[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 180 (Monday, September 17, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46902-46905]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19840]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0793; Product Identifier 2018-NM-057-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -200C, -300, -400, and -500
series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of cracks
in the body station (STA) 303.9 frame web and doubler at fastener holes
common to the stop fitting at stringer 16 left (S-16L). This proposed
AD would require repetitive surface high frequency eddy current (HFEC)
inspections for cracking of the STA 303.9 frame web and doubler at the
stop fitting at S-16L, and applicable on-condition actions. We are
proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 1,
2018.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; phone:
562-797-1717; internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may view
this referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Standards
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also
available on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching
for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0793.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2018-
0793; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations (phone: 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Galib Abumeri, Aerospace Engineer,
Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch, 3960 Paramount
Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 562-627-
5210; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2018-0793;
Product Identifier 2018-NM-057-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic,
environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. We will consider all
comments received by the closing date and may amend this NPRM because
of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We have received a report indicating cracks in the STA 303.9 frame
web and doubler at fastener holes common to the stop fitting at S-16L.
The cracks were found during accomplishment of Boeing Service Bulletin
737-53A1188. We have determined that the existing inspection programs
are not sufficient to find any crack in the STA 303.9 frame web and
doubler at the stop fitting at S-16L. This condition, if not addressed,
could result in the inability of a principal structural element to
sustain limit loads and possible rapid decompression of the airplane.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed Boeing Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1375 RB, dated
March 12, 2018. The service information describes procedures for
repetitive surface HFEC inspections for cracking of the STA 303.9 frame
web and doubler at the stop fitting at S-16L, and applicable on-
condition actions. This service information is reasonably available
because the interested parties have access to it through their normal
course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishment of the actions
identified in Boeing Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1375 RB, dated March
12, 2018, described previously, except for any differences identified
as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
    For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this
service information at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA-2018-0793.

Explanation of Applicability

    Model 737 airplanes having line numbers 1 through 291 have a limit
of validity (LOV) of 34,000 total flight cycles, and the actions
proposed in this NPRM, as specified in Boeing Requirements Bulletin
737-53A1375 RB, dated March 12, 2018, would be required at a compliance
time occurring after that LOV. Although operation of an airplane beyond
its LOV is prohibited by 14 CFR 121.1115 and 129.115, this NPRM would
include those airplanes in the applicability so that these airplanes
are tracked in the event the LOV is extended in the future.

Explanation of Requirements Bulletin

    The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the
Airworthiness Directives Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee
(AD ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement is a process for
annotating which steps in the service information are ``required for
compliance'' (RC) with an AD. Boeing has implemented this RC concept
into Boeing service bulletins.
    In an effort to further improve the quality of ADs and AD-related
Boeing service information, a joint process improvement initiative was
worked between the FAA and Boeing. The initiative resulted in the
development of a new process in which the service information more
clearly identifies the actions needed to address the unsafe condition
in the ``Accomplishment Instructions.'' The new process results in a
Boeing Requirements Bulletin, which contains only the actions needed to
address the unsafe condition (i.e., only the RC actions).

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 67 airplanes of U.S.
registry. We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed
AD:

                                      Estimated Costs for Required Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost on U.S.
              Action                    Labor cost        Parts cost    Cost per product          operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HFEC Inspections.................  13 work-hours x $85            $0  $1,105 per            $74,035 per
                                    per hour = $1,105                  inspection cycle.     inspection cycle.
                                    per inspection
                                    cycle.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide
cost estimates for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed
AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2018-0793; Product Identifier
2018-NM-057-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by November 1, 2018.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 737-100, -200, -
200C, -300, -400, and -500 series airplanes, certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of cracks in the body station
(STA) 303.9 frame web and doubler at fastener holes common to the
stop fitting at stringer 16 left (S-16L). We are issuing this AD to
address cracks in the STA 303.9 frame web and doubler at the stop
fitting at S-16L, which, if not addressed, could result in the
inability of a principal structural element to sustain limit loads
and possible rapid decompression of the airplane.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Required Actions for Group 1

    For airplanes identified as Group 1 in Boeing Requirements
Bulletin 737-53A1375 RB, dated March 12, 2018: Within 120 days after
the effective date of this AD, inspect the airplane and do all
applicable on-condition actions using a method approved in
accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this
AD.

(h) Required Actions for Groups 2 Through 5

    Except as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD: For airplanes
identified as Groups 2 through 5 in Boeing Requirements Bulletin
737-53A1375 RB, dated March 12, 2018, at the applicable times
specified in the ``Compliance'' paragraph of Boeing Requirements
Bulletin 737-53A1375 RB, dated March 12, 2018, do all applicable
actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment
Instructions of Boeing Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1375 RB, dated
March 12, 2018.

    Note 1 to paragraph (h) of this AD:  Guidance for accomplishing
the actions required by this AD can be found in Boeing Alert Service
Bulletin 737-53A1375, dated March 12, 2018, which is referred to in
Boeing Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1375 RB, dated March 12, 2018.

(i) Exceptions to Service Information Specifications

    (1) For purposes of determining compliance with the requirements
of this AD: Where Boeing Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1375 RB, dated
March 12, 2018, uses the phrase ``the original issue date of
Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1375 RB,'' this AD requires using ``the
effective date of this AD.''
    (2) Where Boeing Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1375 RB, dated
March 12, 2018, specifies contacting Boeing for repair instructions,
this AD requires repair using a method approved in accordance with
the procedures specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.

(j) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

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

(k) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Galib Abumeri,
Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Los Angeles ACO Branch,
3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 90712-4137; phone: 562-627-
5324; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet: https://www.myboeingfleet.com.
You may view this referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on August 30, 2018.
Jeffrey E. Duven,
Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-19840 Filed 9-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 156)]
[Notices]
[Page 46534-46535]
[DOCID:fr14au06-117]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54282; File No. SR-PCX-2005-54]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Pacific Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a NYSE
Arca, Inc.), Order Approving Proposed Rule Change and Amendment Nos. 1
and 2 Thereto Requiring OTP Holders and OTP Firms To Participate in the
Federal Trade Commission's National Do-Not-Call Registry

August 8, 2006.
    On August 15, 2005, Pacific Exchange, Inc. (n/k/a NYSE Arca, Inc.)
(``NYSE Arca'') \1\ filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ a
proposed amendment to NYSE Arca Rule 9.20. On May 26, 2006, NYSE Arca
filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.\4\ On June 22,

