[Federal Register: July 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 137)]
[Notices]
[Page 39406-39409]
[DOCID:fr18jy07-61]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0559, FRL-8440-6]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Renewal of Information Collection Request for the
Implementation of the Oil Pollution Act Facility Response Plan
Requirements; EPA ICR Number 1630.09; OMB Control Number 2050-0135

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that EPA is planning to submit a
request to renew an existing approved Information Collection Request
(ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). This ICR is
scheduled to expire on November 30, 2007. Before submitting the ICR to
OMB for review and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific
aspects of the proposed information collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 17, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2007-0559, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     Mail: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
SFUND-2007-0559, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
    Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-
2007-0559. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov. The

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which

means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori Lee, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response, Office of Emergency Management, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code: 5104A, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 202-
564-2501; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

How Can I Access the Docket and/or Submit Comments?

    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
no. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0559 which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Office of Emergency

Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Oil Program Docket in the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Office of Emergency Prevention, Preparedness,
and Response Oil

Program Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Use http://www.regulations.gov to obtain a

copy of the draft collection of information, submit or view public
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public
docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are
available electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,'' then
key in the docket ID number identified in this document.

What Information Is EPA Particularly Interested in?

    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA specifically
solicits 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. In particular, EPA is requesting comments from
very small businesses (those that employ less than 25) on examples of
specific additional efforts that EPA could make to reduce the paperwork
burden for very small businesses affected by this collection.

What Should I Consider When I Prepare my Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible and provide specific
examples.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Offer alternative ways to improve the collection activity.
    6. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline identified
under DATES.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal
Register citation.

What Information Collection Activity or ICR Does This Apply to?

    Affected Entities: Entities potentially affected by this action are
a subset of facilities that are required to have a spill prevention,
control, and countermeasure (SPCC) plan under the Oil Pollution
Prevention regulation (40 CFR part 112) that, because of their
location, could reasonably be expected to cause ``substantial harm'' to
the environment by discharging oil into or on the navigable waters or
adjoining shorelines. Owners and operators of these facilities must
prepare and submit to EPA a facility response plan. The criteria for a
``substantial harm'' facility, which are detailed in 40 CFR
112.20(b)(1) and (f), include:
     Oil transfers over water and a total oil storage capacity
greater than or equal to 42,000 gallons; or
     Total oil storage capacity greater than or equal to one
million gallons and either inadequate secondary containment, proximity
to fish and wildlife or sensitive environments, proximity to public
drinking water intakes, or oil discharge greater than or equal 10,000
gallons in the last five years; or
     Other factors considered by the Regional Administrator.
    The specific private industry sectors subject to this action
include, but are not limited to: (1) Petroleum Bulk Stations and
Terminals (NAICS 42271); (2) Electric Power Generation, Transmission,
and Distribution (NAICS 2211); (3) Heating Oil Dealers (NAICS 3112);
(4) Transportation, Pipelines, and Marinas (NAICS 482-486/488112-48819/
4883/48849/492/71393); (5) Grain and Oilseed Milling (NAICS 3112); (6)
Manufacturing (NAICS 31-33); (7) Warehousing and Storage (NAICS 493);
(8) Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction (211111); and (9) Other
Commercial Facilities (miscellaneous).
    Title: Renewal of Information Collection Request for the
Implementation of the Oil Pollution Act Facility Response Plan
Requirements (40 CFR Part 112).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR No. 1630.09, OMB Control No. 2050-0135.
    ICR Status: This ICR is currently scheduled to expire on November
30, 2007.
    Abstract: The authority for EPA's facility response plan
requirements is derived from section 311 of the Clean Water Act, as
amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. EPA's regulation is codified
at 40 CFR 112.20 and 112.21. All facility response plan (FRP) reporting
and recordkeeping activities are mandatory. No amendments were made to
the FRP regulation since submission of the current ICR approval
(November 30, 2004). While EPA recently finalized amendments to the
SPCC rule (71 FR 77266 (December 26, 2006) and 72 FR 27443 (May 16,
2007)) these amendments are not expected to impact the number of
facilities subject to FRP requirements, nor are they expected to
substantively affect the burden of complying with FRP requirement.

Purpose of Data Collection

    A facility-specific response plan will help an owner or operator
identify the necessary resources to respond to an oil spill in a timely
manner. If implemented effectively, the FRP will reduce the impact and
severity of oil spills and may prevent spills because of the
identification of risks at the facility. Although the facility owner or
operator is the primary data user, EPA also uses the data in certain
situations to ensure that facilities comply with the regulation and to
help allocate response resources. State and local governments may also
use the data to assist in local emergency preparedness planning
efforts.
    EPA reviews all submitted FRPs and must approve FRPs for those
facilities whose discharges may cause ``significant and substantial
harm'' to the environment. EPA approval is needed in order to ensure
that facilities believed to pose the highest risk have planned for
adequate resources and procedures to respond to a spill. (See 40 CFR
112.20(f)(3) for further information about the criteria for
``significant and substantial harm.'')
    Response Plan Certification. Under section 112.20(e), the owner or
operator of a facility subject to SPCC requirements in 40 CFR part 112
but that does not meet the ``substantial harm'' criteria in section
112.20(f)(1) must complete and maintain at the facility the
certification form contained in Appendix C to part 112.
    Response Plan Preparation. Under section 112.20(a) or (b), the
owner or operator of a facility that meets the ``substantial harm''
criteria in section 112.20(f)(1) must prepare and submit to the EPA
Regional Administrator a facility response plan (FRP) following section
112.20(h). Such a facility may be a newly constructed facility or may
be an existing facility that meets paragraph (f)(1) as a result of a
planned change (paragraph (a)(2)(iii)) or an unplanned

change (paragraph (a)(2)(iv)) in facility characteristics. Under
paragraph (c), the owner or operator may be required to amend the FRP.
    Response Plan Maintenance. Under section 112.20(g), the owner or
operator must periodically review the FRP to ensure consistency with
the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
and Area Contingency Plans. Under section 112.20(d), the facility owner
or operator must revise and resubmit revised portions of the FRP after
material changes at the facility. FRP changes that do not result in a
material change in response capabilities shall be provided to the
Regional Administrator as they occur. Periodic drills and exercises are
required to test the effectiveness of the FRP.
    Recordkeeping. Under section 112.20(e), an owner or operator who
determines that the FRP requirements do not apply must certify and
retain a record of this determination. An owner or operator who is
subject to the requirements must keep the FRP at the facility (section
112.20(a)), keep updates to the FRP (section 112.20(d)(1) and (2)), and
log activities such as discharge prevention meetings, response
training, and drills and exercises (section 112.20(h)(8)(iv)).

