle Park, NC  27711  Tele:<PHONE_NUMBER>  Fax<PHONE_NUMBER>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Reasonableness never fails to be appreciated."  - anon.

<< AKS-ALL-Coke-Enclosure-1-Questionnaire ICR-draft summary-review-August-5-2019.xlsx >>
<< AKS-OH-Coke-Enclosure-1-Questionnaire ICR-draft summary-review-August-5-2019.xlsx >>
<< AKS-WV-Coke-Enclosure-1-Questionnaire ICR-draft summary-review-August-5-2019.xlsx >>
<< AKSteel.zip >>


[Federal Register: July 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 133)]
[Notices]
[Page 39690-39691]
[DOCID:fr10jy08-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 11841-002 Alaska]

Ketchikan Public Utilities; Notice of Availability of Final
Environmental Assessment

July 2, 2008.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
as amended, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission
or FERC) regulations, 18 CFR Part 380, Commission staff has reviewed
the application for an original license for the proposed Whitman Lake
Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 11841-002) and has prepared a final
environmental assessment (final EA) for the project. The project would
be located on Whitman Creek, approximately 4 miles east of the City of
Ketchikan, Alaska. The project would occupy 155.8 acres of lands of the
United States, 155 acres administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service and 0.8 acres administered by the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management.
    On February 8, 2008, Ketchikan Public Utilities (KPU) filed a
multi-party Settlement Agreement. In addition to KPU, the Alaska
Department of Fish and Game, the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources, Division of Mining, Land and Water, Water Resources Section,
and the Southern Southeast Regional

Aquaculture Association were signatories to the Settlement Agreement.
    The final EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential
environmental effects of the proposed project and concludes that
licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective
measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would
significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
    Copies of the final EA are available for review in Public Reference
Room 2-A of the Commission's offices at 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC. The final EA may also be viewed on the Commission's
Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary'' link.
Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket
number field to access the document. Additional information about the
project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs,
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or on the Commission's Web site using the eLibrary
link. For assistance with eLibrary, contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>; for TTY contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For further information, contact Kenneth Hogan at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-15701 Filed 7-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 93 (Monday, May 15, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30893-30894]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10283]

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

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

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

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

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 93 / Monday, May 15, 2023 / Rules and
Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-1027; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-33; Docket No.
FAA-2022-0905; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-26]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment and Revocation of VOR Federal Airways; Eastern United
States Amendment and Revocation of VOR Federal Airways; Northeast
United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends four Very High Frequency (VHF)
Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways (V-33, V-157, V-213, and V-
433) in support of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON)
program.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, August 10, 2023. 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 JO 7400.11
and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), all
comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be
viewed online at www.regulations.gov using the FAA Docket number.
Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website.
It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. You may also contact the Rules and
Regulations Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

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
the 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 would modify the route structure as necessary to
preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National
Airspace System.

History

    The FAA published an NPRM for Docket No. FAA-2022-1027 in the
Federal Register (87 FR 52710; August 29, 2022) proposing to remove VOR
Federal airways V-46, V-91, V-270, V-273, and V-499; and to amend VOR
Federal airways V-123, V-157, V-213, V-433, and V-483. Interested
parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by
submitting written comments on the proposal. The FAA received one
comment but it was outside the scope of this rulemaking.
    In a previous NPRM, Docket No. FAA-2022-0905 in the Federal
Register (87 FR 43759; July 22, 2022), the FAA had proposed to amend
VOR Federal airway V-10, and remove airways V-33, V-99, V-377, V-403,
and V-405. No comments were received.
    To streamline the publication of final rules in both dockets, the
FAA decided to combine the amendments for airway V-33 with the
amendments proposed for Docket No. FAA-2022-1027. This final rule does
not address the removal and amendments to Federal airway V-10, V-99, V-
377, V-403, and V-405 proposed in Docket No. FAA-2022-0905. Those
proposed changes will be addressed in a separate final rule document.

