[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6250-6252]
[FR Doc No: 2017-01068]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-1088]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Pleasure Beach Bridge, Bridgeport, CT

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
navigable waters of Pleasure Beach, Bridgeport, CT for Pleasure Beach
Bridge. This temporary final rule is necessary to provide for the
safety of life on navigable waters. Entry into, transit through,
mooring, or anchoring within the safety zone is prohibited unless
authorized by Captain of the Port (COTP), Sector Long Island Sound.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from January 19,
2017 until June 30, 2017. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from January 1, 2017 until January 19, 2017.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2015-1088 and USCG-2015-1123 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
contact Petty Officer Jay TerVeen, Prevention Department, U.S. Coast
Guard Sector Long Island Sound, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
LIS Long Island Sound
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NAD 83 North American Datum 1983

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    This rulemaking establishes a safety zone for the waters around
Pleasure Beach Bridge, Bridgeport, CT. Corresponding regulatory history
is discussed below.
    The Coast Guard was made aware on December 9, 2015, of damage to
Pleasure Beach Bridge, the result of which created a hazard to
navigation. On December 22, 2015, the Coast Guard published a temporary
final rule entitled, ``Safety Zone; Pleasure Beach Bridge, Bridgeport,
CT'' in the Federal Register (80 FR 79480). On June 23, 2016, the Coast
Guard published a second temporary final rule entitled, ``Safety Zone;
Pleasure Beach Bridge, Bridgeport, CT'' in the Federal Register (81 FR
40814). On July 25, 2016, the Coast Guard published a third temporary
final rule entitled, ``Safety Zone; Pleasure Beach Bridge, Bridgeport,
CT'' in the Federal Register (81 FR 48329). 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 an NPRM with respect to this rule because doing so
would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. A solution
to remedy the safety hazards associated with this bridge was initially
projected to be completed prior to the expiration of the current safety
zone, but has been delayed. It would be impracticable and contrary to
the public interest to delay promulgating this rule, as it is necessary
to protect the safety of waterway users.
    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and for the
same reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, the Coast Guard finds
that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days
after publication in the Federal Register.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The legal basis for this temporary rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231.
    On December 09, 2015, the Coast Guard was made aware of damage
sustained to Pleasure Beach Bridge, Bridgeport, CT that has created a
hazard to navigation. After further analysis of the bridge structure,
the Coast Guard concluded that the overall condition of the structure
created a continued hazard to navigation. The COTP Sector LIS has
determined that the safety zone established by this temporary final
rule is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable
waterways.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The safety zone established by this rule will cover all navigable
waters of the entrance channel to Johnsons Creek in the vicinity of
Pleasure Beach Bridge, Bridgeport, CT. This safety zone will be bound
inside an area that starts at a point on land at position 41-10.2 N.,
073-10.7 W. and then east along the shoreline to a point on land at
position 41-9.57 N., 073-9.54 W. and then south across the channel to a
point on land at position 41-9.52 N., 073-9.58 W. and then west along
the shoreline to a point on land at position 41-9.52 N., 073-10.5 W.
and then north across the channel back to the point of origin.
    This rule prohibits vessels from entering, transiting, mooring, or
anchoring within the area specifically designated as a safety zone
during the period of enforcement unless authorized by the COTP or
designated representative.
    The Coast Guard will notify the public and local mariners of this
safety zone through appropriate means, which may include, but are not
limited to, publication in the Federal Register, the Local Notice to
Mariners, and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget. The Coast Guard determined that this rulemaking is not a
significant regulatory action for the following reasons: (1) Persons or
vessels desiring to enter the safety zone may do so with permission
from the COTP Sector LIS or a designated representative; and (2) the
Coast Guard will notify the public of the enforcement of this rule via
appropriate means, such as via Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast
Notice to Mariners to increase public awareness of this safety zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
temporary rule involves the establishment of a safety zone. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of
Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination, a Categorical Exclusion
Determination, and EA Checklist, will be in the docket for review. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T01-1088 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-1088  Safety Zone; Pleasure Beach Bridge, Bridgeport, CT.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the entrance channel to Johnsons Creek in the vicinity of
Pleasure Beach Bridge, Bridgeport, CT bound inside an area that starts
at a point on land at position 41[deg]10'02.964'' N.,
073[deg]10'08.148'' W. and then east along the shoreline to a point on
land at position 41[deg]09'57.996'' N., 073[deg]09'54.324'' W. and then
south across the channel to a point on land at position
41[deg]09'52.524'' N., 073[deg]09'58.861'' W. and then west along the
shoreline to a point on land at position 41[deg]09'52.776'' N.,
073[deg]10'04.944'' W. and then north across the channel back to the
point of origin.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced from 12:00
a.m. on January 1, 2017 to 12:00 a.m. June 30, 2017.
    (c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section: A
``designated representative'' is any commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been designated by the Captain
of the Port (COTP), Sector Long Island Sound, to act on his or her
behalf. The designated representative may be on an official patrol
vessel or may be on shore and will communicate with vessels via VHF-FM
radio or loudhailer. ``Official patrol vessels'' may consist of any
Coast Guard, Coast Guard Auxiliary, state, or local law enforcement
vessels assigned or approved by the COTP Sector Long Island Sound. In
addition, members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary may be present to inform
vessel operators of this regulation.
    (d) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR
165.23 apply.
    (2) In accordance with the general regulations in 33 CFR 165.23,
entry into or movement within this zone is prohibited unless authorized
by the COTP, Long Island Sound.
    (3) Operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone
should contact the COTP Sector Long Island Sound at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Sector Sector Long Island Sound Command Center) or the designated
representative via VHF channel 16 to obtain permission to do so.
    (4) Any vessel given permission to enter or operate in the safety
zone must comply with all directions given to them by the COTP Sector
Long Island Sound, or the designated on-scene representative.
    (5) Upon being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio,
flashing light or other means, the operator of the vessel shall proceed
as directed.