Consultations

    For the current ICR (approved on November 30, 2004), EPA consulted
with nine owners or operators of FRP facilities to assess the
reasonableness of the hour and dollar burden estimates. Interviews
revealed that the burden was comparable to the burden estimate that EPA
had used in earlier ICR (as recent as May 2, 2001), which had relied on
existing industry-related sources of burden and cost information,
combined with input from EPA regional staff and best professional
judgment. Further, the 2004 consultations did not identify significant
sources of burden not captured in earlier renewal ICR (such as
unaccounted for recordkeeping costs or other time-consuming tasks
associated with FRP regulatory compliance). For this renewal, EPA again
contacted nine regulated facilities (of different sizes and types) to
verify the reasonableness of its hour and dollar burden estimates. EPA
recognizes that the information from the interviews with nine
individuals are not statistically representative of the burden
experienced by all FRP facilities. Nevertheless, the results of the
consultations suggest that EPA's burden estimates adequately capture
industry practices. This renewal ICR, therefore, does not change the
hour burden estimates used in the 2004 renewal ICR. The burden cost is
adjusted to reflect increases in wage rates.

Number of Regulated Facilities

    Since approval of the current ICR (November 30, 2004), EPA has
collected detailed information on the facilities that have prepared and
submitted an FRP to EPA. EPA compiled a national inventory of FRP
facilities from data maintained by each of EPA's ten regional offices.
The inventory was updated in April 2007 and comprises 4,132 plan
holders. While prior ICR were developed based on an assumed share of
the estimated number of SPCC facilities, this renewal instead uses the
more detailed inventory as baseline for the number of FRP facilities
affected by this ICR.
    Burden Statement: A national inventory of FRP plan holders compiled
by EPA in the Spring of 2007 indicate that owners and operators of
4,132 facilities had developed and are maintaining FRPs. Information
available about individual plan holders, however, shows that 161 FRP
facilities were owned and operated by the federal government (e.g.,
military installations). These federal facilities are excluded from the
burden estimate analysis, given that they are not considered
``persons'' under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Consequently, the burden
analysis uses 3,971 as the number of existing facilities that are
maintaining an FRP as of 2007.
    The number of active FRP facilities represents approximately 0.7
percent of the 596,186 facilities EPA estimates are currently subject
to 40 CFR part 112. EPA estimates that approximately 296 new FRP-
regulated facilities will initiate operations during the three-year
period covered by this ICR and will develop FRPs. The number of plan
holders represents approximately 0.5 percent of the 18,541 new
facilities EPA estimates will become subject to 40 CFR part 112 each
year. Conversely, another 18,445 facilities (99.5 percent of the 18,541
facilities subject to 40 CFR part 112) will complete the certification
form indicating that they are not ``substantial harm'' facilities.
    The hour burden and dollar cost estimates capture the variety of
facility types and sizes among those that are subject to the FRP
requirements. Because the costs of compliance activities associated
with FRPs depend on the physical and operating characteristics of the
facility, EPA developed the burden estimate based on six categories of
facilities defined by their total storage capacity and operational
characteristics. Total storage capacity categories were defined as: (1)
Facilities with a total storage capacity greater than 42,000 gallons
but less than or equal to one million gallons; and (2) facilities with
a total storage capacity greater than one million gallons. While
facilities with oil storage capacity between 1,320 gallons and 42,000
gallons may be subject to 40 CFR part 112, they are not subject to FRP
requirements and need only to maintain the certification form. The FRP
facility type categories were based on how oil is used at a facility.
Facilities were classified as using oil in one of three ways: Storage/
Consumption facilities that consume oil as a raw material or end-use
product; Storage/Distribution facilities market and distribute oil as a
wholesale or retail product; and Production facilities pump oil from
the ground as part of exploration or production activities. While rule
requirements do not vary between these three types of facilities, they
are assumed to have different configuration, equipment, and operational
characteristics that may affect the FRP burden.
    The total hour burden to the entire regulated community over the
three-year period covered by the renewal ICR is approximately 1,307,230
hours, or 435,743 hours annually. Exhibit 1 displays the average annual
respondent burden for each burden category; certification, preparation,
maintenance. The average public reporting and recordkeeping burdens to
a newly regulated facility where the owners or operators are not
required to prepare FRPs (i.e., facilities where the owner or operators
certify that they do not meet the ``substantial harm'' criteria) are
estimated at 0.4 hours per year. The average annual reporting and
recordkeeping burdens to a newly regulated facility where the owners or
operators are required to prepare FRPs (i.e., first-year costs for plan
development) are estimated at 240.1 hours per year. The average annual
reporting and recordkeeping burdens to a facility where the owners or
operators maintain FRPs (i.e., subsequent year costs for annual plan
maintenance) are estimated at 99.7 hours.