2006, NYSE Arca filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change.\5\
The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the
Federal Register on July 10, 2006.\6\ The Commission received no
comments on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule change,
as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On March 6, 2006, the Pacific Exchange, Inc. filed a rule
proposal, effective upon filing, to amend its rules to reflect these
name changes: from Pacific Exchange, Inc. to NYSE Arca, Inc.; from
PCX Equities, Inc. to NYSE Arca Equities, Inc.; from PCX Holdings,
Inc., to NYSE Arca Holdings, Inc.; and from the Archipelago
Exchange, L.L.C. to NYSE Arca, L.L.C. See File No. SR-PCX-2006-24
(March 6, 2006).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ In Amendment No. 1, NYSE Arca partially amended the text of
proposed amended NYSE Arca Rule 9.20 and made conforming and
technical changes to the original filing.
    \5\ In Amendment No. 2, NYSE Arca made additional changes to the
text of proposed amended NYSE Arca Rule 9.20 and to the original
filing.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54078 (June 30,
2006), 71 FR 38953 (July 10, 2006) (this notice listed incorrect
filing dates for the initial proposal and Amendment No. 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendment to NYSE Arca Rule 9.20 would replace the
current text of Rule 9.20(b) with text that would require OTP Holders
and OTP Firms to participate in the national do-not-call registry
maintained by the Federal Trade Commission (``FTC'') and to follow
applicable regulations of the Federal Communications Commission
(``FCC''). The proposed amendment would make Rule 9.20(b) consistent
with NYSE Rule 404A and requirements of FCC regulations applicable to
broker-dealers engaged in telemarketing by including provisions
concerning general telemarketing requirements, procedures, wireless
communications, outsourcing telemarketing, pre-recorded messages,
telephone facsimile or computer advertisements and caller
identification. The amended rule would generally prohibit OTP Holders
and OTP Firms, and their associated persons, from making telemarketing
calls to people who have registered with the national do-not-call
registry. The amended rule also would set forth firm-specific do-not-
call restrictions, time-of-day restrictions, and disclosure
requirements similar to those contained in the current rule.
    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange.\7\
In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\8\ which requires, among
other things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system, and
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The
Commission believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is
designed to accomplish these ends by requiring OTP Holders and OTP
Firms, and their associated persons, to observe time-of-day
restrictions on telephone solicitations, maintain firm-specific do-not-
call lists, and refrain from initiating telephone solicitations to
investors and other members of the public who have registered their
telephone numbers on the national do-not-call registry. The Commission
also believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, establishes
adequate procedures to prevent OTP Holders and OTP Firms, and their
associated persons, from making telephone solicitations to do-not-call
registrants, which should have the effect of protecting investors by
enabling persons who do not want to receive telephone solicitations
from members or member organizations to receive the protections of the
national do-not-call registry, while providing appropriate exceptions
to the rule's restrictions, which should promote just and equitable
principles of trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered whether the proposed rule change will promote efficiency,
competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\9\ that the proposed rule change (SR-PCX-2005-54), as amended, be
and is hereby approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-13270 Filed 8-11-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 222 (Monday, November 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 80711-80712]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25531]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

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

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: PR24-7-000.
    Applicants: Duke Energy Ohio, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  284.123(g) Rate Filing: DEO--Revised Operating
Statement to Reflect Change in State-Approved Rates to be effective 11/
1/2023.
    Filed Date: 11/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20231113-5007.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 12/4/23.
    Sec.  284.123(g) Protest: 5 p.m. ET 1/12/24.

    Docket Numbers: RP24-151-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Capacity Release--NR Agmts for
JP Morgan 289474 & 289475 to be effective 11/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 11/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20231113-5004.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP24-152-000.
    Applicants: Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rates--Cherokee
AGL--

Replacement Shippers--Termination Filg to be effective 12/14/2023.
    Filed Date: 11/13/23.
    Accession Number: 20231113-5132.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/27/23.

    Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a
complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with
Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the
specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is
necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP23-1138-001.
    Applicants: Wyoming Interstate Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Compliance filing: In-Service Date Merger Filing to be
effective 11/1/2023.
    Filed Date: 11/9/23.
    Accession Number: 20231109-5242.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/23.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: November 13, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-25531 Filed 11-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 240 (Friday, December 17, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71574-71582]
[FR Doc No: 2021-27457]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 141

[EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0255; FRL-5423.1-04-OW]
RIN 2040-AG15

Review of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation: Lead
and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notification of conclusion of review.

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

SUMMARY: On June 16, 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) published the agency's decision to delay the effective and
compliance dates of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations:
Lead and Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR), published on January 15, 2021,
to allow time for EPA to review the rule in accordance with
Presidential directives issued on January 20, 2021, to the heads of
Federal agencies to review certain regulations, and conduct important
consultations with affected parties. EPA has completed its review. The
agency's review included a series of virtual public engagements to hear
directly from a diverse set of stakeholders. This document describes
the comments conveyed by stakeholders, EPA's decision to proceed with a
proposed rule that would revise certain key sections of the LCRR while
allowing the rule to take effect, and other non-regulatory actions that
EPA and other Federal agencies can take to reduce exposure to lead in
drinking water.

DATES: The effective date of the LCRR published on June 16, 2021, in
the Federal Register (86 FR 31939), continues to be December 16, 2021,
and the compliance date continues to be October 16, 2024. Primacy
revision applications are due on December 18 2023. See SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION for further information.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0255. All documents in the docket are listed on the
http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not
placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Kempic, Standards and Risk
Management Division, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Mail Code
4607M, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY 800-
877-8339); email address: [email protected]. For more information
visit https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/lead-and-copper-rule.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    EPA's lead drinking water rules are a critical part of reducing the
lead exposure for consumers of tap water in the United States. Lead
poses serious health risks to both children and adults. Because lead in
drinking water primarily results from leaching of lead from plumbing in
homes and from lead service lines (lead pipes connecting homes to the
water distribution system), and portions of lead service lines may be
owned by the water system or homeowner, the drinking water rules
intended to reduce the amount of lead in tap water have been complex
and controversial. The latest version of those rules, the Lead and
Copper Rule Revisions (LCRR), published in January 2021, is no
exception.
    In compliance with the Biden Administration executive order to
review rules issued in the past Administration, EPA undertook an
extensive review of the LCRR and delayed the effective and compliance
dates in the rule during the review period. To get comprehensive input,
EPA talked with states, tribes, water utilities, as well as people who
have been underrepresented in past rule-making efforts. EPA sought
input from communities disproportionately impacted by lead in drinking
water, especially lower-income people and communities of color, to
learn from their experiences. The broad range of thoughtful input EPA
received provided valuable insights on ways to improve the LCRR, and
more generally, other available tools to address lead in drinking
water.
    Based upon EPA's evaluation and stakeholder feedback, the agency
has concluded that EPA actions to protect the public from lead in
drinking water should consider the following policy objectives:
Replacing 100 percent of lead service lines (LSLs) is an urgently
needed action to protect all Americans from the most significant source
of lead in drinking water systems; equitably improving public health
protection for those who cannot afford to replace the customer-owned
portions of their LSLs; improving the methods to identify and trigger
action in communities that are most at risk of elevated drinking water
lead levels; and exploring ways to reduce the complexity of the
regulations.
    To achieve these policy objectives, EPA intends to take the
following regulatory and non-regulatory actions: First, EPA intends to
propose for public comment a new rule to revise the LCRR to advance the
goals described above while balancing stakeholder interests and
incorporating required economic, environmental justice, and other
analyses. A regulatory framework that addresses these considerations,
combined with the other actions described in this document, has the
potential to permanently eliminate the most significant source of lead
contamination, better target other actions to reduce lead exposure
where the highest risks are presented, and provide equitable
protections to all Americans. At the same time, because the LCRR
provides additional protections relative to the pre-existing rule and
contains components (such as the LSL inventory) that supports any
future rule, EPA is not further extending the effective date of the
LCRR. Therefore, as explained herein, compliance with certain key
provisions of the LCRR will not be delayed while the rulemaking is
underway.

    Because regulatory actions alone may not be adequate to achieve
these policy objectives, this document also discusses important non-
regulatory actions EPA intends to take, including programs to provide
technical assistance and infrastructure funding.

I. Why EPA Reviewed the LCRR

Executive Order 13390 on Protecting Public Health

    On January 15, 2021, EPA published the ``National Primary Drinking
Water Regulation: Lead and Copper Rule Revisions'' in the Federal
Register (86 FR 4198) (LCRR). On January 20, 2021, President Biden
issued the ``Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the
Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.'' (86
FR 7037, January 25, 2021) (Executive Order 13990). Section 1 of
Executive Order 13990 states that it is ``the policy of the
Administration to listen to the science, to improve public health and
protect our environment, to ensure access to clean air and water . . .
, and to prioritize both environmental justice and the creation of the
well-paying union jobs necessary to deliver on these goals.'' Executive
Order 13990 directs the heads of all Federal agencies to immediately
review regulations that may be inconsistent with, or present obstacles
to, the policy it establishes. On June 16, 2021, EPA published the
National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Lead and Copper Rule
Revisions; Delay of Effective and Compliance Dates (86 FR 31939), which
delayed the LCRR effective date until December 16, 2021, and the
compliance date until October 16, 2024. During EPA's review, while the
LCRR was delayed, EPA engaged with stakeholders to better understand
their thoughts and concerns about the LCRR.

