[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 79 (Monday, April 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24296-24297]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08708]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0578; FRL-9791-01-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Technical Assistance Needs Assessments
(TANAs) at Superfund Remedial or Removal Sites (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Technical Assistance Needs
Assessments (TANAs) at Superfund Remedial or Removal Sites (EPA ICR
Number 2470.03, OMB Control Number 2050-0211) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through May 2022. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register on October 13, 2021,
during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30
days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given
below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency
may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before May 25, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments to EPA, referencing Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-SFUND-2012-0578, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method) or by mail to: EPA

Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. EPA's policy is that all
comments received will be included in the public docket without change
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute.
    Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed
information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Callie Koller, Assessment and
Remediation Division, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology,
Mail Code 28221T, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: This ICR covers the usage of TANAs to solicit feedback
from members of the affected community in order to determine how the
community is receiving technical information about a Superfund remedial
or removal site; whether the community requires additional assistance
in order to understand and respond to site-related technical
information; and whether there are organizations in the community that
are interested or involved in site-related issues and capable of acting
as an appropriate conduit for technical assistance services to the
affected community. EPA estimates that for each TANA it conducts, 20
individuals are interviewed per site via direct face-to-face
interaction, phone, or virtual call at five sites, with an approximate
total of 100 individuals interviewed each year. Responses to the
collection of information are voluntary and the names of respondents
will be protected by the Privacy Act. The information obtained from
each TANA will help ensure the community's needs for technical
information assistance are defined as early in the remedial/removal
process as possible and enable meaningful community involvement in the
Superfund decision-making process. Additionally, the TANA process
produces a blueprint for designing a coordinated effort to meet the
community's needs for additional technical assistance while minimizing
the overlap of services provided.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Local, state, and tribal government
officials, potentially responsible party (PRP) representatives,
community organizations, businesses and individuals who may be impacted
by a Superfund site or a removal action lasting 120 days or longer.
These community members voluntarily participate in community
involvement activities throughout the remedial phase of the Superfund
process. SIC Codes are Occupational Safety and Health Administration's
(OSHA's) Standard Industrial Classification System used to identify
different groups. Local/state governments are categorized as Division
J: Public Administration, Major Group 95: Administration of
Environmental Quality, subgroup 9511: Air and Water Resource and Solid
Waste Management. The other respondents, community members, do not have
a SIC Code as they do not constitute an industry.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 100. (20 per TANA at five sites).
    Frequency of response: Once during either a removal cleanup lasting
120 days or longer or a remedial cleanup of a site. Each TANA interview
is expected to last approximately one hour in duration.
    Total estimated burden: 100 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $2,587 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: A decrease of 450 hours in the total
respondent burden hours is estimated during the three-year period as
compared to the last collection period. The number of individual TANAs
sharply declined, from 25 to five per year, thus decreasing the overall
number of respondents voluntarily participating in this information
request.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2022-08708 Filed 4-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12906-12907]
[FR Doc No: 2012-5162]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property
at the Dubois Regional Airport, Reynoldsville, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport property.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the
release of 11.47 acres of land at the Dubois Regional Airport,
Reynoldsville, Pennsylvania under the provisions of Section 47125(a) of
Title 49 United States Code (U.S.C.).

DATES: Comments on this application must be received on or before April
2, 2012. Comments should be mailed or delivered to the addresses listed
below.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review, by appointment, at the
following addresses:

Robert W. Shaffer, Manager, Dubois Regional Airport, 377 Aviation Way,
Reynoldsville, PA 15851.

and at the FAA Harrisburg Airports District Office:

Lori K. Pagnanelli, Manager, Harrisburg Airports District Office, 3905
Hartzdale Dr., Suite 508, Camp Hill, PA 17011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan L. McDonald, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Harrisburg Airports District Office location
listed above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release property at the Dubois Regional Airport under the
provisions of Section 47125(a) of Title 49 U.S.C. The FAA has
determined that the request to release property at the Dubois Regional
Airport (DUJ), Pennsylvania, submitted by the Clearfield-Jefferson
Counties Regional Airport Authority (Authority), meets the procedural
requirements.
    The following is a brief overview of the request:
    The Authority requests the release of real property totaling 11.47
acres of non-aeronautical airport property to Orion Drilling Company of
Corpus Christi, TX. The land was originally purchased with federal
funds in 1988, AIP Grant 3-42-0023-05-88. In 2007, the Authority
requested, and FAA approved, a change in use from aeronautical use to
non-aeronautical use of three parcels of land (Lots 1, 2, and 3),
totaling 36.33 acres of the Air Commerce Park. The subject 11.47 acres
of this request is Lot 2 of the 36.33 acre Air Commence Park. Lot 2 of

the Air Commence Park is currently undeveloped property. It is located
on the southwest corner within the Air Commerce Park, which is directly
north of the main DuBois Regional Airport parking lot and south of
State Route 830. Orion Drilling Company of Corpus Christi, TX is
proposing to develop the property and erect two buildings, an office
and a warehouse, to store and maintain drilling units for the Marcellus
shale gas industry. The subject land does not serve an aeronautical
purpose and is not needed for airport development, as shown on the
Airport Layout Plan for the Dubois Regional Airport. Fair Market Value
(FMV) will be obtained from the land sale. All proceeds from the sale
of the property will be used to reduce operating costs at the airport.
    Any person may inspect the request by appointment at the FAA office
address listed above. Interested persons are invited to comment on the
proposed release from obligations. All comments will be considered by
the FAA to the extent practicable.