                     Exhibit 1.--Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden for Affected Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Number of        Average
                                                                   Total average  facilities per   annual burden
                                                                   annual burden       year       per respondent
                                                                      (hours)      (respondents)      (hours)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certification...................................................           7,372          18,445             0.4
Preparation.....................................................          23,057              96           240.1
Maintenance.....................................................         405,314           4,064            99.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Capital costs are incurred by respondents that must prepare an FRP
for the first time. The total capital cost to comply with the FRP
information collection requirements is $89,098 over the three-year
period covered by the renewal ICR, or $29,699 per year. This includes
one-time startup costs such as telephone calls, postage, photocopying,
and other costs related to the preparation and submission of an FRP.
O&M costs are considered to be negligible since it is expected that
facility owners and operators will incur no additional costs due to
hard copy storage of their FRPs (e.g., placed on existing shelves or in
existing file cabinets) or electronic storage (e.g., saved on a
facility(s existing computer hard drive or network).
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Are There Changes in the Estimates From the Last Approval?

    There is a decrease of 199,250 hours in the total estimated
respondent burden compared with that identified in the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This decrease reflects EPA's current inventory of
facilities that have submitted and are maintaining an FRP as per 40 CFR
part 112. While there have been no changes in the regulation that
affected per facility regulatory burden, the number of facilities
currently subject to FRP requirements is lower than had been estimated
for the current ICR, resulting in a lower aggregate burden.

What Is the Next Step in the Process for This ICR?

    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 pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.12. At that time, EPA will
issue another Federal Register notice pursuant to 5 CFR
1320.5(a)(1)(iv) to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the
opportunity to submit additional comments to OMB. If you have any
questions about this ICR or the approval process, please contact the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Dated: July 12, 2007.
Deborah Y. Dietrich,
Director, Office of Emergency Management, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
 [FR Doc. E7-13898 Filed 7-17-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 224 (Monday, November 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71183-71184]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29297]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

23rd Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 206: EUROCAE WG 76 Plenary:
AIS and MET Data Link Services

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of RTCA Special Committee 206: EUROCAE WG 76 Plenary:
AIS and MET Data Link Services meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a
meeting of RTCA Special Committee 206: EUROCAE WG 76 Plenary: AIS and
MET Data Link Services.

DATES: The meeting will be held December 14-16, 2010 from 9 a.m. to 5
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at RTCA, Inc., 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: RTCA Secretariat, 1828 L Street, NW.,
Suite 805, Washington, DC 20036; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (202)
833-9434; Web site http://www.rtca.org.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), notice
is hereby given for a RTCA Special Committee 206: EUROCAE WG 76
Plenary: AIS and MET Data Link Services meeting. The agenda will
include:
     Special Committee (SC) 206, Aeronautical Information and
Meteorological Data Link Services, is finishing it's work on the Safety
and Performance Requirements for Aeronautical Information Services
(AIS) and Meteorological (MET) Data Link Services and a revised Terms
of Reference (TOR) for SC-206 has been approved by the RTCA Program
Management Committee. A brief description of the document deliverables
called out in the revised SC-206 TOR is provided below to inform
industry decisions relating to SC-206 participation.
     These deliverables not only provide data link independent
Aeronautical Information Services (AIS) and Meteorological (MET) data
link standards and guidelines, but also guidance to RTCA Special
Committees that may be developing data link specific standards for AIS
and MET data link services. In addition to a Minimum Aviation System
Performance Standards (MASPS) for Flight Information Services-Broadcast
(FIS-B) Data Link, RTCA DO-267A, revision and an AIS and MET Data Link
MASPS, that defines the system-level requirements to provide for data
driven intended functional use of AIS/MET data link information as the
normal (or primary) means for cockpit receipt, a Concept of Use for AIS
and MET Data Link Services and an AIS and MET Services Delivery
Architecture Recommendations are included in the TOR deliverables.
     The Concept of Use for AIS and MET Data Link Services
document includes, in a data-link independent manner, AIS and MET
services to the aircraft and MET data link services from the aircraft
to ground, to provide a common operating picture for evolving global
ATM concepts. The AIS and MET Services Delivery Architecture
Recommendations deliverable is a holistic, data-link-agnostic technical
analysis of delivery methods to and from the aircraft with respect to
the operational and safety requirements for AIS and MET services and
provides recommended alternatives for AIS and MET data delivery
architectures. The Concept of Use and Delivery Architectures document
will inform the AIS and MET Data Link MASPS on its scope and content
and help determine whether a revision to the Minimum Interoperability
Standards (MIS) for

Automated Meteorological Transmission (AUTOMET), RTCA DO-252, may be
required. See attached Agenda for Meeting  23 schedule.

14 December--Tuesday

     9 a.m.--Opening Plenary
      Chairmen's remarks and Host's comments
      Introductions, approval of previous meeting minutes,
review and approve meeting agenda
      Schedule for this week
      Action Item Review
      SC Revised TOR Background and Plan--Chairmen
      Working Group 1, Wake Vortex, Air Traffic Management, and
Weather Applications, WG1 Chairmen
      Working Group 2, AIS Uplink and MET Uplink, Downlink, and
Crosslink, Concept of Use--WG2 Chairmen
      Working Group 3, AIS and MET Services Delivery
Architecture Recommendations--WG3 Chairmen
     1 p.m. WG1, WG2, and WG3 Meetings

15 December--Wednesday

     9 a.m. WG1, WG2, and WG3 Meetings

16 December--Thursday

     9 a.m. WG1, WG2, and WG3 Meetings
     2 p.m. Plenary Session
      SAE G-10--Gary Livack
      Working Group Reports
      Action Item Review
     Other Business
     Meeting Plans and Dates
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairmen, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present
statements or obtain information should contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may
present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 15, 2010.
Robert L. Bostiga,
RTCA Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 2010-29297 Filed 11-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 69 (Monday, April 11, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21233-21234]
[FR Doc No: 2016-08092]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2015-4076; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-30-AD;
Amendment 39-18483; AD 2016-08-07]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Rolls-Royce plc Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Rolls-Royce plc (RR) RB211-22B and RB211-524 turbofan engines with low-
pressure turbine (LPT) support roller bearing, part number (P/N)
LK30313 or P/N UL29651, installed. This AD requires removal of certain
LPT support roller bearings installed in RR RB211-22B and RB211-524
engines. This AD was prompted by a report of a breach of the turbine
casing and release of engine debris through a hole in the engine
nacelle. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the LPT support
roller bearing, loss of radial position following LPT blade failure,
uncontained part release, damage to the engine, and damage to the
airplane.