Stakeholder Concerns

    EPA heard significant concerns from many drinking water
stakeholders about the LCRR. These concerns included whether the rule
will adequately protect public health, the confusion it might create
about drinking water safety, and the implementation burden that will be
placed on systems and states. Stakeholders also expressed concerns that
EPA did not provide adequate opportunities for a public hearing in the
development of the LCRR that was published on January 15, 2021 (86 FR
4198), and did not provide a complete or reliable evaluation of the
costs and benefits of the proposed LCRR. The delay in the effective
date of the LCRR enabled the Agency to engage meaningfully with the
public regarding this important public health regulation before it took
effect.

Lead Exposure Health Risks

    Lead exposure is a critical public health issue. Its adverse
effects on children and the general population are serious and well
known. Lead has acute and chronic impacts on the body. Lead exposure
causes damage to the brain and kidneys and may interfere with the
production of red blood cells that carry oxygen to all parts of the
body.\1\ The most susceptible life-stages are the developing fetus,
infants, and young children. The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) states that ``no safe blood lead level in children has
been identified.'' \2\ Because they are growing, children's bodies
absorb more lead than adults do, and their brains and nervous systems
are more sensitive to its damaging effects. As a result, even low-level
lead exposure is of particular concern to children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CDC. 2020. ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Lead. Atlanta,
GA.
    \2\ CDC. 2018. Lead. Atlanta, GA. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/default.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The association between lead and adverse cardiovascular effects,
renal effects, reproductive effects, immunological effects,
neurological effects, and cancer has been documented in the EPA 2013
Integrated Science Assessment for Lead,\3\ the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) National Toxicology Program (NTP)
Monograph on Health Effects of Low-Level Lead,\4\ and the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 2020 Toxicological
Profile for Lead.\5\ EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
Chemical Assessment Summary provides additional health effects
information on lead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ USEPA. 2013. Integrated Science Assessment for Lead. Office
of Research and Development. (EPA/600/R-10/075F). Research Triangle
Park, NC.
    \4\ HHS. 2012. NTP Monograph on Health Effects of Low-Level
Lead. Durham, NC.
    \5\ CDC. 2020. ATSDR Toxicological Profile for Lead. Atlanta,
GA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Disproportionate Exposure to Lead

    The environmental justice analysis for the final LCRR found that
minority and low-income populations appear to be disproportionately
exposed to the risks of lead in drinking water delivered by community
water systems.\6\ LSLs are typically the primary source of lead in
drinking water,\7\ meaning their presence is likely a driver of this
disproportionate exposure given that these populations tend to live in
older housing where LSLs are more likely to have been installed.
Because of disparities in the quality of housing, community economic
status, and access to medical care, lower-income people are also
disproportionately affected by lead from other media. For example,
children of color and children in low-income communities are more
likely to live in proximity to lead-emitting industries and to live in
urban areas, which are more likely to have contaminated soils,
contributing to their overall exposure (Leech et al., 2016 \8\).
Additionally, non-Hispanic black people are more than twice as likely
as non-Hispanic whites to live in moderately or severely substandard
housing, which is more likely to present risks from deteriorating lead-
based paint (Leech et al., 2016; White et al., 2016).\9\ The disparate
exposure to all sources of environmental lead experienced by low-income
people and communities of color may be exacerbated because of their
more limited resources for remediating LSLs, which can be a significant
source of lead exposure. In addition, a higher incidence of rental
housing in these communities creates an additional barrier to lead
service line replacement (LSLR) where the property owner does not
consent to full replacement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Chapter 8, section 8.11, of the USEPA Economic Analysis
for the Final Lead and Copper Rule Revisions, December 2020.
    \7\ AwwaRF (now the Water Research Foundation). 2008.
Contribution of Service Line and Plumbing Fixtures to Lead and
Copper Rule Compliance Issues. 978-1-60573-031-7.
    \8\ Leech, T.G., E.A. Adams, T.D. Weathers, L.K. Staten, and
G.M. Filippelli. 2016. Inequitable chronic lead exposure. Family &
Community Health 39(3):151-159.
    \9\ White, B.M., H.S. Bonilha, and C. Ellis. 2016. Racial/ethnic
differences in childhood blood lead levels among children <72 months
of age in the United States: A systematic review of the literature.
Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities 3(1):145-153.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA reviewed the LCRR in light of the serious stakeholder concerns
about it; the adverse health effects of lead; and the potential
environmental justice issues associated with lead exposure. For a more
detailed explanation of the decision to review the LCRR, see ``National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Lead and Copper Rule Revisions;
Delay of Effective and Compliance Dates'' (86 FR 31939) (June 16,
2021); ``National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Lead and Copper
Rule Revisions; Delay of Effective and Compliance Dates'' (86 FR 14063)
(March 12, 2021); and ``National Primary Drinking Water Regulations:
Lead and Copper Rule Revisions; Delay of Effective Date'' (86 FR 14003)
(March 12, 2021).

II. E.O. 13990 Review Process

EPA's Process for Engagement

    EPA hosted a series of virtual engagements from April to August
2021 to obtain public input on the review of the LCRR. EPA also opened
a docket, from April 5, 2021 to July 30, 2021, to accept written
comments, suggestions, and data from the public. Summaries of these
engagements, including summaries of the meetings and written comments,
can be found in the docket, EPA-HQ-OW-2021-0255 at https://www.regulations.gov/. Recordings of the public listening sessions and
community, tribal, and national stakeholder association roundtables can
also be found in the docket. The virtual engagement meetings included
two public listening sessions, ten community roundtables, a tribal
roundtable, a national stakeholder association roundtable, a national
co-regulator meeting, and a meeting with organizations representing
elected officials. A diverse group of individuals and associations
provided feedback through these meetings and the docket, including
people from communities impacted by lead in drinking water, local
governments, water utilities, tribal communities, public health
organizations, environmental groups, environmental justice
organizations, and co-regulators.
    EPA specifically sought engagement with communities that have been
disproportionately impacted by lead in drinking water, especially
lower-income people and communities of color that have been
underrepresented in past rule-making efforts. EPA hosted roundtables
with individuals and organizations from Pittsburgh, PA; Newark, NJ;
Malden, MA; Washington, DC; Newburgh, NY; Benton Harbor and Highland
Park, MI; Flint and Detroit, MI; Memphis, TN; Chicago, IL; and
Milwaukee, WI. These geographically-focused roundtables included a
range of participants including local government entities, community
organizations, environmental groups, local public water utilities, and
public officials. EPA worked with community representatives to develop
meeting agendas that reflected community priorities. Each community
roundtable included a presentation by local community members. EPA held
a separate roundtable with representatives from tribes and tribal
communities. Participants in all roundtables were invited to share
diverse perspectives with the agency through verbal discussion and a
chat feature. EPA obtained detailed, valuable feedback from these
engagements, which often focused on the lived experiences of people
impacted by lead in drinking water.