    Issued in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, February 13, 2012.
Lori K. Pagnanelli,
Manager, Harrisburg Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2012-5162 Filed 3-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 163)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 49395-49399]
[DOCID:fr23au06-28]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 82

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0151, FRL-8212-5]
RIN 2060-AK45

Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Adjusting Allowances for Class
I Substances for Export to Article 5 Countries

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed action amends previous action by the Agency
regarding the allocation of Article 5 allowances that permit production
of ozone-depleting substances (ODS) that are Class I, Group I
controlled substances solely for export to developing countries to meet
those countries' basic domestic needs. Specifically, this action will
remove the 2007-2009 phasedown step for companies that manufacture
CFCs-11, -12, or -114 for export to meet the basic domestic needs of
developing countries. The Agency is taking this action in response to
notification that there would otherwise be a shortfall in the
availability of pharmaceutical-grade CFCs for use in metered dose
inhalers in developing countries. In a final rule published December
29, 2005, EPA established initial baselines for each company that are
far more stringent than required under the Beijing Adjustments to the
Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (the
Montreal Protocol), which set out restrictions for production to meet
basic domestic needs. Therefore, even without the 2007-2009 step-down
reduction, the U.S. will be at production levels to meet basic domestic
needs that are far below those allowed under the Beijing Adjustments.
This action is taken in accordance with the Montreal Protocol and the
Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments on the rule must be received on or before
September 22, 2006. Any party requesting a public hearing must notify
the contact person listed below by 5 p.m. eastern standard time on
August 28, 2006. If a hearing is requested it will be held on September
7, 2006 and comments will be due to the Agency October 10, 2006. EPA
will post information regarding a hearing, if one is requested, on the
Ozone Protection Web site http://www.epa.gov/ozone. Persons interested

in attending a public hearing should consult with the contact person
below regarding the location and time of the hearing.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OAR-2005-
0151, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Air Docket, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: EPA
Air Docket, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B108, Mail
Code 6102T, Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-
0151 EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov
, including any personal information provided,

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

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access''

system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured

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

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA

West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. This
Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cindy Axinn Newberg, EPA,
Stratospheric Protection Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs,
Office of Air and Radiation (6205J), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Table of Contents

I. What Is the Legislative and Regulatory Background of the Phaseout
Regulations for Ozone-Depleting Substances?
II. Today's Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order No. 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order No. 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order No. 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order No. 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health & Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order No. 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. What Is the Legislative and Regulatory Background of the Phaseout
Regulations for Ozone-Depleting Substances?

    The current regulatory requirements of the Stratospheric Ozone
Protection Program that limit production and consumption of ozone-
depleting substances (ODSs) can be found at 40 CFR part 82, subpart A.
The regulatory program was originally published in the Federal Register
on August 12, 1988 (53 FR 30566), in response to the 1987 signing and
subsequent ratification of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol). The U.S. was one of the
original signatories to the 1987 Montreal Protocol and the U.S.
ratified the Protocol on April 21, 1988. Congress

then enacted, and President Bush signed into law, the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (CAAA of 1990), which included Title VI on
Stratospheric Ozone Protection, codified as 42 U.S.C. Chapter 85,
Subchapter VI, to ensure that the United States could satisfy its
obligations under the Montreal Protocol. EPA issued new regulations to
implement this legislation and has made several amendments to the
regulations since.
    The requirements contained in the final rules published in the
Federal Register on December 20, 1994 (59 FR 65478) and May 10, 1995
(60 FR 24970) establish an Allowance Program. The Allowance Program and
its history are described in the notice of proposed rulemaking
published in the Federal Register on November 10, 1994 (59 FR 56276).
The control and the phaseout of the production and consumption of Class
I ODSs as required under the Protocol and the CAA are accomplished
through the Allowance Program.
    In developing the Allowance Program, we collected information on
the amounts of ODSs produced, imported, exported, transformed and
destroyed within the U.S. for specific baseline years for specific
chemicals. This information was used to establish the U.S. production
and consumption ceilings for these chemicals. The data were also used
to assign company-specific production and import rights to companies
that were in most cases producing or importing during the specific year
of data collection. These production or import rights are called
``allowances.'' Due to the complete phaseout of many ODSs, the
quantities of allowances granted to companies for those chemicals were
gradually reduced and eventually eliminated. Production allowances and
consumption allowances no longer exist for any ODSs that are Class I
controlled substances. All production or consumption of Class I
controlled substances is prohibited under the Montreal Protocol and the
CAA, except for a few narrow exemptions.
    In the context of the regulatory program, the use of the term
``consumption'' may be misleading. Consumption does not mean the
``use'' of a controlled substance, but rather is defined as the
formula: production + imports-exports, of controlled substances
(Article 1 of the Protocol and Section 601 of the CAA). Class I
controlled substances that were produced or imported through the
expenditure of allowances prior to their phaseout date may continue to
be used by industry and the public after their phaseout date except
where the regulations include explicit use restrictions. Use of such
substances may be subject to other regulatory limitations.
    The specific names and chemical formulas for the Class I controlled
substances are in Appendix A and Appendix F in Subpart A of 40 CFR Part
82. The specific names and chemical formulas for the Class II
controlled substances are in Appendix B and Appendix F in Subpart A.
    Although the regulations phased out the production and consumption
of Class I controlled substances, a very limited number of exemptions
exist, consistent with U.S. obligations under the Montreal Protocol.
The regulations allow for the manufacture of phased-out Class I
controlled substances provided the substances are either transformed or
destroyed. They also allow limited manufacture if the substances are
(1) exported to meet the basic domestic needs of countries operating
under Article 5 of the Montreal Protocol or (2) produced for essential
or critical uses as authorized by the Montreal Protocol and the
regulations. Limited exceptions to the ban on the import of phased-out
Class I controlled substances also exist if the substances are: (1)
Previously used, (2) imported for essential or critical uses as
authorized by the Montreal Protocol and the regulations, (3) imported
for destruction or transformation only, or (4) a transhipment or (5) a
heel (a small amount of controlled substance remaining in a container
after it is discharged or off-loaded) (40 CFR 82.4).
    On December 29, 2005, EPA published a final rule in the Federal
Register (70 FR 77042) concerning production of specific Class I
controlled substances for export to meet the basic domestic needs of
developing countries (``Article 5'' countries). It established a new
Article 5 allowance baseline for Class I controlled substances,
established a schedule for phased reductions in such allowances, and
extended the time allowed for Article 5 production for methyl bromide.
Article 5 allowances are solely for production to meet the basic
domestic needs of developing countries referred to in the Protocol as
``Article 5'' parties. This action amends the schedule for phased
reductions in Article 5 allowances for companies that produce and
export Class I, Group I substances to meet the basic domestic needs of
Article 5 countries.