DATES: This AD becomes effective May 16, 2016.

ADDRESSES: See the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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-2015-
4076; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this AD, the mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI), the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is
Document Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Kierstead, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 1200
District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 781-
238-7199; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to the specified products. The
NPRM was published in the Federal Register on December 9, 2015 (80 FR
76402). The NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states:

    An RB211-524G2-T engine experienced an in-service event that
resulted in breach of a turbine casing and some release of core
engine debris through a hole in the engine nacelle. The
investigation of the event determined the primary cause to have been
fracture and release of a Low Pressure (LP) turbine stage 2 blade.
The blade release caused secondary damage to the LP turbine,
producing significant out-of-balance forces. The event engine was
fitted with an LP turbine support bearing where the roller retention
cage is constructed from two halves that are riveted together. The
LP turbine imbalance resulted in an overload of the LP turbine
support bearing and caused separation of the riveted, two -piece
roller retention cage. Radial location of the LP turbine shaft was
lost, allowing further progression of the event that resulted in a
breach of the IP turbine casing.

    You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA-2015-4076.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We considered the comments received.

Support for the NPRM (80 FR 76402, December 9, 2015)

    Boeing concurred with the NPRM.

Request To Change Compliance

    Orbital ATK and Lockheed Martin requested that the compliance time
be based on LPT blade cycles instead of calendar time. Orbital ATK
cites correspondence with the U.S. Rolls-Royce representative who
recommends a 15,000 cycles-since-new (CSN) duration for the LPT blade
design life. Since there is no calendar time driving the unsafe
condition, Orbital ATK believes this is a good mitigation factor for
low utilization rate operators. Orbital ATK believes that routine
borescope inspections of the LPT blades and removal of the engine prior
to reaching an LPT blade limit of 15,000 CSN offers an equivalent level
of safety.
    We partially agree. We agree that the failure mode of the bearing
support is not a time-based dependency. However, a compliance time of
24 months is specified to allow for a shop visit interval. We have
determined that removal of the LPT support roller bearing addresses the
unsafe condition. Operators with unique circumstances may apply for an
alternative method of compliance using the procedures listed in this
AD. We did not change this AD.

Request To Change Costs of Compliance

    Lockheed Martin requested an adjustment to the estimated costs of
compliance. The costs to low utilization operators would be
significantly increased by imposing an unscheduled shop visit and/or
unscheduled engine removal. Another possible contributor for increased
costs is the lack of an approved repair station within the United
States.
    We partially agree. We disagree that no repair stations exist
within the U.S. that may perform the work required by this AD. We agree
that this AD may drive low utilization operators to the shop faster.
Operators with unique circumstances may apply for an alternative method
of compliance using the procedures listed in this AD. We did not change
this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data, including the comments received,
and determined that air safety and the public interest require adopting
this AD as proposed.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 9 engines installed on airplanes
of U.S. registry. We also estimate it will take 0 hours to comply with
this AD. Removing the LPT support roller bearing is required during a
shop visit; therefore, no additional time is needed for removal.
Required parts cost about $8,184 per engine. The average labor rate is
$85 per hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this AD
on U.S. operators to be $73,656.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more

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

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 AD:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, 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.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends 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):

2016-08-07 Rolls-Royce plc: Amendment 39-18483; Docket No. FAA-2015-
4076; Directorate Identifier 2015-NE-30-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective May 16, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Rolls-Royce plc RB211-22B-02, RB211-22B (MOD
72-8700), RB211-524B-02, RB211-524B-B-02, RB211-524B2-19, RB211-
524B2-B-19, RB211-524B3-02, RB211-524B4-02, RB211-524B4-D-02, RB211-
524C2-19, RB211-524C2-B-19, RB211-524D4-19, RB211-524D4-B-19, RB211-
524D4X-19, RB211-524D4X-B-19, RB211-524D4-39, RB211-524D4-B-39,
RB211-524G2-19, RB211-524G3-19, RB211-524-G2-T-19, RB211-524G3-T-19,
RB211-524H-36, RB211-524H2-19, RB211-524H-T-36, and RB211-524H2-T-19
turbofan engines, all serial numbers, with low-pressure turbine
(LPT) support roller bearing, part number (P/N) LK30313 or P/N
UL29651, installed.

(d) Reason

    This AD was prompted by a report of a breach of the turbine
casing and release of engine debris through a hole in the engine
nacelle. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of the LPT
support roller bearing, loss of radial position following LPT blade
failure, uncontained part release, damage to the engine, and damage
to the airplane.

(e) Actions and Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done. At the next shop visit or within 24 months
after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, remove
from service LPT support roller bearing, P/N LK30313 or P/N UL29651,
and replace with a part eligible for installation.

(f) Installation Prohibition

    After the effective date of this AD, do not install an LPT
support roller bearing, P/N LK30313 or P/N UL29651, onto any engine.

(g) Definition

    For the purpose of this AD, a ``shop visit'' is defined as
induction of an engine into the shop for maintenance involving the
separation of pairs of major mating engine flanges, except that the
separation of engine flanges solely for the purposes of
transportation without subsequent engine maintenance does not
constitute an engine shop visit.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request. You may email your request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Brian Kierstead,
Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine &
Propeller Directorate, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency AD 2015-0187,
dated September 9, 2015, for more information. You may examine the
MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2015-4076.

(j) Material Incorporated by Reference

    None.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on April 4, 2016.
Colleen M. D'Alessandro,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.