Differences From the NPRMs

    In Docket No. FAA-2022-1027, the FAA proposed to remove V-46, V-91,
V-270, V-273, and V-499; and to amend V-123, V-157, V-213, V-433, and
V-483. Due to staffing and training limitations, this final rule will
not remove V-46, V-91, V-123, V-270, V-273, and V-483, or amend V-499
at this time.
    The NPRM proposed to amend V-433 by removing the segments from
Nottingham, MD to Bridgeport, CT in support of the planned
decommissioning of the Nottingham, MD (OTT), VOR withTactical Air
Navigational System (VORTAC), the Patuxent, MD (PXT), VORTAC and the
Bridgeport, CT (BDR), VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (DME). The
Bridgeport VOR/DME decommissioning is not planned until a later fiscal
year, therefore the FAA will retain the airway segments from Dupont,
DE, to Bridgeport, CT, to provide continued availability of V-433 along
those segments.
    In Docket No. FAA-2022-0905, the FAA proposed to amend VOR Federal
airway V-10, and remove airways V-33, V-99, V-377, V-403, and V-405.
Subsequently, the FAA decided to remove only the route segments from
Harcum, VA, to Nottingham, MD, and to retain the segments of V-33 that
extend from Baltimore, MD, to Keating, PA.

Incorporation by Reference

    Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of
FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis.
This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO
7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA
Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES
section of this document. These amendments will be published in the
next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas,
air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by amending VOR Federal airways
V-33,

V-157, V-213, and V-433. The route changes are as follows:
    V-33: V-33 consists of two parts: between Harcum, VA, and
Nottingham, MD; and between Baltimore, MD, and Keating, PA. This action
removes the segments between Harcum, VA, and Nottingham, MD. As
amended, V-33 extends between Baltimore, MD, and Keating, PA. The words
``The airspace within R-4007 is excluded'' are removed from the route
description because the amended route no longer passes near restricted
area R-4007.
    V-157: V-157 extends from Key West, FL, to Albany, NY. This action
removes the segment from Richmond, VA, to Robbinsville, NJ. As a
result, V-157 consists of two parts: from Key West, FL, to Richmond,
VA; and from Robbinsville, NJ to Albany, NY. This change supports the
decommissioning of the Patuxent, MD (PXT), VORTAC. With the removal of
the above segment, the words ``The airspace within R-4005, R-4006, and
R-4007A, and R-6602A is excluded'' are no longer required in the
description. The exclusion of restricted area R-6602A is amended to
read ``R-6602A, B, and C when active.''
    V-213: V-213 extends from Grand Strand, SC, to Albany, NY. This
action removes the segment that extends between Hopewell, VA, and
Smyrna, DE. As a result, V-213 consists of two parts: from Grand
Strand, SC to Hopewell, VA; and from Smyrna, DE to Albany, NY. The
words ``The airspace within R-4005 and R-4006 is excluded'' are removed
because the amended route no longer passes near the restricted areas.
    V-433: V-433 extends from Nottingham, MD, to Syracuse, NY. This
action removes the segments from Nottingham, MD, to Dupont, DE, in
support of the planned decommissioning of the Nottingham, MD (OTT),
VORTAC. As amended, V-433 extends from Dupont, DE, to Syracuse, NY.
    The full descriptions of the above routes are listed in the
amendments to part 71 set forth below.

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.
It, therefore: (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (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 only affects air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated,
does 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 of amending VOR Federal
airways V-33, V-157, V-213, and V-433 in eastern United States
qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental
Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at
40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F,
Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which
categorically excludes from further environmental impact review
rulemaking actions that designate or modify classes of airspace areas,
airways, routes, and reporting points (see 14 CFR part 71, Designation
of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas; Air Traffic Service Routes;
and Reporting Points); and paragraph 5-6.5b, which categorically
excludes from further environmental impact review ``Actions regarding
establishment of jet routes and Federal airways (see 14 CFR 71.15,
Designation of jet routes and VOR Federal airways) . . .''. As such,
this action is not expected to result in any potentially significant
environmental impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph
5-2 regarding Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this
action for factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically
excluded action may have a significant environmental impact requiring
further analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary
circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental
assessment or environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