II. Today's Action

    Under the Montreal Protocol, industrialized countries and
developing countries have different schedules for phasing out the
production and import of ODSs. Developing countries operating under
Article 5, paragraph 1 of the Montreal Protocol in most cases have
additional time in which to phase out ODSs. The Parties to the Montreal
Protocol recognized that it would be inadvisable for developing
countries to spend their scarce resources to build new ODS
manufacturing facilities to meet their basic domestic needs as
industrialized countries phase out. The Parties therefore decided to
permit a small amount of production in industrialized countries, in
addition to the amounts permitted under those countries' phaseout
schedules, for export to meet the basic domestic needs of developing
countries.
    The adjustments to the Montreal Protocol adopted by the Parties at
their 11th meeting in Beijing required Parties that manufacture ODSs
for basic domestic needs to establish baselines for such production,
calculated based on the average quantity of the ODS exported to Article
5 countries over a specified range of years. The adjustments also
instituted a reduction schedule for Article 5 manufacture which
reflects the reduction schedule in place for developing country ODS
consumption. The Beijing Adjustments underscore the Parties' concern
that global oversupply of certain Class I ODSs is interfering with the
transition to alternatives. The oversupply of these ODSs results in low
prices that make it difficult for non-ozone-depleting alternatives to
compete in the marketplace. Businesses and individuals thus lack an
economic incentive to transition to alternatives. The Beijing baseline
calculation was designed to overcome this problem with respect to
Article 5 countries by reducing supply to those countries. The price of
these ODSs should rise to reflect the decrease in supply.
    In response to the Beijing Adjustments, EPA published a final rule
in the Federal Register on December 29, 2005 (70 FR 77042). The Beijing
Adjustments to the Protocol, Article 2A, paragraphs 4-7 state that an
industrialized Party's allowable production of CFCs-11, -12, -113, -
114, and -115, referred to under the Clean Air Act as Class I, Group I
substances, to meet the basic domestic needs of Article 5 Parties shall
be measured against ``the annual average of its production of [these
substances] for basic domestic needs for the period 1995 to 1997
inclusive.'' EPA's December 29, 2005 action was far more stringent than
the requirements set forth in Beijing. The Agency established a
baseline for Class I, Group I substances