[FR Doc. 2016-08092 Filed 4-8-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: May 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 94)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27443-27448]
[DOCID:fr16my07-16]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 112

[EPA-HQ-OPA-2006-00949; [FRL-8315-1]
RIN 2050-AG36

Oil Pollution Prevention; Non-Transportation Related Onshore and
Offshore Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is today extending the
dates by which facilities must prepare or amend Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plans, and implement those Plans.
This action allows the Agency time to promulgate further revisions to
the SPCC rule before

owners and operators are required to prepare or amend, and implement
their SPCC Plans. EPA expects to propose further revisions to the SPCC
rule later this year.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective May 16, 2007.

ADDRESSES: The public docket for this final rule, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OPA-2006-0949, contains the information related to this rulemaking,
including the response to comment document. All documents in the docket
are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in

the index, some information may not be publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information or other information the disclosure
of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket, EPA/

DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number of the
Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number to make
an appointment to view the docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information, contact the
Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP and Oil Information Center at<PHONE_NUMBER>
or TDD<PHONE_NUMBER> (hearing impaired). In the Washington, DC
metropolitan area, call<PHONE_NUMBER> or TDD<PHONE_NUMBER>. For more
detailed information on specific aspects of this rule, contact either
Vanessa Rodriguez at<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
Mark W. Howard at<PHONE_NUMBER> (howard.markw@epa.gov), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC, 20460-0002, Mail Code 5104A.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Authority

    33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. 2720; E.O. 12777 (October 18,
1991), 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351.

II. Background

    On July 17, 2002, the Agency published a final rule that amended
the SPCC regulations (see 67 FR 47042). The rule became effective on
August 16, 2002. The final rule included compliance dates in Sec.
112.3 for preparing amending, and implementing SPCC Plans. The original
compliance dates were extended on January 9, 2003 (see 68 FR 1348),
again on April 17, 2003 (see 68 FR 18890), a third time on August 11,
2004 (see 69 FR 48794), and a fourth time on February 17, 2006 (see 71
FR 77266).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The compliance date for farms is the date that establishes
SPCC requirements specifically for farms or otherwise establishes
dates by which farms must comply with the provisions of the rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the current provisions in Sec.  112.3(a)(1), the owner or
operator of a facility (other than a farm) that was in operation on or
before August 16, 2002 must make any necessary amendments to its SPCC
Plan and fully implement it by October 31, 2007, while the owner or
operator of a facility (other than a farm) that came into operation
after August 16, 2002, but before October 31, 2007, must prepare and
fully implement an SPCC Plan on or before October 31, 2007. Under the
current provision in Sec.  112.3(b)(1), the owner or operator of a
facility (other than a farm) that becomes operational after October 31,
2007 must prepare and implement an SPCC Plan before beginning
operations. In addition, Sec.  112.3(c) requires onshore and offshore
mobile facilities to prepare or amend and implement their SPCC Plans on
or before October 31, 2007.
    On December 26, 2006, EPA finalized a set of SPCC rule amendments
that address certain targeted areas of the SPCC requirements based on
issues and concerns raised by the regulated community (71 FR 77266). As
highlighted in the EPA Regulatory Agenda and the 2005 OMB report on
``Regulatory Reform of the U.S. Manufacturing Sector,'' EPA is
considering further amendments to address other areas where regulatory
reform may be appropriate. For these additional areas, the Agency
expects to issue a proposed rule later this year. Areas where
regulatory reform may be appropriate include, but are not limited to,
oil and natural gas exploration and production facilities, farms, and
qualified facilities. Because the Agency was concerned that it would
not be able to propose and promulgate such regulatory amendments before
the current October 31, 2007 compliance date, EPA believed it
appropriate to provide a further extension of the compliance date, and
thus, proposed an extension to the compliance dates on December 26,
2006 (71 FR 77357). This notice finalizes that proposal.

III. Extension of Compliance Dates

    This rule extends the dates in Sec.  112.3(a), (b), and (c) by
which a facility must prepare or amend and implement its SPCC Plan. As
a result of the revisions in Sec.  112.3(a)(1), an owner or operator of
a facility (other than a farm) that was in operation on or before
August 16, 2002 must make any necessary amendments to his SPCC Plan,
and implement that Plan, on or before July 1, 2009. This will allow the
owner or operator time to prepare or amend and implement the SPCC Plan
in accordance with the July 2002 (67 FR 47042, July 17, 2002) and
December 2006 (71 FR 77266, December 26, 2006) amendments, and any
subsequent modifications to the SPCC requirements that are promulgated
based on amendments that the EPA intends to propose later this year.
EPA expects to promulgate such a final rule by the summer of 2008. The
facility owner/operator must continue to maintain his existing SPCC
Plan until he amends and fully implements the Plan to comply with the
revised requirements. Similarly, an owner or operator of a facility
(other than a farm) that came into operation after August 16, 2002
through July 1, 2009 must prepare and implement an SPCC Plan on or
before July 1, 2009.
    Under the revised Sec.  112.3(b)(1), the owner or operator of a
facility regulated under the SPCC rule that becomes operational after
July 1, 2009 must prepare and implement an SPCC Plan before beginning
operations.
    This rule similarly extends the compliance dates in Sec.  112.3(c)
for mobile facilities. Under this rule, an owner or operator of a
mobile facility must prepare or amend and implement an SPCC Plan on or
before July 1, 2009, or before beginning operations if operations begin
after July 1, 2009.
    The Agency believes that such an extension of the compliance dates
is appropriate for several reasons. First, this extension will allow
those potentially affected in the regulated community an opportunity to
make changes to their facilities and to their SPCC Plans necessary to
comply with any revised requirements promulgated based on the
amendments expected to be proposed later this year, and finalized
thereafter, rather than with the existing requirements.
    Further, the Agency believes that this extension of the compliance
dates will also provide the owner or operator of a facility the time to
fully understand the regulatory amendments offered by revisions to the
2002 SPCC rule promulgated on December 26, 2006 (71

FR 77266) and amendments expected to be promulgated by the summer of
2008.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As stated in the rule, a facility owner or operator must
maintain its existing Plans. A facility owner or operator who wants
to take advantage of the 2002 and 2006 regulatory changes may do so,
but he will need to modify his existing Plan accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Agency intends to issue revisions to the SPCC
Guidance for Regional Inspectors, to address both the December 2006
revisions and the revisions expected to be proposed later this year.
The guidance document is designed to facilitate an understanding of the
rule's applicability, to help clarify the role of the inspector in the
review and evaluation of the performance-based SPCC requirements, and
to provide a consistent national policy on SPCC-related issues. The
guidance is available to both the owners and operators of facilities
that may be subject to the requirements of the SPCC rule and to the
general public on the Agency's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/oilspill.