Public Comments Received by EPA

    Many commenters, in their statements at virtual engagements and in
their written materials provided to the docket, expressed concern that
the LCRR would not provide equitable public health protections and
would be difficult to implement. Commenters also provided many
suggestions beyond the LCRR to reduce drinking water lead exposure.
    While commenters provided feedback on all aspects of the LCRR, most
comments focused on LSLR, the action level (AL) and trigger level (TL),
tap sampling, public education, and sampling for lead in schools and
child-care facilities. Each of these topics are discussed in more
detail below.
    Lead Service Line Replacement: Nearly all commenters expressed
support for the goal of full replacement of all the nation's lead
service lines. Many commenters raised concerns regarding LSLR and the
financial and public health burdens placed on communities. Some
participants noted the frequent split ownership of LSLs between water
systems and property owners and that the LCRR does not prohibit partial
replacements in which the private LSL remains in place if a customer is
unwilling or unable to replace the private-side LSL. Partial
replacements can cause elevated lead levels due to the physical
disturbance associated with the practice as well as the potential for
galvanic corrosion with the new portion of the service line. Frequent
suggestions included: A regulatory requirement for water systems to
proactively replace all LSLs over a defined time period (e.g., 10-15
years) regardless of drinking water lead levels, a ban on all or
certain partial replacements, and increased financial support for LSLR
coordinated across Federal agencies. One participant also suggested the
use of opportunity zone funds to provide tax incentives for
replacement. Some commenters did not support a complete ban on partial
LSLR, stating that there are some situations where they are necessary
and that risk mitigation steps can reduce lead levels associated with
partial replacements while maintaining water service for drinking,
basic sanitation, and fire suppression purposes. Many commenters
expressed that individual homeowners should not be asked to pay for the
replacement of any part of an LSL. Many commenters also expressed the
need for equitable distribution of funding for LSLR, noting that low-
income people and communities of color are disproportionately served by
LSLs and lack the resources to replace them. Commenters expressed the
need for state and federal assistance, cautioning that funding LSLR by
rate revenue could disproportionately affect low-income households
given potential impacts on water rates. Some commenters also discussed
potential barriers to private-side replacement, including local or
state ordinances that may limit water system access to private
property, restrictions on using rate revenue for such projects, or the
possibility that customers may decline replacement even when available
at no cost to them. Many commenters also observed that renters lack the
ability to compel the replacement of the portions of LSLs that are
owned by their landlords. Additionally, a few commenters cautioned that
only conducting LSLR in conjunction with existing planned
infrastructure projects may result in LSLs remaining in communities
that have experienced historic disinvestment, particularly communities
of color. Several commenters also expressed support for strengthening
the LSL inventory requirements, including setting a deadline for
identifying service line material and including lead connectors in the
definition of a LSL for purposes of the inventory.
    Action Level (AL): Most commenters expressed concern that the LCRR
did not lower the lead AL. Some requested that EPA reconsider setting a
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for lead at 5 parts per billion (ppb)
and that the agency reduce the AL (e.g., 10, 5, or 1 ppb) if an MCL is
not set. These commenters stated that the MCL or AL should be lowered
to compel more systems to take actions to reduce drinking water lead
exposure. Several commenters suggested removing the TL and reducing the
AL to 10 ppb, noting that the use of two regulatory values would create
confusion and be onerous to implement. These commenters noted that
adding a TL that compels similar but different actions for LSLR,
corrosion control, and public education creates confusion regarding
which actions systems must take. Some commenters noted that the TL and
AL also create confusion regarding health risks since neither is a
health-based number. Some commenters discussed high childhood blood
lead levels in their communities, noting that health impacts occur at
levels much lower than the AL. Others did not support reducing the AL
from 15 ppb, citing feasibility and the burden on water systems.

    Tap Sampling: Many commenters expressed support for requiring first
and fifth liter samples in homes served by LSLs and using the samples
with the highest levels of lead in 90th percentile calculations.
Commenters emphasized the need to prioritize the most at-risk
populations in tap sample site selection. Several commenters
recommended allowing water systems to maintain existing compliance tap
sampling schedules.
    Public Education Materials: A common recommendation was that the
LCRR should require accessible public education materials and outreach
to residents about lead risk. EPA was urged to ensure that public
education information is provided in multiple languages and appropriate
for people with different reading levels. Many commenters also called
for more proactive communication about lead in drinking water and for
clarity in general communications from water systems regarding the
potential for lead in drinking water. Multiple commenters emphasized
the need for public education targeted specifically towards renters.
Commenters suggested that regulators and water systems should partner
with local trusted messengers and organizations to conduct community
outreach. There were also many commenters who expressed concerns with
the number of public education and notification requirements. Some
recommended streamlining the requirements and reducing certifications
to primacy agencies.
    Water Testing in Schools and Child-Care Facilities: Some commenters
identified the inherent shortcomings of the LCRR's schools and child-
care lead testing requirement given the statutory limitations of the
Safe Drinking Water Act. Commenters recommended that more coordination
between the water system and relevant entities, such as child-care
facilities and state or local licensing entities, could improve
outcomes. Many commenters recommended expansion of the requirements for
water system-conducted lead testing in schools and child-care
facilities. These recommendations included requiring sampling all
elementary and secondary schools, more frequent sampling at more taps,
making results public, and requiring remediation measures or
installation of filters. Other commenters expressed concern regarding
the ability of schools and child-care facilities to address lead issues
given the potential associated financial, technical, and staff burdens.
Some commenters also requested that EPA allow previous school and
child-care sampling efforts to count towards the LCRR requirement while
a few others stated that water systems should not be responsible for
sampling in schools and child-care facilities.
    Additional Comments: EPA also received comments on other areas of
the LCRR, including corrosion control treatment (CCT) related
requirements, ``find-and-fix'' (see below), and small system
flexibility. On CCT, commenters requested:
     More flexibility in CCT requirements;
     Additional oversight of CCT decisions;
     Additional water quality parameter (WQP) monitoring; and
     More frequent monitoring after source or treatment
changes.
    Multiple commenters expressed support for the intention of find-
and-fix provisions, which require water systems to follow up with
customers where tap sampling was conducted to identify the cause of a
lead sample exceeding 15 ppb. Some commenters raised potential
implementation challenges for find-and-fix requirements including cases
of repeat exceedances and customer inability or unwillingness to
address lead in premise plumbing. Commenters supported limiting the
flexibility provided by the small system options. Many commenters also
requested timely guidance on a range of rule topics, including LSL
inventory development, tap sampling site selection, CCT, and find-and-
fix.
    Most commenters requested that EPA revise the LCRR, citing
inadequate health protection. However, some commenters urged EPA to
implement the LCRR as finalized, and requested that if the agency makes
further revisions that it suspend compliance dates, citing regulatory
uncertainty.