using the more recent export data from the years 2000-2003, years in
which there were far fewer exports. Therefore, instead of establishing
an aggregate baseline for Class I, Group I substances of 9,951 metric
tons--reflecting the 1995-1997 average called for by the Beijing
Adjustments--EPA's December 29, 2005 final rule established a more
stringent baseline of 345 metric tons, reflecting export data from
2000-2003, believing that more recent export data represented a truer
picture of the actual basic domestic needs for these chemicals in
developing countries and would thereby address the concerns regarding
global oversupply of CFCs.
    After publication of the December 29, 2005 final rule, EPA was
informed that although there is a global oversupply of CFCs in general,
there are not sufficient supplies of pharmaceutical-grade CFCs
available for use in metered dose inhalers in developing countries.
Pharmaceutical-grade CFCs are more pure than a typical batch of CFCs
and have to meet stringent specifications set out by regulatory
authorities if they are to be used in medical devices. Developed
countries like the United States have already reached their phaseout
date for the production and consumption of CFCs. Under the Montreal
Protocol, once a Party has reached the phaseout date for CFCs it is
allowed to apply for an essential use exemption, which permits the
Party to consume limited amounts of CFCs for essential uses such as
certain metered dose inhalers. Developing countries do not phase out
their CFC consumption until 2010 and do not have access to an essential
use exemption until that time. Therefore, the Agency's previous
conclusion that there is an oversupply of CFCs was not correct with
regard to pharmaceutical-grade CFCs. Because the essential use
exemption will not be available to developing countries until 2010,
there is a need for developed countries to supply CFCs to meet this
demand between 2007 and 2009 under the provisions for basic domestic
needs identified in the Montreal Protocol and EPA regulations.
    The number of facilities that are rated for pharmaceutical-grade
CFC production is limited. One company that owns such a facility in the
U.S. had previously sourced the developing country demand for
pharmaceutical-grade CFCs from a facility in Europe which, as of 2006,
is no longer in operation. Since EPA's December 29, 2005 final rule set
baselines for CFC production for basic domestic needs that are far
below the requirements of the Beijing Adjustments, the Agency could
allow for a moderate increase in the amount of CFC production to meet
domestic needs in order to make up the potential shortfall in
pharmaceutical-grade CFC production for developing countries, while
still exceeding compliance with the U.S.'s Montreal Protocol
obligations.
    The Montreal Protocol encourages industrial rationalization to
minimize the number of sources that produce ozone-depleting substances.
The closure of plants in Europe and in developing countries as part of
their phase out plans is consistent with this environmental goal.
However, EPA recognizes the compelling public health rationale for
continued manufacture of certain CFC-containing metered dose inhalers
(MDIs). In fact, on April 11, 2006, EPA published a proposed rule in
the Federal Register to allow for the manufacture of CFCs for use in
metered dose inhalers in the United States for the year 2006, nearly
ten years after our phaseout of CFCs (71 FR 18262).
    Therefore, the Agency is proposing to remove the next phasedown
step for companies that manufacture Class I, Group I substances from
the phaseout schedule for Article 5 allowances effective January 1,
2007. Since the Agency's December 29, 2005 final rule established very
low baselines for these substances, the U.S. will still exceed
compliance with the Beijing Adjustments even without a step-down to 15%
of baseline. A step-down to 15% of the baseline established by the
Beijing Adjustments (which is based on 1995-1997 export data) would
result in an allowable production level of 1,493 metric tons. By
comparison, EPA's proposed approach, which uses the more stringent
regulatory baseline based on 2000-2003 export data but maintains the
50% step-down level through 2009, results in an allowable production
level of only 173 metric tons.
    As a result of the action described in this proposed rulemaking,
companies that manufacture Class I, Group I substances will have their
Article 5 production frozen at the 2006 reduction level of 50% of
baseline for the remaining years of the Article 5 reduction schedule,
specifically years 2007-2009. EPA reviewed data provided on the volume
of pharmaceutical-grade CFCs produced to meet basic domestic needs over
the years 2000-2005 and consulted with other governments to confirm
whether they did project a need for pharmaceutical-grade CFCs between
2007 and 2009. In removing the next step-down requirement from our
domestic regulation, EPA will allow companies to manufacture at their
2006 level, which will be sufficient to meet the need for
pharmaceutical-grade CFCs based on the data reviewed by the Agency.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order No. 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose any new information collection
burden. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
previously approved the information collection requirements contained
in the existing regulations, 40 CFR Part 82, under the provisions of
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned
OMB control number 2060-0170, EPA ICR number 1432. A copy of the OMB-
approved Information Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained from
Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460 or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with this proposed rule. For
purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on

small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
is identified by the North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) Code in the Table below; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            SIC small
                                                          business size
                                                          standard (in
            Category                NAICS     SIC code      number of
                                     code                 employees or
                                                           millions of
                                                            dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Chemical and Allied Products,     422690       5169               100
 NEC............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, EPA has concluded that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities,
as it regulates large corporations that produce, import, or export
Class I controlled substances. There are no small entities in this
regulated industry.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

E. Executive Order No. 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule is expected
to primarily affect producers and exporters of Class I, Group I
controlled substances. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to
this proposed rule.

F. Executive Order No. 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order No. 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order No. 13175,
because it does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of
Indian tribal governments. The proposed rule does not impose any
enforceable duties on communities of Indian tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order No. 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.

G. Executive Order No. 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & Safety Risks

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

environmental health or safety risk addressed by this action may have a
disproportionate effect on children. Depletion of stratospheric ozone
results in greater transmission of the sun's ultraviolet (UV) radiation
to the earth's surface. The following studies describe the effects on
children of excessive exposure to UV radiation: (1) Westerdahl J,
Olsson H, Ingvar C. ``At what age do sunburn episodes play a crucial
role for the development of malignant melanoma,'' Eur J Cancer 1994;
30A:1647-54; (2) Elwood JM, Jopson J. ``Melanoma and sun exposure: an
overview of published studies,'' Int J Cancer 1997; 73:198-203; (3)
Armstrong BK. ``Melanoma: childhood or lifelong sun exposure,'' In:
Grobb JJ, Stern RS, Mackie RM, Weinstock WA, eds. ``Epidemiology,
causes and prevention of skin diseases,'' 1st ed. London, England:
Blackwell Science, 1997:63-6; (4) Whiteman D., Green A. ``Melanoma and
Sunburn,'' Cancer Causes Control, 1994; 5:564-72; (5) Kricker A,
Armstrong, BK, English, DR, Heenan, PJ. ``Does intermittent sun
exposure cause basal cell carcinoma? A case control study in Western
Australia,'' Int J Cancer 1995; 60:489-94; (6) Gallagher, RP, Hill, GB,
Bajdik, CD, et al. ``Sunlight exposure, pigmentary factors, and risk of
nonmelanocytic skin cancer I, Basal cell carcinoma,'' Arch Dermatol
1995; 131:157-63; (7) Armstrong, BK. ``How sun exposure causes skin
cancer: an epidemiological perspective,'' Prevention of Skin Cancer.
2004; 89-116.
    Allowing continuing U.S. production to meet developing countries'
basic domestic needs, including their need for pharmaceutical-grade
CFCs, avoids the need for those countries to install new ODS
manufacturing facilities. The amount of CFCs that will be released to
the atmosphere should remain the same regardless of the manufacturing
location. In addition, avoiding the installation of new capacity is one
means of ensuring that production levels continue to decline. Thus,
this proposed rule is not expected to increase the impacts on
children's health from stratospheric ozone depletion.