The Agency believes that this extension will provide the regulated
community the opportunity to take advantage of the material presented
in the revised guidance before preparing or amending their SPCC Plans.

IV. Response to Comments

    The Agency received 28 submissions on the proposed rule (71 FR
77357, December 26, 2006). The discussion below summarizes and responds
to the major comments received. A more complete response to comments
document can be found in the docket for this rulemaking, EPA-HQ-OPA-
2006-0949.
    The majority of commenters (nineteen) supported the proposed
extension of the compliance date and generally agreed that the
extension would allow the Agency time to promulgate further regulatory
revisions. Many commenters also noted that the proposed extension would
allow the industries potentially affected by those revisions an
opportunity to make the necessary changes to their facilities and to
their SPCC Plans to comply with the revised requirements expected to be
proposed in 2007 and later finalized.
    A second group of commenters (nine) supported the proposed
extension, but suggested alternate schedules, arguing that EPA's
proposed compliance date was premature given the Agency's intent to
propose further changes to the SPCC rule in 2007. Several schedules
were suggested:
     Tie the compliance dates to promulgation of the rule
finalizing the amendments to be proposed in 2007 or, in the event that
EPA decides not to go forward with further modifications to the rule,
12 months after publication of a notice in the Federal Register
terminating that rulemaking.
     Provide an extension of 18 months from the promulgation of
the final amendments to the SPCC rule, thereby providing adequate time
for a regulated facility to implement the amendments (i.e., review
amendments, develop and/or modify existing Plans, and comply with any
final changes to the rule or guidance).
     Set the date for preparing and amending the SPCC Plans to
one year following publication of the final amendments, maintaining the
six-month separation between the dates for amending and implementing
Plans.
     Set a Plan preparation compliance date of July 1, 2009,
and an implementation compliance date of January 1, 2010, thereby
allowing a facility owner or operator adequate time after Plan
amendment to make changes at his facility, properly train employees on
the amended Plan requirements, and allow for full implementation of the
amended Plan requirements.
    The Agency disagrees with those commenters who suggested an
alternate schedule to either set uncertain compliance dates in Sec.
112.3 or to further extend the time period for the compliance dates.
While the Agency recognizes that a regulated facility owner or operator
needs adequate time after EPA takes final action on the proposed
amendments to the SPCC Plan requirements to amend or prepare an SPCC
Plan and to implement it, we also believe that one year is a reasonable
period of time to allow for preparing, amending, and implementing an
SPCC Plan following final Agency action on the proposed amendments to
the SPCC rule. The Agency intends to develop and publish Federal
Register notices proposing and then taking final action on further
amendments to the SPCC regulatory requirements as soon as possible. At
this time, based on the information at hand, the Agency believes that
extending the compliance dates in Sec.  112.3 until July 1, 2009 will
allow owners and operators an adequate interval to comply with the SPCC
rule.
    The Agency also disagrees with commenters who requested a revised
date for implementing amended SPCC Plans to include a six-month period
after the July 1, 2009 date for Plan amendment. For the reasons
discussed above, the Agency believes that the July 1, 2009 date for
both Plan amendment and implementation is more than adequate. The
effect of the Agency's decision to eliminate the gap between Plan
preparation or amendment and implementation was to provide additional
time for the owner or operator to prepare or amend the SPCC Plan. The
Agency believes that this approach, which allows an owner or operator
flexibility in scheduling Plan development or amendment, makes sense
given that an owner or operator is not required to submit his SPCC
Plans to the Agency. It also simplifies the burden for an owner or
operator of an SPCC facility by establishing a single compliance date,
while providing additional time for Plan development.
    One commenter opposed a compliance date extension for this
regulation, arguing that it was not effectively addressing the problems
with the regulation, and that the best way to do this would be by
completing a complete re-write of the rule. First, the Agency disagrees
with the commenter that the SPCC regulation needs to be re-written.
Rather, the Agency believes that it is in the best interest of the
regulated community to address areas of confusion that arose after
promulgation of the 2002 amendments, and that promulgating a proposal
intended to clarify and tailor requirements, particularly for small
businesses, and making revisions to the SPCC Guidance for Regional
Inspectors available to the regulated community will ultimately result
in a more effective and complete implementation of the SPCC regulation
and in enhanced environmental protection. The Agency also believes that
the regulated community needs the additional time allowed by the
extension in order to better take advantage of the guidance and any
further amendments that are promulgated and that the benefits of this
extension outweigh the concerns raised by the opposing commenter.
Furthermore, a facility owner or operator subject to the SPCC rule
continues to be required to ensure that operations are conducted in a
manner that safeguards human health and the environment by preventing
oil discharges to navigable waters and adjoining shorelines and by
effectively responding in the event of an accidental discharge.