III. Outcome of LCRR Review

    Based upon EPA's evaluation and stakeholder feedback, EPA has
determined that there is a range of potential regulatory and non-
regulatory actions the agency can take to further reduce drinking water
lead exposure.
    EPA finds that although the LCRR improves public health protection
in comparison to the previous version of the rule, there are
significant opportunities to further improve upon it to achieve
increased protection of communities from lead exposure through drinking
water. Specifically, after hearing from stakeholders, including during
the engagements that took place over the last nine months, the agency
has concluded that regulations and other non-regulatory actions to
protect the public, from lead in drinking water, should consider: The
urgent need to replace LSLs as quickly as possible to protect all
Americans from the most significant source of drinking water lead,;
equitably improving public health protection for those who cannot
afford to replace the customer-owned portions of their LSLs; and
improving the methods to identify and trigger action in communities
that are most at risk of elevated drinking water lead levels. A
framework including regulatory and nonregulatory actions to address
these considerations has the potential to permanently eliminate the
most significant sources of drinking water lead contamination, better
target other actions to reduce lead exposure to where the highest risks
are presented, and provide equitable protections to all Americans.
Accordingly, EPA intends to propose for public comment a rulemaking to
revise the LCRR as part of its overall strategy to advance these policy
goals while balancing stakeholder interests, and incorporating required
economic, environmental justice, and other analyses, and to take other
steps towards these goals. And, as with any rulemaking, EPA will
maintain an open mind and looks forward to receiving comments on its
proposed new rule. Each of these considerations is discussed more fully
below.
    First, our review impressed upon the agency the urgency of fully
removing all lead service lines using any and all regulatory and non-
regulatory tools available to EPA and its federal partners. Leaving
millions of LSLs in place would result in generations of Americans
being at risk of significant lead exposure through their drinking
water. Where present, LSLs are the most significant source of drinking
water lead exposure.\10\ These LSLs present a risk of sustained lead
exposure through drinking water, which presents a risk of damage to the
brains of children and the kidneys and other critical functions of
adults. EPA estimates that the LCRR would result in replacements of
only approximately five percent of LSLs over a 35-year period. Our
review leads the agency to believe that there are opportunities to do
significantly more to address this urgent public health risk. EPA plans
to seek comment on how revisions to the LCRR could advance the
Administration's priority of removing 100 percent of LSLs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ AwwaRF. 2008. Contribution of Service Line and Plumbing
Fixtures to Lead and Copper Rule Compliance Issues. 978-1-60573-031-
7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, based on EPA's review of the LCRR, the agency believes
there are significant potential opportunities to

revise the LCRR to ensure that it equitably improves public health
protection for all, regardless of their economic status, to avoid
exacerbating existing health and economic inequalities. To reach this
goal, EPA will explore potential regulatory revisions in combination
with financial assistance programs and partnerships targeted to
disadvantaged consumers, regardless of whether they are homeowners, in
an effort to direct limited community resources towards low-income
households that have been historically underserved. Communities such as
Newark, New Jersey, and Flint, Michigan have shown that full LSLR can
be equitably achieved when there is both a regulatory requirement and a
commitment to prioritize funding.
    Third, EPA's review of the LCRR leads the agency to conclude that
there are opportunities to better identify the communities that are
most at risk of elevated drinking water lead levels and explore ways to
compel action before consumers have been put at risk, rather than only
after a lead action level exceedance. Specifically, EPA is considering
potential revisions to the LCRR to expeditiously compel steps to
replace lead service lines and ensure that the higher tap sampling
result is used for measuring compliance, including levels found in the
service line or in plumbing fixtures inside homes. In addition, EPA is
considering potential revisions to the LCRR to reduce complexity from
the lead action and trigger levels in particular and ensure that the
rule is easily understandable and triggers appropriate and feasible
corrective actions.

IV. Planned Actions To Address Lead in Drinking Water

    To protect public health and fully and equitably meet the
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the agency intends to
propose for comment revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule and to
undertake non-regulatory actions. This section describes the potential
improvements to the LCRR that EPA plans to explore through a notice and
comment rulemaking and additional actions EPA is contemplating to
ensure greater public health protection from lead in drinking water.

A. New Regulation: Lead and Copper Rule Improvements

    EPA intends to immediately begin to develop a proposed National
Primary Drinking Water Regulation: Lead and Copper Rule Improvements
(LCRI) to address the issues identified in the E.O. 13990 review. EPA
will follow all Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and other relevant
statutory and E.O. requirements in proposing the LCRI and taking final
action on the proposal, including all necessary economic and
environmental justice analyses and the consideration of alternatives
and public comment. EPA intends to take final action on the LCRI
proposal prior to the October 16, 2024 compliance date of the existing
regulations (i.e., the LCRR); the implications for compliance and
primacy applications under the LCRR are discussed in detail below in
Section IV.B. This schedule ensures that as little time as possible is
lost before the improved public health protections of the LCRR and the
LCRI can be realized in communities across the country.
EPA's Intent To Propose LCR Improvements
    EPA intends to propose changes to the LCRR to address the main
opportunities for improvement identified in our review, as well as
consider other potential improvements. These are described below.
1. Replacement of LSLs
    First, there is a significant opportunity to improve the LCRR with
regard to replacement of LSLs. Under the LCRR, water systems are only
required to replace a small percentage of their LSLs and only after
their customers are exposed to high lead levels. Water systems serving
more than 10,000 people with more than 10 percent of samples above the
action level of 0.015 mg/L need only replace 3 percent of their LSLs
per year. These systems may stop their LSLR programs in as little as
two years if the system meets the action level in four consecutive 6-
month monitoring periods. Large systems with 90th percentile lead
concentrations above the trigger level of 0.010 mg/L are only required
to replace LSLs at a goal rate approved by the state. EPA projected
that goal rate would likely be lower than 3 percent (USEPA, 2020).\11\
Systems may stop these goal-based LSLR programs in as little as one
year if the system meets the trigger level in two consecutive 6-month
monitoring periods. Ultimately, most systems would be required to
replace only a small portion of the LSLs in their distribution system:
EPA projected that only 339,000 to 555,000 LSLs (out of 6.3 to 9.3
million LSLs) would be replaced over the 35-year period of analysis for
the rulemaking (USEPA, 2020). This Administration believes it is an
urgent priority to eliminate all LSLs to improve the health of our
people. President Biden has called for replacement of all LSLs in the
nation, which will improve public health while putting Americans to
work.\12\ To help achieve this goal, the recently enacted Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law (BIL) provides $15 billion in funding over the next
five years for LSLR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ USEPA. 2020. Economic Analysis for the Final Lead and
Copper Rule Revisions. December 2020. Office of Water.
    \12\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/03/31/fact-sheet-the-american-jobs-plan/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given the serious risks of lead exposure through drinking water,
replacing all LSLs is an important policy goal. The States of Michigan,
Illinois, and New Jersey have recently passed laws requiring all of
their water systems to proactively replace lead service lines. These
are three of the five states with the highest estimated numbers of LSLs
according to a 2016 national survey (Cornwell 2016).\13\ Cornwell 2016
reported that the sum of the estimated number of LSLs in these three
states is just over one-fourth of the remaining estimated number of
LSLs in the country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Cornwell, D.A et al., National Survey of Lead Service Line
Occurrence, Journal AWWA, April 2016, at E182.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is mindful however, that the existing LCRR requirements and
action by selected states and federal funding incentives may not be
sufficient to achieve 100 percent replacement of LSLs and reduce risks
to families living in the homes served by these lines without
additional actions. Therefore, EPA intends to propose for comment
requirements that, along with other, non-regulatory actions, would
result in the replacement of all LSLs as quickly as is feasible. EPA's
proposal will fully consider the agency's statutory authority and
required analyses, including an economic and environmental justice
analysis.
    Second, there are important opportunities to ensure that public
health is protected equitably. The cost of replacing the customer-
portion of an LSL may leave the most vulnerable Americans
disproportionately exposed to lead if they cannot afford the expense of
replacement. In the Economic Analysis for the final LCRR (USEPA, 2020),
EPA estimated that between 21 and 28 percent of the anticipated LSLRs
under the LCRR would be customer-initiated replacements. Those are
replacements where the system replaces the public portion of an LSL
after being notified that a homeowner has replaced the private portion
of the service line. The remaining LSLR predicted under the LCRR would
be done by systems that exceed the action level or trigger