H. Executive Order No. 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as
defined in Executive Order No. 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations
That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 82

    Environmental protection.

    Dated: August 17, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

    40 CFR part 82 is amended as follows:

PART 82--PROTECTION OF STRATOSPHERIC OZONE

    1. The authority citation for part 82 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7601, 7671-7671q.

    2. Section 82.11 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(3) to read as
follows:

Sec.  82.11  Exports of Class I controlled substances to Article 5
Parties.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Phased Reduction Schedule for Article 5 Allowances allocated in
Sec.  82.11. For each control period specified in the following table,
each person is granted the specified percentage of the baseline Article
5 allowances apportioned under Sec.  82.11.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Class I         Class I
                                           substances in   substances in
             Control  period               group I  (in    group VI  (In
                                             percent)        percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006....................................              50              80
2007....................................              50              80
2008....................................              50              80
2009....................................              50              80
2010....................................               0              80
2011....................................               0              80
2012....................................               0              80
2013....................................               0              80
2014....................................               0              80
2015....................................               0               0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E6-13951 Filed 8-22-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 103)]
[Notices]
[Page 30018]
[DOCID:fr28my10-74]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL10-56-000]

Western Electric Coordinating Council; Notice of Institution of
Proceeding and Refund Effective Date

May 20, 2010.
    On May 20, 2010, the Commission issued an order that instituted a
proceeding in Docket No. EL05-56-000, pursuant to section 206 of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e, concerning the spot market
energy price cap in the Western Electric Coordinating Council outside
the California Independent System Operator Corporation. Western
Electric Coordinating Council, 131 FERC ] 61,145 (2010).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL10-56-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-12855 Filed 5-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 67 (Wednesday, April 8, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18935-18936]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08082]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition, DP14-002

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

ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation.

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

SUMMARY: This document denies a July 7, 2014 petition from Mr. Brian
Rosa of Union, NJ, requesting that the agency open an investigation
into an alleged defect resulting in engine stall without warning after
refueling in a model year (MY) 2007 Dodge Grand Caravan minivan. The
petitioner's vehicle is a Chrysler RS platform minivan. The RS platform
includes MY 2003 through 2007 Dodge Grand Caravan, Dodge Caravan,
Chrysler Town and Country and Chrysler Voyager minivans. NHTSA
evaluated the petition by analyzing consumer complaints submitted to
the Agency, analyzing field data and reviewing technical information
provided by Chrysler in response to an information request letter from
the Agency, and testing an RS minivan that was the subject of a post-
refuel engine stall complaint to NHTSA. After completing this
evaluation, NHTSA has concluded that further investigation of the
alleged defect in the subject vehicles is unlikely to result in a
determination that a safety-related defect exists. The agency
accordingly denies the petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Paul Simmons, Vehicle Control
Division, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Alleged Defect

    The petitioner alleges that his MY 2007 Dodge Grand Caravan vehicle
experienced multiple incidents of engine stall without warning after
refueling. The petitioner discovered that the defective part is a valve
that is integral to the fuel tank, requiring tank replacement to repair
the problem. The petitioner alleged that stalling without warning is an
unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety and requests the agency take
action by opening a Preliminary Evaluation fully evaluate the defect.

Engine Stall Defects

    The United States Code for Motor Vehicle Safety (Title 49, Chapter
301) defines motor vehicle safety as ``the performance of a motor
vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public
against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design,
construction, or performance of a motor vehicle, and against
unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident, and includes
nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle.'' NHTSA considers several
factors when assessing the safety risk posed by conditions that may
result in engine stall while driving. These include the speeds at which
stalling may occur, the ability of the driver to restart the vehicle,
the warning available to the driver prior to stalling, the effects of
engine stall on vehicle controllability, when and where the stalling
will occur and the effects of the condition on other safety systems of
the vehicle. In general, conditions that result in engine stall during
low-speed operation at idle, such as when slowing to a stop, and which
do not affect the operator's ability to immediately restart the engine
are considered the least hazardous types of stalling problems and,
absent other safety factors, are not considered to be unreasonable
risks to safety.

Background (PE13-016)

    On February 10, 2014, ODI closed an investigation of an alleged
defect in approximately 153,817 MY 2006 Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger and
Dodge Magnum vehicles (LX cars) that may result in engine stall shortly
after refueling (PE13-016). In response to ODI's information request
for PE13-016, Chrysler identified a problem with the multifunction
control valve (MFCV) fuel shutoff float integrated into 19-gallon fuel
tanks in certain LX vehicles. According to Chrysler, the float may
swell after exposure to fuels with high ethanol content, which may
cause the valve to stick. A float valve that is stuck open during
refueling, could result in fuel tank overfill and allow raw fuel to
enter the purge line. This could result in problems with engine
driveability (e.g., stumble or hesitation) or stall while driving in
the brief period immediately after filling the fuel tank.