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 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 JO
7400.11G Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19,
2022, and effective September 15, 2022, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-33 [Amended]

    From Baltimore, MD; INT Baltimore 004[deg] and Harrisburg, PA,
147[deg] radials; Harrisburg; Philipsburg, PA; Keating, PA.
* * * * *

V-157 [Amended]

    From Key West, FL; INT Key West 038[deg] and Dolphin, FL,
244[deg] radials; Dolphin; INT Dolphin 331[deg] and La Belle, FL,
113[deg] radials; La Belle; Lakeland, FL; Ocala, FL; INT Ocala
346[deg] and Taylor, FL, 170[deg] radials; Taylor; Waycross, GA;
Alma, GA; Allendale, SC; Vance, SC; Florence, SC; Fayetteville, NC;
Kinston, NC; Tar River, NC; Lawrenceville, VA; to Richmond, VA. From
Robbinsville, NJ; INT Robbinsville 044[deg] and LaGuardia, NY,
213[deg] radials; LaGuardia; INT LaGuardia 032[deg]and Deer Park,
NY, 326[deg] radials; INT Deer Park 326[deg] and Kingston, NY,
191[deg] radials; Kingston, NY; to Albany, NY. The airspace within
R-6602A, B, and C is excluded when active.
* * * * *

V-213 [Amended]

    From Grand Strand, SC, via Wilmington, NC; INT Wilmington
352[deg] and Tar River, NC, 191[deg] radials; Tar River; to
Hopewell, VA. From Smyrna, DE; INT Smyrna 035[deg] and Robbinsville,
NJ, 228[deg] radials; Robbinsville; INT Robbinsville 014[deg] and
Sparta, NJ, 174[deg] radials; Sparta; to Albany, NY.
* * * * *

V-433 [Amended]

    From Dupont, DE; Yardley, PA; INT Yardley 047[deg] and Kennedy,
NY, 253[deg] radials; INT Kennedy 253[deg] and LaGuardia, NY,
213[deg] radials; LaGuardia; Bridgeport, CT; INT Bridgeport 324[deg]
and Pawling, NY, 160[deg] radials; Pawling; INT Pawling 304[deg] and
Rockdale, NY, 116[deg] radials; Rockdale; INT Rockdale 325[deg] and
Syracuse, NY, 100[deg] radials; to Syracuse.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 9, 2023.
Brian Konie,
Acting Manager, Airspace Rules and Regulations.
[FR Doc. 2023-10283 Filed 5-12-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 5, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42884-42886]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14076]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 127 / Wednesday, July 5, 2023 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2023-1223; Project Identifier MCAI-2022-00982-T]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, Inc., Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-700-1A11
airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a determination that a
certain nondestructive test (NDT) procedure associated with a certain
airworthiness limitation for inspecting the inboard, mid, and outboard
flap metallic end ribs does not contain all of the necessary
instructions. This proposed AD would require a revision to the existing
maintenance or inspection program to require using a revised NDT
procedure when performing an airworthiness limitation task. This
proposed AD would also prohibit the use of earlier revisions of that
NDT procedure. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 21,
2023.

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 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.
    AD Docket: You may examine the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1223; 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 mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI), any comments received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is listed above.
    Material Incorporated by Reference:
     For service information identified in this NPRM, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Business Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400
C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: bombardier.com">[email protected]bombardier.com; internet:
bombardier.com.
     You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South
216th Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of
this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yaser Osman, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone:
516-228-7300; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2023-1223; Project Identifier
MCAI-2022-00982-T'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
the proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The
agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Yaser
Osman, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected]. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not
specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for
this rulemaking.