level. To meet the LCRR's mandatory 3 percent replacement or state-
approved goal rate, some systems may focus on replacing lines where the
customer could pay to replace their portion of the line.
    To address both of these issues, EPA intends to propose for comment
rule revisions to advance the policy goal to prioritize distributional
impacts. For instance, EPA intends to explore how to replace LSLs in a
manner that prioritizes historically disadvantaged communities. Through
the regulatory development process, EPA will also evaluate options to
partner and provide financial assistance and prioritize the removal of
LSLs in communities disproportionately impacted by lead in drinking
water. EPA is also committing to partnering on a number of non-
regulatory actions to address this issue of the cost of LSLR on
consumers (see Section IV.C of this document).
    The goal of these potential LSLR regulatory improvements and non-
regulatory actions is to equitably improve public health protection and
remove the most significant source of lead in drinking water.
2. Compliance Tap Sampling and Action/Trigger Levels
    There are also significant potential opportunities to identify the
communities that are most at risk of experiencing elevated levels of
lead in drinking water and compel actions sufficient to reduce the
health risks in those communities. At sites with LSLs, the LCRR
requires a fifth liter sample to be analyzed for lead to better
characterize the lead which has been introduced while the water was in
contact with the LSL, as opposed to the building premise plumbing. It
also requires a first liter sample to be analyzed for copper when
copper is also being monitored at those sites. For non-lead LSL sites,
a first liter sample is analyzed for both lead and copper. The State of
Michigan revised its Lead and Copper Rule in 2018 to require the first
and fifth liter samples to be analyzed for lead at sites with LSLs,
with the higher of the two results used for the 90th percentile
calculation. The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, in
their May 21, 2021 comments, summarized data from the initial round of
sampling in Michigan. Using the highest number from the first and fifth
liters, 31 systems had an action level exceedance. When just the fifth
liter results were used, only 22 systems had an action level
exceedance. EPA will explore these and other available data in
developing potential revisions to strength compliance tap sampling in
the forthcoming LCRI proposal.
    In the forthcoming proposed LCRI, EPA also intends to evaluate
options for utilities to address lead contamination at lower levels and
improve sampling methods to provide better health protection and more
effective implementation of the rule. The agency will evaluate options
to consolidate and potentially lower the LCRR's action and trigger
levels. Stakeholders participating in the virtual engagement identified
the action level/trigger level concept as the central regulatory
variable that drives system and state action to reduce elevated lead
levels in drinking water and many stakeholders commented that the
action level should be lower to require more systems to take corrective
action to protect public health from the adverse effects of lead. In
the forthcoming proposed LCRI, the agency will explore options to
address these concerns, including whether to eliminate the trigger
level and lower the action level to compel action by water systems
sooner to reduce the health risks in more communities. The agency will
also evaluate whether the trigger level requirements of the LCRR would
still be necessary if improved proactive LSLR and a more aggressive
lower action level are adopted.
3. Other Areas of the Rule Where EPA Is Considering Improvements
    EPA intends to primarily focus its rulemaking process on proposing
approaches aimed at the policy goal of proactive and equitable LSLR, as
well as proposals to address compliance tap sampling improvements; re-
evaluation of the action and trigger levels; and consideration of
prioritizing protections for historically disadvantaged communities.
The agency also received stakeholder input suggesting improvements to a
number of additional components of the LCRR. EPA will also be
considering these suggestions and other options to equitably improve
public health protection and improve implementation of the rule to
ensure that it prevents adverse health effects of lead to the extent
feasible. These additional components may include the LCRR provisions
for small system flexibility, school and child-care sampling, risk
communication, and corrosion control treatment. EPA will also consider
addressing these issues through non-regulatory actions such as the
development of implementation tools, guidance, and other federal
programs.

B. Implementation of the Lead and Copper Rule Revisions

    The final agency action, National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations: Lead and Copper Rule Revisions; Delay of Effective and
Compliance Dates (published on June 16, 2021 in the Federal Register
(86 FR 31939)), delayed the effective date of the LCRR until December
16, 2021 and the compliance date until October 16, 2024. Following the
LCRR review, EPA has decided to not delay the effective date any
further. At this time, EPA is also not planning to further change the
compliance dates for the LCRR. EPA will consider any such changes
through its forthcoming rulemaking. While EPA has identified components
of the LCRR for potential revision to improve public health protection,
the agency has also determined that the LCRR includes advancements that
should proceed in order to ensure continued progress toward reducing
drinking water lead exposure.
Compliance Deadlines
    The current compliance deadline for the LCRR is thus October 16,
2024. EPA intends to propose, in the LCRI, revisions to the compliance
deadlines only for components of the rule that the agency will propose
to significantly revise. At this time, EPA does not expect to propose
changes to the requirements for information to be submitted in the
initial LSL inventory or the associated October 16, 2024 compliance
date. Continued progress to identify LSLs is integral to lead reduction
efforts regardless of potential revisions to the rule. The inventory
provides critical information on the locations of potentially high
drinking water lead exposure within and across public water systems,
which will allow for quick action to reduce exposure. By preparing an
LSL inventory, water systems will be able to target communication to
residents in homes with LSLs about the actions they can take to reduce
their lead exposure. Preparing the initial inventory will allow systems
to assess the extent of the LSLs within their system, better identify
sampling locations, and begin planning for LSLR actions, including
applying for state and federal grants and loans. LSL inventories will
allow water systems, states, tribes, and the Federal government to
determine the prevalence of these lead sources and to target lead risk
communication and lead removal programs where they are needed most.
With the development of these initial inventories nationwide over the
next three years, EPA anticipates that water

systems, states and tribes will be prepared to quickly implement the
other LCRR requirements, as well as any improvements made through the
planned LCRI rulemaking that may be adopted to further reduce drinking
water lead levels, and be well-positioned to apply for any available
grants or loans for LSLR.
    There are two other actions that water systems currently must
complete by the LCRR's October 16, 2024 compliance date: the LSLR plan
and the tap sampling plan. The LSLR plan would describe the procedure
for systems to conduct lead service line replacements in accordance
with the LCRR and the tap sampling plan would identify the locations
and procedures for systems to conduct tap sampling in accordance with
the LCRR. Because EPA intends to propose changes to the LSLR and tap
sampling requirements, however, the agency also expects to propose to
delay the October 16, 2024 deadline for submitting LSLR and tap
sampling plans so that systems can incorporate any potential revisions
made through LCRI rulemaking. While EPA expects to complete that
rulemaking prior to the 2024 compliance date, EPA recognizes that this
announcement of the forthcoming proposal creates some uncertainty for
water systems and states regarding the deadline for completion of these
plans. EPA plans to continue to engage with states, tribes, water
systems, and all other stakeholders as the agency proposes the LCRI and
takes final action on the proposal. In those engagements, which include
a notice and comment process, EPA will seek input on a number of issues
including whether current LCRR deadlines should be changed. As part of
those discussions, EPA will consider concerns expressed by some
commenters that further delays in compliance dates for some LCRR
provisions may delay public health improvements. EPA also intends to
seek comment on whether it would be practicable for water systems to
implement any of the proposed LCRI requirements earlier than three
years from the date of final action on the proposed LCRI, consistent
with SDWA section 1412(b)(10).
Primacy Deadlines
    SDWA section 1413(a)(1) and 40 CFR 142.12(b), require states and
tribes with primary enforcement authority (primacy) to submit final
requests for approval of primacy program revisions to adopt new or
revised EPA regulations two years after promulgation. As noted above,
the LCRR is taking effect on December 16, 2021. EPA is not withdrawing
the LCRR or further delaying its effective date because, among other
reasons, it is critical for states and tribes to begin working with
water systems to implement the initial LSL inventory provisions of the
LCRR and because some other provisions of the LCRR, which advance
protections from lead in drinking water, may not be revised as part of
the forthcoming LCRI rulemaking. As explained in the final rule
delaying the effective and compliance dates for the LCRR, EPA
interprets the primacy revision application deadline in 40 CFR
142.12(b)(1) to be calculated using this publication date, December 17,
2021. As a result, primacy revision applications are due on December
18, 2023. However, a state or tribe may apply for an extension of the
deadline for up to two years in accordance with 40 CFR 142.12(b)(2).
    As further stated in this document, EPA anticipates completing its
LCRI rulemaking prior to October 16, 2024. The forthcoming proposed
regulatory changes under the LCRI, if finalized, would also result in
states and tribes having to submit a primacy application for that
regulation two years after it is promulgated. States and tribes will
have greater clarity with respect to the primary enforcement (primacy)
application revisions process and relevant timeframes when the LCRI is
proposed. Accordingly, states and tribes that are concerned about
submitting two successive primacy applications may request an extension
of their LCRR primacy application deadline to be able to group the
program revisions for the LCRR and LCRI into a single primacy
application in accordance with 40 CFR 142.12(b)(2)(i)(C).