    ODI's analysis of complaints related to this condition determined
that most of the incidents of engine stall were occurring when the
vehicles were stopped or travelling at low speeds and there were no
reports of any difficulty restarting the engines after such incidents.
No crashes or injuries were identified in the subject vehicles, which
had been in service for 7 to 8 years. The investigation was closed with
no safety recall due to the low safety risk associated with the alleged
defect condition.

RS Minivan analysis

    In response to ODI's information request letter for DP14-002,
Chrysler indicated that the RS Minivans may experience a condition with
MFCV float sticking similar to the one investigated in the LX Cars in
PE13-016:

    ``The failure mechanism is a result of a swollen refueling float
within the multifunction control valve. Studies have proven that
elevated ethanol additives cause the float and housing to swell,
which, in turn, causes the float to intermittently stick. Once
stuck, a limited amount of fuel will pass beyond the refuel float
and enter the vapor recovery system before the fill pressure
threshold is reached and shuts the fuel nozzle off.
    ``Once fuel has entered into in the vapor recovery system, it
can then be purged into the engine's intake system in place of
anticipated vapor within the first minute of starting the engine.
The result of fuel rather than vapor entering in the engine intake
system will cause the engine to stumble or, when the vehicle is not
in motion and/or the engine at idle, a stall can occur. The
condition is often contained to a momentary engine stumble as the
purge event is immediately turned off when a rich fuel condition is
detected by the Powertrain Control Module.
    ``Chrysler believes there is no unreasonable risk to motor
safety because an engine stumble or rough idle will occur at a low
driving speed, and while a stall is most likely to occur at an idle
or stop. There have been no reported accidents or property damage in
over 1.8 million vehicles. Additionally, when a refuel valve does
stick, there is sufficient back pressure in the fuel system to shut
off the fuel pump and limit the amount of the fuel into the purge
line.''

    ODI's analysis of complaints, field reports, legal claims and
warranty data related to the alleged defect in Chrysler RS Minivans
identified a total of 720 post-refueling engine stall incidents in
approximately 1.8 million vehicles, resulting in an overall rate of
0.39 per incidents per thousand vehicles (IPTV). Similar to the LX Car
analysis in PE13-016, the engine stalls were mostly occurring when the
vehicle was stopped or coasting to a stop at low speed. There were no
allegations of difficulty restarting the engines immediately after the
stalls occurred. There were no allegations of crash or injury.
    Differences in tank design, exhaust routing and purge strategy may
influence the incident rate at which the MFCV float sticking condition
occurs and/or the potential for engine stall or other performance
concerns. As a result, ODI's analysis examined incident rates over the
full range of RS Minivan production to assess the effects of changes in
tank design and purge control logic. This analysis identified an
elevated incident rate for approximately 208,000 MY 2004 and 2005 RS
Minivans built during a seventh month period from September 2003
through March 2004, which exhibited a failure rate similar to the LX
Cars investigated in PE13-016. Table 1 summarizes the field data for
DP14-002 and PE13-016.

                                Table 1. Summary of NHTSA Complaints and Chrysler Complaints, Field Reports and Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Vehicle age     Total     Report rate    Crashes/
               NHTSA inv. No.                           Vehicles            Build range   Population      (yrs)      reports       (IPTV)      Injuries
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PE13-016...................................  LX cars, 2006................    4/05-7/06      153,817          7-8          299         1.94          0/0
DP14-002...................................  RS vans, 2003-04.............    7/02-8/03      425,544        11-12           34         0.08          0/0
                                             RS vans, 2004-05.............    9/03-3/04      208,419        10-11          445         2.14          0/0
                                             RS vans, 2005-07.............    4/04-5/07    1,221,370         7-10          241         0.20          0/0
                                             Total RS, 2003-07............    7/02-5/07    1,855,333         7-12          720         0.39          0/0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject Vehicle Test Results

    As part of its evaluation of this defect petition, NHTSA's Vehicle
Research and Test Center (VRTC) conducted testing on a 2005 Chrysler
Town & Country LMT (3.6L SFI, 20 gal. fuel tank) vehicle that was the
subject of an ODI complaint (VOQ 10641603) that provided the following
description of the problem:

    After fill up, vehicle stalls, the engine cuts off and the
vehicle loses all power and power steering. This happened first on a
cross country trip and caused some serious safety concerns when
attempting to exit the gas station and merge onto the highway. This
problem has been occurring regularly from the first instance in
2011. When fueling, the van is never over filled; we fill until the
pump clicks off. This seems to be a fairly common problem in this
generation of minivans as represented in online forums trying to
diagnose the problem.

    VRTC conducted tests on the complaint vehicle to assess engine
performance after refueling, including the driving conditions and ease
of engine restart associated with any observed engine stalls. When
refueling the vehicle up to the initial shut-off of the filling station
pump nozzle, the VRTC testing was able to reproduce stalling incidents
when the vehicle was stopped or coasting to a stop at low speed. The
vehicle did not stall 4 out of 5 times when travelling at 5 mph, but
minor hesitation was noted. No stalls and only minor hesitation were
occurred when travelling at 10 mph or above in tanks filled to the
initial nozzle shut-off. Stalling was more likely to occur if the tank
was overfilled (i.e., adding fuel past the initial fill nozzle
shutoff). Testing after overfilling resulted in stalls in 4 of 5 tests
at speeds up to 10 mph. Regardless of fill condition, the vehicle could
always be immediately restarted after each engine stall.