Background

    Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has
issued Transport Canada AD CF-2022-40, dated July 21, 2022 (Transport
Canada AD CF-2022-40) (also referred to after this as the MCAI), to
correct an unsafe condition for certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-
1A10, and BD-700-1A11 airplanes. The MCAI states that Bombardier
determined that non-destructive testing manual (NDTM) procedure ET-57-
51-009, dated May 6, 2019, or earlier, did not contain all of the
necessary instructions to perform the inspections of the inboard, mid,
and outboard flap metallic end ribs in associated airworthiness
limitation task number 57-51-00-109. If those inspections are not fully
completed, there is a potential for undetected cracks in the inspection
area; which can result in structural failure of the flap.
    The FAA is proposing this AD to address undetected cracking. The
unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in structural failure
of the flap, which

could result in possible reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under
Docket No. FAA-2023-1223.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed procedure ET-57-51-009. ``Special Detailed
Inspection of the Inboard, Mid and Outboard Flap (Metallic) End Ribs,
of Part 6--Eddy Current, of Bombardier Global 5000 Nondestructive
Testing Manual, Publication No. BD-700 NDTM, Revision 46, dated August
16, 2022. This service information specifies revised inspection
procedures for NDT procedure ET-57-51-009.
    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 ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority,
the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
and service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD
because the FAA evaluated all the relevant information and determined
the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop
on other products of the same type design.

Proposed Requirements of This NPRM

    This proposed AD would require a revision to the existing
maintenance or inspection program to require using a revised NDT
procedure when performing a certain airworthiness limitation task. This
proposed AD would also prohibit the use of earlier revisions of that
NDT procedure when performing that airworthiness limitation task.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 441 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following
costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per       Cost on U.S.
                          Labor cost                              Parts cost        product         operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 work-hour x $85 per hour = $85.............................              $0              $85          $37,485
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

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:

Bombardier, Inc.: Docket No. FAA-2023-1223; Project Identifier MCAI-
2022-00982-T.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by August 21, 2023.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-1A10 and BD-
700-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, having serial
numbers 9002 through 9879 inclusive, 9998, and 60001 and subsequent.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code: 57, Wings.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a determination that a certain
nondestructive test (NDT) procedure associated with a certain
airworthiness limitation for inspecting for cracks at the inboard,
mid, and outboard flap metallic end ribs does not contain all of the
necessary instructions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address
undetected cracks. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could
result in structural failure of the flap, which could result in
possible reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Maintenance Procedure Limitation

    As of 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the
existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to use
procedure ET-57-51-009. ``Special Detailed Inspection of the
Inboard, Mid and Outboard Flap (Metallic) End Ribs, of Part 6--Eddy
Current, of Bombardier Global 5000 Nondestructive Testing Manual,
Publication No. BD-700 NDTM, Revision 46, dated August 16, 2022,
when performing

airworthiness limitation task number 57-51-00-109.

(h) Maintenance Procedure Prohibition

    As of 90 days after the effective date of this AD, it is
prohibited to use procedure ET-57-51-009. ``Special Detailed
Inspection of the Inboard, Mid and Outboard Flap (Metallic) End
Ribs, of Part 6--Eddy Current, of Bombardier Global 5000
Nondestructive Testing Manual, Publication No. BD-700 NDTM, dated
May 6, 2019, or earlier revisions when performing airworthiness
limitation task number 57-51-00-109.

(i) Additional AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the International
Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified
in paragraph (j)(2) of this AD. Information may be emailed to: [email protected]. Before using any approved AMOC, notify
your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal
inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain instructions from a manufacturer, the instructions must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Validation Branch, FAA; or Transport Canada; or Bombardier, Inc.'s
Transport Canada Design Approval Organization (DAO). If approved by
the DAO, the approval must include the DAO-authorized signature.

(j) Additional Information

    (1) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2022-40, dated July 21,
2022, for related information. This Transport Canada may be found in
the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2023-1223.
    (2) For more information about this AD, contact Yaser Osman,
Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410,
Westbury, NY 11590; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Procedure ET-57-51-009. ``Special Detailed Inspection of the
Inboard, Mid and Outboard Flap (Metallic) End Ribs, of Part 6--Eddy
Current, of Bombardier Global 5000 Nondestructive Testing Manual,
Publication No. BD-700 NDTM, Revision 46, dated August 16, 2022.
    (ii) [Reserved]
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Bombardier, Inc., Business Aircraft Customer Response Center, 400
C[ocirc]te-Vertu Road West, Dorval, Qu[eacute]bec H4S 1Y9, Canada;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: bombardier.com">[email protected]bombardier.com; internet:
bombardier.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA,
Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200
South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, email [email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued on June 28, 2023.
Michael Linegang,
Acting Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-14076 Filed 7-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: April 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 73)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20161]
[DOCID:fr15ap08-3]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2007-29057; Airspace Docket 07-ASO-20]