V. Applicability to Farms

    In the December 2006 final rule amendments, EPA finalized an
extension of the compliance dates for the owner or operator of a farm
(71 FR 77266), as defined in Sec.  112.2, to prepare or amend and
implement the farm's SPCC Plan until the effective date of a rule that
establishes SPCC requirements specifically for farms or otherwise
establishes dates by which farms must comply with the provisions of the
SPCC

rule. The Agency has been conducting additional information collection
and analyses to determine if differentiated SPCC requirements may be
appropriate for farms. Specifically, the Agency has been working with
the U.S. Department of Agriculture, as well as the farming community,
to collect data that would more accurately characterize oil storage and
handling at these facilities. These efforts will allow the Agency to
better focus on priorities where substantial environmental improvements
can be obtained. The Agency will propose the new compliance dates for
farms in a separate Federal Register notice. Today's rule does not
affect this extended compliance date for farms.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action has been determined to be a ``significant regulatory action.''
This final rule would extend the compliance dates in Sec.  112.3, but
would have no other substantive effect. However, because of its
interconnection with the related SPCC rule amendments finalized on
December 26, 2006 (71 FR 77266) which was a significant action under
the terms of Executive Order 12866, and because of the upcoming
proposal to further amend the SPCC requirements, this action was
submitted to OMB for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations,
and small governmental jurisdictions. Small entity is defined as: (1) A
small business as defined in the Small Business Administration's (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201--the SBA defines small businesses by
category of business using North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) codes, and in the case of farms and oil exploration and
production facilities, which constitute a large percentage of the
facilities affected by this rule, generally defines small businesses as
having less than $500,000 in revenues or 500 employees, respectively;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's rule on small
entities, the Agency concludes that this action would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify
and address regulatory alternatives ``which minimize any significant
economic impact of the rule on small entities.'' 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule
relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive economic effect
on the small entities subject to the rule.
    This rule would defer the regulatory burden for small entities by
extending the compliance dates in Sec.  112.3. After considering the
economic impacts of today's rule on small entities, I certify that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and
consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives, and adopt the
least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do
not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted.
    Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed under section 203 of UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small
governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of
EPA regulatory proposals with a significant Federal intergovernmental
mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on
compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. EPA also has determined that this rule contains
no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. As was explained above, the effect of this action
would be to reduce burden and costs for owners and operators of all
facilities, including small governments that are subject to the rule.

E. Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This rule does not have federalism implications. It would not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. Under CWA section 311(o), States
may impose additional requirements, including more stringent
requirements, relating to the

prevention of oil discharges to navigable waters. EPA recognizes that
some States have more stringent requirements (56 FR 54612, (October 22,
1991). This rule would not preempt State law or regulations. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Today's
rule would not significantly or uniquely affect communities of Indian
Tribal governments. Thus Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
rule.

G. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe my
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children.

H. Executive Order 13211--Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards, such as materials specifications, test
methods, sampling procedures, and business practices that are developed
or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency
decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
    This rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, NTTAA
does not apply.

J. The Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is
published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective May 16,
2007.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 112

    Environmental protection, Oil pollution, Penalties, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 10, 2007
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
112 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 112--OIL POLLUTION PREVENTION

0
1. The authority citation for part 112 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.; 33 U.S.C. 2720; E.O. 12777
(October 18, 1991), 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 351

0
2. Section 112.3 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(2), and
(c) to read as follows:

Subpart A--Applicability, Definitions, and General Requirements for
All Facilities and All Types of Oils

Sec.  112.3  Requirement to prepare and implement a Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure Plan.

* * * * *
    (a)(1) If your onshore or offshore facility was in operation on or
before August 16, 2002, you must maintain your Plan, but most amend it,
if necessary to ensure compliance with this part, and implement the
Plan no later than July 1, 2009. If your onshore or offshore facility
becomes operational after August 16, 2002, through July 1, 2009, and
could reasonably be expected to have a discharge as described in Sec.
112.1(b), you must prepare and implement a Plan on or before July 1,
2009.
* * * * *
    (b)(1) If you are the owner or operator of an onshore or offshore
facility that becomes operational after July 1, 2009, and could
reasonably be expected to have a discharge as described in Sec.
112.1(b), you must prepare and implement a Plan before you begin
operations.
* * * * *
    (c) If you are the owner or operator of an onshore or offshore
mobile facility, such as an onshore drilling or workover rig, barge
mounted offshore drilling or workover rig, or portable fueling
facility, you must prepare, implement, and maintain a facility Plan as
required by this section. You must maintain your Plan, but must amend
and implement it, if necessary to ensure compliance with this part, on
or before July 1, 2009. If your onshore or offshore mobile facility
becomes operational after July 1, 2009, and could reasonably be
expected to have a discharge as described in Sec.  112.1(b), you must
prepare and implement a Plan before you begin operations. This
provision does not require that you prepare a new Plan each time you
move the facility to a new site. The Plan may be a general Plan. When
you move the mobile or portable facility, you must locate and install
it using the discharge prevention practices outlined in the Plan for
the facility. The Plan is applicable only while the facility