Conclusion

    In the Agency's view, additional investigation is unlikely to
result in a finding that a defect related to motor vehicle safety
exists given the limited conditions under which the subject condition
may result in engine stall, the low failure rate in vehicles with
approximately 8 to 13 years in service and the absence of any reports
of crashes or injuries. Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and
prioritize NHTSA limited resources to best accomplish the Agency's
safety mission, the petition is denied. This action does not constitute
a finding by NHTSA that a safety-related defect does not exist. The
Agency will take further action if warranted by future circumstances.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR
1.50 and 501.8.

 Frank S. Borris II,
Acting Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2015-08082 Filed 4-7-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 177 (Friday, September 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 54702]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21805]

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

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: PR14-51-000.
    Applicants: Enbridge Pipelines (North Texas) L.P.
    Description: Tariff filing per 284.123(b)(2)/.: Request for New
Rates to be effective 9/1/2014; TOFC: 760.
    Filed Date: 8/27/14.
    Accession Number: 20140827-5079.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/17/14.

    284.123(g) Protests Due
    Docket Numbers: RP14-1237-000.
    Applicants: Texas Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Permanent Capacity
Release of Neg Rate Agmt (Constellation 38273 to Exelon 34142) to be
effective 9/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 9/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20140902-5057.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1238-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Cap Rel Neg Rate
Agmt (QEP 37657 to Trans LA 43005) to be effective 9/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 9/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20140902-5068.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1239-000.
    Applicants: ANR Storage Company.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.601: United
EnergyTwin Eagle to be effective 9/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 9/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20140902-5080.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1240-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gulf Transmission, LLC.
    Description: FTS-2 Out of Path Refund Report of Columbia Gulf
Transmission, LLC.
    Filed Date: 9/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20140902-5083.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1241-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing per 154.203: Giles County
Implementation, CP13-125 to be effective 10/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 9/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20140902-5211.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1242-000.
    Applicants: Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.204: Clean Up--
Negotiated Rate and Non-Conforming Agreements to be effective 10/1/
2014.
    Filed Date: 9/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20140902-5213.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/15/14.

    Docket Numbers: RP14-1243-000.
    Applicants: Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) rate filing per 154.601: Negotiated & Non-
Conforming Service Agmts--Giles Co, Celanese to be effective 10/1/2014.
    Filed Date: 9/2/14.
    Accession Number: 20140902-5222.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 9/15/14.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 3, 2014.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-21805 Filed 9-11-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26931-26933]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11341]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0143]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Second Annual Space Coast Super Boat Grand Prix,
Atlantic Ocean, Cocoa Beach, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
waters of the Atlantic Ocean east of Cocoa Beach, Florida during the
Second Annual Space Coast Super Boat Grand Prix. The Second Annual
Space Coast Super Boat Grand Prix will consist of a series of high-
speed boat races. The event is scheduled to take place on Saturday, May
21, 2011 and Sunday, May 22, 2011. The temporary safety zone is
necessary for the safety of race participants, participant vessels,
spectators, and the general public during the event. Persons and
vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in,
or remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 10 a.m. on May 21, 2011 through 5:30
p.m. on May 22, 2011. This rule will be enforced from 10 a.m. until 4
p.m. on May 21, 2011, and 9 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. on May 22, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-0143 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0143 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail Lieutenant John E. Adkins, Sector
Jacksonville Prevention Department, Coast Guard; telephone 904-564-
7563, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive
notice of the event with sufficient time to publish an NPRM and to
receive public comments prior to the event. Any delay in the effective
date of this rule would be contrary to the public interest because
immediate action is needed to minimize the potential danger to race
participants, participant vessels, spectators, and the general public.
    For the same reasons, the Coast Guard finds under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3) that good cause exists for making this rule effective less
than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    Super Boat International Productions, Inc., is hosting the Second
Annual Space Coast Super Boat Grand Prix, a series of high-speed boat
races. The event will commence on May 21, 2011 and conclude on May 22,
2011. The event will be held on the waters of the Atlantic Ocean east
of Cocoa Beach, Florida. Approximately 30 high-speed power boats will
be participating in the races, and it is expected that 100 spectator
vessels will be present in the area during the races. The high speed of
the participant vessels poses a safety hazard to race participants,
participant vessels, spectators, and the general public. The temporary
safety zone is necessary to protect race participants, participant
vessels, spectators, and the general public from the hazards associated
with the event.