    Dated: December 29, 2016.
A.E. Tucci,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Long Island
Sound.
[FR Doc. 2017-01068 Filed 1-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


The measures should provide for emissions reductions
equivalent to approximately one year of reductions needed for RFP
calculated as the overall level of reductions needed to demonstrate
attainment divided by the number of years from the base year to the
attainment year. 81 FR 58066.
2. Contingency Measures in the FNSB Moderate Plan
    Alaska identified two contingency measures in the FNSB Moderate
Plan in section III.D.5.10. In accordance with basic requirements for
valid contingency measures, these two measures are not required to meet
other attainment plan requirements and are not relied on in the control
strategy. The first contingency measure requires the replacement of
wood heating devices upon sale or lease of property if the existing
devices do not meet specific emissions requirements. The second
contingency measure is a mandatory enhanced dry wood compliance program
that requires commercial wood sellers to register with the State and to
disclose moisture content information to consumers at the time of wood
sale and delivery.
    The FNSB Moderate Plan contingency measures have been fully adopted
into Alaska State Code (18 AAC 50.076 and 50.077). In accordance with
basic requirements for valid contingency measures, they will go into
effect with minimal further action by the state or the EPA in response
to a triggering event; in this case the measures adopted by Alaska will
be implemented within 60 days of the EPA making a finding that the FNSB
NAA failed to attain the NAAQS and reclassifying the area from a
Moderate to a Serious nonattainment area.
3. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action: Contingency Measures
    The EPA acknowledges that Alaska developed, adopted, and submitted
the FNSB Moderate Plan prior to the EPA's publication of the proposed
PM2.5 Implementation Rule and interpretation that the
requirement for contingency measures for failure to attain does not
apply to a Moderate area that a state demonstrates cannot practicably
attain by the statutory attainment date, but rather contingency
measures for failure to meet RFP or QMs apply to such areas. See CAA
172(c)(9); 80 FR 15392, March 23, 2015; and 81 FR 58067. Hence,
Alaska's FNSB Moderate Plan submission includes contingency measures
that would take effect at the first possible triggering event--in this
case the failure of the FNSB NAA to attain by the applicable Moderate
area statutory attainment date, December 31, 2015. The EPA believes
that had Alaska been aware of the interpretation provided in the
proposed (and final) PM2.5 Implementation Rule at the time
it developed and submitted the FNSB Moderate Plan, it would have
provided contingency measures for failure to meet RFP, meet any QM, or
submit a QM report on time. 40 CFR 51.1014.
    Although the FNSB Moderate Plan did not include contingency
measures for failure to meet RFP, the EPA is in the unusual position of
reviewing the contingency measure requirement at a later point in time
than would normally occur (i.e., after the applicable attainment date
and Alaska's submission of the 2017 QM Report), when it is possible to
determine whether the area has, in fact, achieved RFP, up to and
including the 2017 QM (see section II.F of this proposal for discussion
of Alaska's 2017 QM Report). We are proposing to find that the FNSB
Moderate Plan is approvable and that the RFP contingency measures for
the 2017 milestone year is moot as applied to the FNSB NAA given the
specific facts of the situation, including that the area achieved its
2017 QM emission reductions.
    As noted, the EPA has proposed (consistent with the
impracticability demonstration in the FNSB Moderate Plan) to reclassify
the area to Serious. Upon reclassification of this area to Serious
nonattainment, Alaska will be required to submit a Serious area plan
for this area that must include contingency measures for purposes of
both failure to meet RFP and failure to attain by the Serious area
attainment date, consistent with the requirements of the CAA and the
PM2.5 Implementation Rule.
    In addition, Alaska included in the FNSB Moderate Plan contingency
measures that are triggered by failure to attain. Although not
required, as discussed above, Alaska can elect to include these control
measures pursuant to its authority under CAA section 116. Because
contingency measures for failure to attain are not required in this
type of attainment plan, the EPA is not proposing to approve these
control measures as contingency measures. Instead, the EPA is proposing
to approve them as SIP strengthening measures because they will achieve
additional emission reductions needed in this area.
    Approving these control measures will help to assure that further
reductions of emissions occur during the period in which Alaska is
developing the Serious area attainment plan for this area. In
developing the Serious area attainment plan for this area, Alaska will
be required submit a SIP revision that will ensure the area achieves
the next QM of December 31, 2020 (and additional QMs every three years
thereafter as may be necessary). As discussed previously, the analyses
in the Serious area attainment plan will be based on the highest
violating regulatory monitor which is currently the monitor at the
North Pole Fire Station. Thus, the 2020 QMs will be based on meeting
RFP at the North Pole Fire Station monitor.
    The EPA is therefore proposing to approve, as SIP strengthening
measures, the requirement to replace wood heating devices upon sale or
lease of property when existing devices do not meet specific emissions
requirements and the mandatory enhanced dry wood compliance program. As
discussed previously, the EPA has proposed to reclassify the FNSB NAA
to Serious and the control measures are set to take effect upon
reclassification of the FNSB NAA from Moderate to Serious.

H. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

1. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets
    CAA section 176(c) requires Federal actions in nonattainment and
maintenance areas to conform to the goals of the SIP to eliminate or
reduce the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieve
expeditious attainment of the standards. Conformity to the goals of the
SIP means that such actions will not (1) cause or contribute to
violations of a NAAQS, (2) worsen the severity of an existing
violation, or (3) delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or interim
milestones.
    Actions involving Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) or Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) funding or approval are subject to the
transportation conformity rule (40 CFR 51.390 and part 93, subpart A).
Under this rule, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) in
nonattainment and maintenance areas coordinate with state air quality
and transportation agencies, the EPA, FHWA and FTA to demonstrate that
an area's long-range transportation plans (``transportation plans'')
and transportation improvement program (TIP) conform to applicable
SIPs. This demonstration is typically made by showing that estimated

emissions from existing and planned highway and transit systems are
less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budgets (``budgets'')
contained in all control strategy plans. An attainment plan for the
PM2.5 NAAQS should include budgets for the attainment year
and each required QM year, as appropriate. Budgets are generally
established for specific years and specific pollutants or precursors
and must reflect all of the motor vehicle control measures contained in
the attainment and RFP demonstrations (40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(v)).
    Attainment plans for PM2.5 NAAQS should identify motor
vehicle emission budgets for each QM year and the attainment year for
direct PM2.5 and NOX (See 40 CFR
93.102(b)(2)(iv)), and for VOCs, SO2, and NH3,
if, during the SIP development process, transportation-related
emissions of these precursors have been found to contribute
significantly to the PM2.5 nonattainment problem in the area
at issue (40 CFR 93.102(b)(2)(v)). All direct PM2.5 emission
budgets in an attainment plan should include direct PM2.5
motor vehicle emissions from tailpipe, brake wear, and tire wear. A
state must also consider whether re-entrained paved and unpaved road
dust are significant contributors and should be included in the direct
PM2.5 budget. See 40 CFR 93.102(b) and 93.122(f) and the
conformity rule preamble at 69 FR 40004, 40031-40036 (July 1,
2004).\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ For further information on transportation conformity
rulemakings, policy guidance and outreach materials, see the EPA's
Web site at http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in the FNSB Moderate Plan
    In section III.D.5.6, the FNSB Moderate Plan provides budgets for
direct PM2.5 and NOX for 2017, the QM year for
RFP. The budgets were calculated using the MOVES2010a vehicle emissions
model, which was the latest onroad mobile sources emissions model
available at the time Alaska started developing the attainment plan
inventory. Alaska used local fleet and fuel inputs and the Fairbanks
Metropolitan Area Transportation System travel demand model to generate
local vehicle travel activity estimates over the six-month
nonattainment season (October through March). The average winter day
emissions, as detailed in section II.A of this proposal, were used by
Alaska to set the motor vehicle emissions budgets. Exceedances of the
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS in the FNSB NAA occur almost
exclusively during the winter months. Alaska executed MOVES2010a with
locally developed inputs representative of wintertime calendar year
2017 conditions. Table 8 summarizes the regional average winter day
onroad vehicle PM2.5 and NOX emissions that
represent the applicable motor vehicle emissions budgets for 2017
including the plug-in block heater adjustments to starting exhaust
emissions for light-duty gasoline vehicles. Alaska estimated that the
contribution of onroad vehicles to total emissions from all sources
comprises 8.7 percent of direct PM2.5 emissions and 16.7
percent of NOX emissions.