C. Additional EPA Actions To Address Lead in Drinking Water

    EPA's review of the LCRR and information received during the
engagements process led the agency to conclude that EPA should take a
number of additional actions outside of the SDWA regulatory framework
to achieve the agency's policy objectives. These actions include:
     Developing and partnering on plans to ensure the equitable
distribution of funds for reducing lead in drinking water;
     Encouraging cabinet level commitments for federal
collaboration to address school and child-care lead in drinking water;
     Committing to target oversight and technical assistance
for communities impacted by high lead levels;
     Improving risk communication through additional EPA
guidance and tool development;
     Supporting water systems in meeting LSL Inventory
requirements through the issuance of guidance; and
     Encouraging full LSL replacement and strongly discouraging
partial LSL replacement.

1. Financing and Grant Programs

    Funding is key to a community's ability to accelerate both
voluntary and required LSLR programs. EPA collaborates with states and
tribes to provide opportunities for below-market interest rate loans
and grants through the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) and
the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan
program. To support LSLR programs, special financing terms are
available through the DWSRF for disadvantaged communities to help
address affordability and the impacts of past disinvestment. EPA will
encourage states to use their disadvantaged community programs to their
fullest extent to provide subsidies and other assistance to support
LSLR in vulnerable communities.
    Since 2018, EPA has also developed and implemented three grant
programs \14\ under the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the
Nation (WIIN) Act to fund grants to small and disadvantaged
communities. More than $175 million has been provided to date for:
developing and maintaining compliance with national primary drinking
water regulations (NPDWRs); lead reduction projects; and support for
voluntary testing of drinking water in schools and child-care
facilities. Funding from these programs can continue to be used to
support actions to reduce lead in drinking water in addition to
regulatory actions. Specifically, EPA has determined that there are
multiple lead reduction activities that these grant programs authorize
the use of funds for:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The 2016 Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation
Act (WIIN Act) addresses, supports, and improves America's drinking
water infrastructure and included three new drinking water grants
that promote public health and the protection of the environment.
These include: (1) Section 2104: Small, Underserved, and
Disadvantaged Communities; (2) Section 2105: Reducing Lead in
Drinking Water; and (3) Section 2107: Lead Testing in School and
Child Care Program Drinking Water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Developing LSL inventories;
     Replacing full LSLs (including replacing the customer-
owned portion of an LSL);
     Installing or improving corrosion control treatment;
     Supporting voluntary lead drinking water testing programs
for schools and child-care facilities; and

     Remediating lead in school and child-care drinking water.
    EPA learned during the LCRR virtual engagements that many small and
historically disadvantaged communities face challenges accessing these
EPA funding opportunities. Many lack the capacity to develop
competitive funding applications and have not applied for DWSRF loans
or other infrastructure grants in the past. EPA will seek opportunities
to provide technical assistance to small and disadvantaged communities.
The agency will also promote awareness of the availability of these
programs to address lead in drinking water, including, for LSL
replacement, regardless of ownership of the LSLs. EPA will also
highlight case studies from communities that have successfully
addressed concerns regarding the use of public funds for private-side
LSLR. To the extent possible, expanded, or new funding programs under
future legislation will also be directed to similar projects.
    States can direct funds available under the American Rescue Plan
(ARP) Act to water infrastructure, and specifically lead reduction.
States could also use ARP funds to address lead in schools and child-
care facilities and to accelerate voluntary LSLR programs.
2. Ensuring Equity in the Distribution of Funds for Reducing Lead in
Drinking Water
    Through E.O. 14008, President Biden established the Justice 40
initiative--setting a goal that 40 percent of the overall benefits of
certain Federal investments flow to disadvantaged communities that have
been historically marginalized and overburdened by pollution and
underinvestment in housing, transportation, water and wastewater
infrastructure, and health care. This initiative is a critical part of
the Administration's whole-of-government approach to advancing equity
and environmental justice. Two EPA programs central to EPA's goal to
accelerate LSLR are pilot programs under the Justice 40 initiative: The
DWSRF and the WIIN Reduction in Lead via Drinking Water Exposure Grant.
EPA is engaging with stakeholders and exploring opportunities to
maximize the benefits of these programs in disadvantaged communities,
including their specific application to LSLR projects.
    EPA will partner with states, tribes, and other stakeholders to
collaborate with disadvantaged communities to build their capacity to
better compete for and access water infrastructure funding. EPA will
develop tools to share information, improve transparency and
accountability. EPA is committed to improving public education and
outreach on the availability of funding opportunities and the tools and
resources to support accessing these dollars.
    One of EPA's priorities is to ensure that entities receiving
federal financial assistance from the agency comply with the federal
civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race,
color, national origin, disability, sex and age, including Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal civil rights laws protect many of
the populations that have been exposed to disproportionate levels of
harmful environmental, quality of life, and health impacts from
pollution and environmental contamination. These populations are also
more likely to be exposed to lead in drinking water. Many states and
water systems receive some form of federal funding under the Safe
Drinking Water Act and have an affirmative obligation to ensure their
actions comply with civil rights laws. States and water systems
receiving federal funds have an affirmative obligation to implement
effective non-discrimination compliance programs. EPA intends to
carefully evaluate the provisions of the rule, including the LSLR
provisions, and implementation of EPA financial assistance programs to
ensure compliance with these laws.
3. Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
    The recent Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) \15\ provides an
additional $11.713 billion in general DWSRF funding and $15 billion
specifically targeted to communities for the identification and
replacement of LSLs through the DWSRF. Each funding provision is
scheduled over the next five years. The BIL authorizes $500 million for
the WIIN Reduction in Lead Program over the next five years,
emphasizing LSL replacement and corrosion control treatment in
disadvantaged communities. BIL also authorizes $200 million for lead
testing and remediation in school and child-care drinking water and
authorizes $10 million for a new grant program for LSLR in communities
with existing inventories. EPA will work with its state and tribal
partners, communities, and other stakeholders to identify potentially
high impact but underutilized authorities that would allow states and
tribes to fund full LSL replacement. The agency will also significantly
increase federal, state, and tribal outreach and engagement efforts to
communities to support LSLR activities. Additionally, EPA will update
funding program guidance to provide examples of best state practices
for addressing disproportionate and adverse health and environmental
impacts experienced by communities, including communities of color and
low-income communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Public Law 117-58. https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr3684/BILLS-117hr3684enr.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Cabinet Level Commitments for Federal Collaboration To Address
School and Child-Care Lead in Drinking Water
    Children spend a significant portion of their time at places of
learning, so it is critical to reduce lead in drinking water in schools
and child-care facilities. This is a challenging problem. EPA's
authority to regulate actions by schools and child-care centers that
may be necessary to address lead in drinking water is limited.
Moreover, due to resource constraints, schools and child-care
facilities may choose not to participate in voluntary efforts to sample
for lead in drinking water if funding for remediation is not available.
Some commenters representing facilities with lead in drinking water
indicated they need financial support to address lead. Finally, schools
and child-care facilities that serve low-income communities are less
likely to have the resources necessary to identify and address lead
issues.
    EPA currently advances efforts to address lead in schools and
child-care facilities through two vehicles: (a) The Memorandum of
Understanding on Reducing Lead Levels in Drinking Water in Schools and
Child-Care Facilities (MOU), which includes 14 federal and non-federal
partners; and (b) funding under grant programs like the Lead Testing in
School and Child-care Drinking Water Grant and the Reducing Lead in
Drinking Water Grant. While these efforts assist schools and child-care
facilities to develop and implement lead testing programs, EPA
recognizes the urgency of a more comprehensive federal approach to
address this issue.
    To address these critical concerns, EPA is pursuing deeper
partnerships with a range of Federal agencies to make progress on
reducing lead in drinking water from schools and child-care facilities.
EPA will explore funding that may be available from Federal agencies
that could be used towards remediation of lead in drinking water in
these facilities, with a particular focus on communities at risk of
multiple forms of lead exposure. Collaboration at the federal level has
the potential to further the reduction of lead in drinking water at
schools and child-care facilities than