Discussion of Rule

    The safety zone encompasses certain navigable waters of the
Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of Cocoa Beach, Florida. The safety zone
will be enforced from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. on Saturday, May 21, 2011,
and from 9 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. on Sunday, May 22, 2011. Persons and
vessels are prohibited from entering, transiting through, anchoring in,
or remaining within the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of
the Port Jacksonville or a designated representative. Persons and
vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the safety zone may contact the Captain of the Port Jacksonville by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or his designated representative via VHF
radio on channel 16, to request authorization. The Coast Guard will be
providing notice of the safety zone via Local Notice to Mariners and
Broadcast Notice to Mariners. On-scene notice will also be provided by
the Coast Guard or local law enforcement.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the
following reasons: (1) The safety zone will be enforced for only 14.5
hours; (2) although persons and vessels will not be able to enter,
transit through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone without
authorization from the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or a designated
representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the
effective period; (3) persons and vessels may still enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the safety zone if authorized by
the Captain of the Port

Jacksonville or a designated representative; and (4) advance
notification will be made to the local maritime community via Local
Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within that portion of the
Atlantic Ocean encompassed within the safety zone from 10 a.m. until 4
p.m. on May 21, 2011, and 9 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. on May 22, 2011. For
the reasons discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section
above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule involves the establishment of a temporary safety zone on the
waters of Atlantic Ocean that will be enforced for a total of 14.5
hours. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping

requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add a temporary Sec.  165.T07-0143 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0143  Safety Zone; Second Annual Space Coast Super Boat
Grand Prix, Atlantic Ocean, Cocoa Beach, FL.

    (a) Regulated area. The following regulated area is a safety zone:
all waters of the Atlantic Ocean located east of Cocoa Beach, FL and
encompassed within an imaginary line connecting the following points:
Starting at Point 1 in position 28[deg]22'16'' N, 80[deg]36'04'' W;
thence west to Point 2 in position 28[deg]22'15'' N, 80[deg]35'39'' W;
thence south to Point 3 in position 28[deg]19'47'' N, 80[deg]35'55'' W;
thence east to Point 4 in position 28[deg]19'47'' N, 80[deg]36'22'' W;
thence north back to origin. All coordinates are North American Datum
1983.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Jacksonville in the enforcement of the regulated
area.
    (c) Regulations. (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from
entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the
regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Jacksonville or a designated representative.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the regulated area may contact the Captain of the
Port Jacksonville by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated
representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization.
If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the regulated area is granted by the Captain of the Port Jacksonville
or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the
Port Jacksonville or his designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area
through advanced notice via Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice
to Mariners, and by on-scene designated representatives.
    (d) Effective date and enforcement period. This rule is effective
from 10 a.m. on May 21, 2011 through 5:30 p.m. on May 22, 2011. The
regulated area will be enforced from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m. on May 21,
2011, and 9 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. on May 22, 2011.

    Dated: April 29, 2011.
C.A. Blomme,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Jacksonville.
[FR Doc. 2011-11341 Filed 5-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

Issued by the Department of Transportation on February 26, 2007

   NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST-2007-27365

________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________

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 SPIRIT AIRLINES, INC. (SPIRIT) filed 2/16/07 for:

XX  Exemption for two years under 49 U.S.C. 40109 to provide the
following service:

Scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, and mail
between points in the United States, via intermediate points, to points
in Trinidad and Tobago and beyond.   Spirit also requests authority to
perform charter service between the United States and Trinidad and
Tobago.

Applicant rep: Anita M. Mosner<PHONE_NUMBER>     DOT Analyst: Thuy H.
Cooper<PHONE_NUMBER>

D I S P O S I T I O N

XX  Granted in part (subject to conditions, see below)

XX  Balance dismissed (see remarks below)

The above action granting exemption authority was effective when taken:
February 26, 2007, through February 26, 2009.

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  Trinidad and Tobago.

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

   	    XX Standard exemption conditions (attached)

Conditions:  The authority granted to serve intermediate and beyond
points is limited to countries with which the United States has signed
open-skies agreements and/or countries for which US Airways holds
authority to serve under certificates and exemptions issued by the
Department.

Remarks: We also dismiss Spirit’s application for U.S.-Trinidad and
Tobago charter authority.  As a certificated air carrier (see Order
98-7-6), Spirit already holds worldwide charter authority (see 49 U.S.C.
§ 41109 (a)(5) and 14 C.F.R. § 212.1).

________________________________________________________________________
_____________

On the basis of data officially noticeable under Rule 24(g) of the
Department's regulations, we found the applicant qualified to provide
the exemption services authorized.

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (3) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted or dismissed, 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

U.S. Carrier Exemption Conditions

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the U.S. carrier
applicant(s) shall:

(1)  Hold at all times effective operating authority from the government
of each country served;

(2)  Comply with applicable requirements concerning oversales contained
in 14 CFR 250 (for scheduled operations, if authorized);

(3)  Comply with the requirements for reporting data contained in 14 CFR
241;

(4)  Comply with requirements for minimum insurance coverage, and for
certifying that coverage to the Department, contained in 14 CFR 205;

(5)  Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 203, concerning
waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

(6)  Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, the Transportation Security Administration, and with all
applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning security, including,
but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1544.  To assure compliance with all
applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning security, the holder
shall, before commencing any new service (including charter flights) to
or from a foreign airport, contact its International Principal Security
Inspector (IPSI) to advise the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether
the Transportation Security Administration has determined that security
is adequate to allow such airport(s) to be served;

(7)  Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and
limitations required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the
Department of Transportation, with all applicable orders and regulations
of other U.S. agencies and courts, and with all applicable laws of the
United States.

The authority granted shall be effective only during the period when the
holder is in compliance with the conditions imposed above.

11/06

 Spirit’s application requests authority from the United States “and
its territories.”  The term “United States” encompasses U.S.
territories.  See 49 U.S.C. § 40102(a)(46).

 Spirit intends to offer scheduled service between Ft, Lauderdale,
Florida and Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, beginning on or about
May 1, 2007.