            Table 8--Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets for FNSB
                             [Tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Calendar year                       PM2.5       NOX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2017...............................................      0.33      2.13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. The EPA's Conclusion and Proposed Action: Motor Vehicle Emissions
Budgets
    We have evaluated the budgets developed by Alaska against our
adequacy criteria in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) as part of our review of the
approvability of the budgets. The EPA finds that they are consistent
with meeting RFP requirements toward attainment of the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS in this area and meet the criteria for adequacy
and approval. The EPA proposes to approve Alaska's motor vehicle
emissions budgets in table 8 for 2017 for direct PM2.5 and
NOX for the FNSB NAA.

I. FNSB NAA Exceptional Event Demonstrations and Concurrences

    The CAA allows for the exclusion of air quality monitoring data
from design value calculations when there are exceedances caused by
events, such as wildfires, that meet the criteria for an exceptional
event identified in the EPA's implementing regulations, the Exceptional
Events Rule at 40 CFR 50.1, 50.14 and 51.930. Emissions from wildfires
influenced PM2.5 concentrations recorded in the FNSB NAA in
2009, 2010, and 2013. Alaska submitted three exceptional event
demonstrations for wildfires for which the EPA concurred on as follows:

Table 9--EPA Concurred Exceptional Events Days That Affected Data in the
                                FNSB NAA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Day(s) affected by wildfire
     exceptional events        Affected monitor(s)     EPA concurrence
------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 6-15-30, 2009..........  State Office          December 19, 2012.
                               Building.
August 2-5-8, 2009
July 13, 2010...............  State Office          March 11, 2014.
                               Building.
June 27, 2013...............  State Office          November 9, 2016.
                               Building, National
                               Core (NCore).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2009 and 2010 events had regulatory significance for purposes
of the modeling and impracticability demonstration in the FNSB Moderate
Plan. The 2013 event has regulatory significance for purposes of the
Serious area plan submittal in development. Further details on Alaska's
analyses and the EPA's concurrences can be found in the docket for this
regulatory action. The EPA has concurred with the Alaska's request to
exclude event-influenced data for the dates listed above.\23\ As such,
the event-influenced data have been removed from the data set used for
regulatory purposes and, for this proposed action, the EPA will rely on
the calculated values that exclude the event-influenced data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The EPA concurrence letters for exceptional events are
included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Action

    Under CAA section 110(k), the EPA is proposing to approve the FNSB
Moderate Plan for the PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, the FNSB
Moderate Plan meets the substantive statutory and regulatory
requirements for base year and projected emissions inventories,
precursor demonstrations, analysis and imposition of RACM/RACT level