Amendment of Class D Airspace; Jacksonville NAS, FL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends the Class D airspace at Jacksonville NAS,
FL. An evaluation determined the Class D airspace should be modified
and extended to join the Jacksonville Cecil Field Class D airspace
area. This rule increases the safety, efficiency and management of the
National Airspace System at Jacksonville NAS.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, June 05, 2008. 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 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daryl Daniels, System Support, Eastern
Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636,
Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On December 10, 2007, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
NPRM to amend the Class D at Jacksonville NAS, FL (72 FR 69639). The
current Class D airspace supporting IFR operations must be extended to
contain operations at Jacksonville NAS. This action provides the
additional controlled airspace, extending upward from the surface of
the Earth to support IFR operations between Jacksonville NAS and
Jacksonville Cecil Field. The airspace is also adjusted to allow
neighboring Jacksonville Herlong Airport adequate airspace for its
operation.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views or arguments, as they
may have desired on the proposal to the FAA. Minor adjustments were
made to the airspace's description to enhance charting. No comments
objecting to the proposal were received.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 modifies Class D airspace at Jacksonville NAS, FL, by providing
the additional controlled airspace, extending upward from the surface
of the Earth to support IFR operations between Jacksonville NAS and
Jacksonville Cecil Field excluding that airspace within a 1.8-mile
radius of the Jacksonville Herlong Airport.
    Class D airspace designations for airspace areas extending upwards
from the surface of the Earth are published in Paragraph 5000 of FAA
Order 7400.9R, dated August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

Agency Findings

    The regulations adopted herein will 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 various levels of government. Therefore, it is
determined that this final rule does not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132.
    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.
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.
    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 modifies the Class D airspace at Jacksonville NAS.

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 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 Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 15, 2007, and effective September 15, 2007, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

ASO FL D Jacksonville NAS, FL [Revised]

Jacksonville NAS, FL
    (Lat. 30[deg]14'09'' N., long. 81[deg]40'50'' W.)
Jacksonville TACAN
    (Lat. 30[deg]14'05'' N., long. 81[deg]40'30'' W.)
Herlong Airport
    (Lat. 30[deg]16'40'' N., long. 81[deg]48'21'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface of the Earth, to
and including 2,600 feet MSL, within a 5.3-mile radius of
Jacksonville NAS and within 1 mile north and 2.5 miles south of the
Jacksonville TACAN 270 radial, extending from the 5.3-mile radius to
6.5 miles west of the TACAN; excluding that airspace within a 1.8-
mile radius of the Herlong Airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on March 27, 2008.
Mark D. Ward,
Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center.
[FR Doc. E8-7671 Filed 4-14-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 97 (Monday, May 20, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22702]
[FR Doc No: 2019-10399]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 886

[Docket No. FDA-2018-N-3066]

Medical Devices; Classification of Accessories Distinct From
Other Devices; Finalized List of Accessories Suitable for Class I;
Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final classification action; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a
document that appeared in the Federal Register of April 12, 2019. That
document was published with the instruction to add a section to the
incorrect subpart. This correction is being made to improve the
accuracy of the final classification action.

DATES: Effective May 20, 2019, and applicable May 13, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Granger, Office of Policy and
Planning, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
32, Rm. 3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2019-07290 appearing on page
14865 in the Federal Register of Friday, April 12, 2019, the following
correction is made:

Sec.  886.4355  [Corrected]

0
1. On page 14870, in the second column, in part 886, amendatory
instruction 11 is corrected to read as follows:
    ``11. ``Add Sec.  886.4355 to subpart E to read as follows:''

    Dated: May 14, 2019.
Lowell J. Schiller,
Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2019-10399 Filed 5-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P