is in a fixed (non-transportation) operating mode.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 07-2404 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 160 (Monday, August 23, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46970-46972]
[FR Doc No: 2021-17978]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0650]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Potomac River, Between Charles County, MD and King
George County, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
certain waters in the Potomac River. This action is necessary to
provide for the safety of persons, property, and the marine environment
from the potential safety hazards associated with construction
operations at the new Governor Harry W. Nice/Senator Thomas ``Mac''
Middleton Memorial (US-301) Bridge, which will occur from 7 a.m. on
August 23, 2021, through 8 p.m. on September 11, 2021. This rule will
prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region
or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 7 a.m. on August 23, 2021, through 8
p.m. on September 11, 2021.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2021-0650 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on
DOCUMENTS on the line associated with this rule below ``SEARCH''.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Ron Houck, Sector Maryland-NCR, Waterways Management
Division, U.S. Coast Guard: telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On August 5, 2021, Skanska-Corman-McLean, Joint Venture, notified
the Coast Guard that from 7 a.m. on August 23, 2021, to 8 p.m. on
September 11, 2021, it will be setting 200-ton pre-cast fender ring
elements at the new Governor Harry W. Nice/Senator Thomas ``Mac''
Middleton Memorial (US-301) Bridge at Pier 43, which is adjacent and to
the west of the federal navigation channel. The operation requires the
daily movement in, anchoring, and movement out of a large crane, as
well as nighttime diver work. This operation will impede vessels
requiring the use of the channel.
    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary 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 notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. Construction operations involving
simultaneous crane heavy lifts at the new Governor Harry W. Nice/
Senator Thomas ``Mac'' Middleton Memorial (US-301) Bridge must occur
within the federal navigation channel. Immediate action is needed to
respond to the potential safety hazards associated with bridge
construction. Hazards from the construction operations include low-
hanging or falling ropes, cables, large piles and cement cast portions,
dangerous projectiles, and or other debris. We must establish this
safety zone by August 23, 2021, to guard against these hazards.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest
because immediate action is needed to respond to the potential safety
hazards associated with construction operations at the new Governor
Harry W. Nice/Senator Thomas ``Mac'' Middleton Memorial (US-301) Bridge
conducted within the federal navigation channel.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The COTP Maryland-National Capital
Region has determined that potential hazards associated with bridge
construction starting August 23, 2021, will be a safety concern for
anyone within the federal navigation channel at the new Governor Harry
W. Nice/Senator Thomas ``Mac'' Middleton Memorial (US-301) Bridge
construction site. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels,
and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety
zone while the bridge is being constructed.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 7 a.m. on August 23, 2021,
through 8 p.m. on September 11, 2021. The safety zone will cover all
navigable waters of the Potomac River, encompassed by a line connecting
the following points beginning at 38[deg]21'50.96'' N,
076[deg]59'22.04'' W, thence south to 38[deg]21'43.08'' N,
076[deg]59'20.55'' W, thence west to 38[deg]21'41.00'' N,
076[deg]59'34.90'' W, thence north to

38[deg]21'48.90'' N, 076[deg]59'36.80'' W, and east back to the
beginning point, located between Charles County, MD and King George
County, VA. The regulated area is approximately 450 yards in width and
270 yards in length.
    This regulation requires that the bridge owner post a sign facing
the northern and southern approaches of the navigation channel labeled
``BRIDGE WORK--DANGER--STAY AWAY'' affixed to the sides of the on-scene
marine equipment and vessels operating within the area of the safety
zone. This provides on-scene notice of the safety zone. This notice
will consist of a diamond shaped sign (minimum 4 feet by 4 feet) with a
3-inch orange retro reflective border. The word ``DANGER'' will be 10
inch black block letters centered on the sign with the words ``BRIDGE
WORK'' and ``STAY AWAY'' in 6 inch black block letters placed above and
below the word ``DANGER,'' respectively, on a white background.
    The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels,
and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the tub
sections are being set at the new Governor Harry W. Nice/Senator Thomas
``Mac'' Middleton Memorial (US-301) Bridge at Pier 43, which is
adjacent and to the west of the federal navigation channel. Except for
marine equipment and vessels operated by Skanska-Corman-McLean, Joint
Venture, or its subcontractors, no vessel or person will be permitted
to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or
a designated representative.
    The COTP will notify the public that the safety zone will be
enforced by all appropriate means to the affected segments of the
public, as practicable, in accordance with 33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means
of notification may also include, but are not limited to, Broadcast
Notice to Mariners. Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject
to the penalties set forth in 46 U.S.C. 70036 (previously codified in
33 U.S.C. 1232) and 46 U.S.C. 70052 (previously codified in 50 U.S.C.
192).

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on size and duration
of the safety zone. We anticipate that there will be no vessels that
are unable to conduct business. Excursion vessels and commercial
fishing vessels are not impacted by this rulemaking. Excusion vessels
do not operate in this area, and commercial fishing vessels are not
impacted because of their draft. Some towing vessels may be impacted.
But, bridge project personnel have been conducting outreach throughout
the project in order to coordinate with those vessels. Vessel traffic
not required to use the navigation channel will be able to safely
transit around the safety zone. Such vessels may be able to transit to
the east of the federal navigation channel, as similar vertical
clearance and water depth exist under the next bridge span to the east.
This safety zone will impact a small designated area of the Potomac
River for 18 total enforcement days but coincides with the non-peak
season for recreational boating.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has 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. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
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 determined that this action is one
of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have
a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone lasting 18 total days that will prohibit entry within a
portion of the Potomac River. It is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket. For
instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this
preamble.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0650 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0650  Safety Zone; Potomac River, Between Charles County,
MD and King George County, VA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Potomac River, encompassed by a line connecting the
following points beginning at 38[deg]21'50.96'' N, 076[deg]59'22.04''
W, thence south to 38[deg]21'43.08'' N, 076[deg]59'20.55'' W, thence
west to 38[deg]21'41.00'' N, 076[deg]59'34.90'' W, thence north to
38[deg]21'48.90'' N, 076[deg]59'36.80'' W, and east back to the
beginning point, located between Charles County, MD and King George
County, VA. These coordinates are based on datum NAD 83.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Captain of the Port (COTP) means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.
    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty
officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal,
State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the
Port Maryland-National Capital Region (COTP) in the enforcement of the
safety zone.
    Marine equipment means any vessel, barge or other equipment
operated by Skanska-Corman-McLean, Joint Venture, or its
subcontractors.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band Radio
VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Those in the safety zone must comply
with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement officials. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in
the patrol and enforcement of the safety zone by Federal, State, and
local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement. This safety zone will be enforced during the
period described in paragraph (f) of this section. A ``BRIDGE WORK--
DANGER--STAY AWAY'' sign facing the northern and southern approaches of
the navigation channel will be posted onthe sides of the marine
equipment on-scene within the location described in paragraph (a) of
this section.
    (f) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 7 a.m.
on August 23, 2021, through 8 p.m. on September 11, 2021.

    Dated: August 17, 2021.
David E. O'Connell,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Maryland-
National Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2021-17978 Filed 8-20-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P