could be achieved by reliance on regulatory requirements alone.
5. Targeted Technical Assistance to Communities With High Drinking
Water Lead Levels
    While EPA will propose important changes to the regulation of lead
in drinking water, it is critical for systems to conduct proper
sampling for lead and maintain the water chemistry needed to minimize
lead corrosion under existing rules. EPA will collaborate with states
to provide oversight of these critical provisions as well as provide
assistance to low income and other historically disadvantaged
communities experiencing high levels of lead in their drinking water
because they are disproportionately served by LSLs. Communities
impacted by lead in drinking water participating in the LCRR virtual
engagements emphasized the need for financial and technical assistance.
In collaboration with our state and tribal coregulators, EPA intends to
provide targeted technical assistance to community water systems to
reduce lead exposure.
6. Improving Risk Communication Tools
    Throughout the LCRR virtual engagements, EPA received feedback that
risk communication about lead in drinking water must be improved and
that water utilities need support to develop effective communication
materials. EPA intends to develop guidance and templates to assist
states, tribes, and water systems in the communication of lead risk to
householdsand communities. Additionally, EPA intends to propose
revisions to the Consumer Confidence Report Rule (40 CFR 141, subpart
O) which will include requirements related to providing information on
corrosion control efforts and on lead action level exceedances when
corrective action is needed.
7. Providing Guidance on How To Create a Lead Service Line Inventory
    To further advance the proactive replacement of LSLs, EPA will
pursue research to use data analytics and other methods to accelerate
and improve the process of identifying LSLs. EPA intends to publish
inventory development guidance to assist water systems, states, and
tribes by providing best practices, case studies, and templates. The
guidance will address issues raised by commenters including the use of
statistical models to help determine LSL locations, classification of
unknowns, goosenecks, and galvanized plumbing, best practices for
service line material verification, inventory form and format,
inventory accessibility, tools to support inventory development and
data tracking, and how LSL identification may be prioritized. EPA is
also updating the Safe Drinking Water Information System, including all
relevant components, to support state and tribal data management needs
for LSL inventories.
8. Discourage Partial LSLR and Encourage Full LSLR
    Partial LSLRs can cause short-term elevation of lead concentrations
in drinking water and further extend lead health risk from service
lines because a portion of the lead line remains in service. EPA
strongly discourages water systems from conducting partial LSLR. EPA
recommends systems proactively implement full LSLR programs. The agency
also expects water systems to effectively inform and engage customers
during LSLR and provide outreach and filters to residents with LSLs for
six months following replacements. EPA also recommends that LSLR
programs prioritize the most vulnerable populations by focusing on
schools, child-care facilities, homes where children are living, other
locations where children are present, and households of those who
historically have been disproportionately exposed to lead from water
and other media.
    EPA will provide training and guidance on LSLR program development
and available methods for replacing LSL as safely and efficiently as
possible. EPA also will provide tools, best practices, and case studies
for systems to set up voluntary LSLR programs and to implement required
ones. The agency will update the document Funding and Technical
Resources for Lead Service Line Replacement in Small and Disadvantaged
Communities,16 and promote awareness of funding and
financing that can be used for LSLR, including the replacement of the
customer-owned portion of the service line. All the agency's
communications will describe the risks posed by partial LSLR and
mitigation measures to reduce elevated water lead concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/documents/ej_lslr_funding_sources-final.pdf.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2021-27457 Filed 12-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on September 3, 2003

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2003-15965

________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Application of    American Airlines, Inc.                    filed
8/14/03  for:

XX Permanent allocation of two weekly U.S.-Brazil combination
frequencies to provide the following service:

Scheduled combination service between Miami and Sao Paulo, and Miami and
Rio de Janeiro.  American requests that in order to facilitate maximum
operating flexibility that the two frequencies be designated for
combination service between points in the U.S. and points in Brazil.

Continental Airlines and Delta Air Lines filed answers stating that they
do not oppose award of the two U.S.-Brazil frequencies to American, but
do object to American’s request that the frequencies be designated for
combination service between points in the U.S. and points in Brazil
unless the route restrictions on their Brazil frequencies are also
eliminated.

American filed a reply, stating that while it continues to believe that
a non-specific award would be in the public interest, American would not
argue the issue, and, therefore, American urges the Department to grant
two additional Brazil frequencies on a permanent basis, with one limited
to service between Miami and Sao Paulo, and the other limited to service
between Miami and Rio de Janeiro.

Applicant rep:  Carl B. Nelson, Jr.<PHONE_NUMBER>    DOT Analyst:
Sylvia Moore<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted one frequency for service between Miami and Sao Paulo and
one frequency for service between Miami and Rio de Janeiro (subject to
conditions, see below)

The above action was effective when taken:  September 3, 2003, and will
remain in effect indefinitely, subject to conditions described below.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		    Office of International Aviation

XX  The authority granted is consistent with the aviation agreement
between the United States and Brazil.

Except to the extent exempted or waived, this authority is subject to
the terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:  XX Holder’s
certificates of public convenience and necessity

(See Reverse Side)

2

_______________________

Conditions:  Consistent with our standard practice, the frequency
allocation granted is subject to the condition that if any of the
frequencies are not used for a period of 90 days, the allocation as to
that unused frequency will expire automatically and the frequency will
revert to the Department for reallocation.  The 90-day dormancy period
will begin on December 15, 2003, the date on which American proposes
operations with these frequencies.

________________________________________________________________________
__________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; and (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest.  To the extent not granted, we denied all requests in the
referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

 Because we are imposing our standard conditions, we refer to the award
as indefinite rather than permanent.  See Order 2003-8-4 at 6, n. 9.


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 83 (Monday, May 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 23417]
[FR Doc No: 2021-09135]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4495-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Guam; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the
territory of Guam (FEMA-4495-DR), dated March 27, 2020, and related
determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued March 22, 2021.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated March 22, 2021, the President amended the cost-sharing
arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''), in a letter to Robert J.
Fenton, Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security,
under Executive Order 12148, as follows:

    I have determined that the emergency conditions in the territory
of Guam resulting from the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
pandemic beginning on January 20, 2020, and continuing, are of
sufficient severity and magnitude that special cost sharing
arrangements are warranted regarding Federal funds provided under
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,
42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
    Therefore, I amend the declaration of March 27, 2020, to
authorize a waiver of the non-Federal cost share for Other Needs
Assistance--Lost Wages Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.)

Robert J. Fenton,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-09135 Filed 4-30-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P