emission controls, RFP, and QMs. In addition, the EPA is proposing to
approve the 2017 motor vehicle emissions budgets as shown in table 8
above because they are derived from an approvable RFP demonstration and
meet the requirements of CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR part 93, subpart
A.
    Accordingly, the EPA is proposing to determine that the FNSB
Moderate Plan, for the FNSB NAA for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, meets applicable requirements for purposes of approval under
section 110(k) of the CAA. The EPA also proposes to approve state and
local rules submitted in the FNSB Moderate Plan and the exceptional
event demonstrations as discussed in this action.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference state and local regulations for solid-fuel fired heaters and
open burning. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the
EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the person identified in the ``For
Further Information Contact'' section of this preamble for more
information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in
any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: January 18, 2017.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2017-02193 Filed 2-1-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6143-6144]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03292]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2019-0027; FRL-9989-96-OAR]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request;
Information Collection Request for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an
Information Collection Request (ICR), ``Information Collection Request
for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program'' (EPA ICR No. 2300.18, OMB
Control No. 2060-0629) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects
of the proposed information collection request as described below. This
is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through
September 30, 2019. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person
is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 29, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2019-0027, online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), by
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to the Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Schmeltz, Climate Change
Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207A), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the EPA is soliciting
comments and information to enable it to: (i) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of
the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. EPA
will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate.
The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and
approval. At that time, EPA will issue another Federal Register notice
to announce the submission of the ICR to OMB and the opportunity to
submit additional comments to OMB.
    Abstract: In response to the FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act
(H.R. 2764; Pub. L. 110-161) and under authority of the Clean Air Act,
the EPA finalized the Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule (GHG
Reporting Rule) (74 FR 56260; October 30, 2009). The GHG Reporting
Rule, which became effective on December 29, 2009, establishes
reporting requirements for certain large facilities and suppliers. It
does not require control of greenhouse gases. Instead, it requires that
sources emitting GHGs above certain threshold levels of carbon dioxide
equivalent (CO2e) monitor and report emissions.
    Subsequent rules have promulgated requirements for additional
facilities, suppliers, and mobile sources; provided clarification and
corrections to existing requirements; finalized confidentiality
business information (CBI) determinations, amended recordkeeping
requirements, and implemented an alternative verification approach.
Collectively, the GHG Reporting Rule and its associated rulemakings are
referred to as the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP).
    The purpose for this ICR is to renew and revise the GHG Reporting
Rule ICR to update the burdens and costs.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by
this action are suppliers of certain products that will emit GHG when
released, combusted, or oxidized; facilities in certain industrial
categories that emit greenhouse gases; and facilities that emit 25,000
metric tons or more of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per
year.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (Section 114 of the
Clean Air Act provides EPA authority to require the information
mandated by the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program because such data will
inform and are relevant to future policy decisions).
    Estimated number of respondents: 13,654 (total).
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Total estimated burden: 726,577 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $86,958,000 (per year), includes $28,802,000
annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs.

    Changes in Estimates: There is a decrease of 12,608 hours in total
estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently approved by
OMB. The decrease reflects an adjustment in the number of respondents
from the previous ICR, an adjustment of labor rates and capital costs
to reflect 2017 dollars, and a complete re-evaluation of the activities
and costs associated with all subparts of the GHGRP. This decrease also
reflects the removal of burden hours from collection of GHG-related
data for mobile sources, which are now captured in other EPA ICR
vehicles including OMB Control Nos. 2060-0287, 2060-0292, 2060-0338,
2060-0641, 2060-0680, and 2060-0710.

    Dated: February 14, 2019.
Paul M. Gunning,
Director, Climate Change Division, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2019-03292 Filed 2-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14877-14878]
[FR Doc No: 2019-07330]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0103; FRL-9992-20-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Removal of Obsolete Gasoline Volatility
Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a
request submitted by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio
EPA) on February 5, 2018, to revise the Ohio State Implementation Plan
(SIP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Ohio EPA requested to remove from
the SIP the remaining provisions of the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC)
concerning the State's 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) Reid vapor
pressure (RVP) fuel requirements for the Cincinnati and Dayton areas.
EPA proposed to approve this request in a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) dated December 26, 2018. In a previous action, EPA approved the
removal of the 7.8 psi RVP fuel applicability requirements in the
Cincinnati and Dayton areas as a component of the Ohio SIP, including
the approval of a demonstration under section 110(l) of the CAA that
addressed emissions impacts associated with the removal of the program.

DATES: This final rule is effective on May 13, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0103. All documents in the docket are listed in
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 either through
http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Mobile Source
Program Manager, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. Background

    On December 19, 2016, Ohio EPA submitted a SIP revision requesting
that EPA approve the removal of the 7.8 psi RVP fuel applicability
requirements from the Ohio SIP before the beginning of the 2017 ozone
control period. The revision also included a section 110(l)
demonstration addressing the emissions impacts associated with the
removal of the program. On April 7, 2017 (82 FR 16932), EPA approved
the removal from the Ohio SIP of the 7.8 psi RVP fuel applicability
requirements in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas. In that action EPA
determined that removal of the 7.8 psi RVP fuel requirements would not
interfere with attainment or maintenance of any of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards in the Cincinnati and Dayton areas and would not
interfere with any other applicable requirement of the CAA, and thus,
was approvable under CAA section 110(l).
    Subsequently, Ohio EPA submitted a request to EPA on February 5,
2018 to remove the remaining low RVP requirements from the Ohio SIP.
The NPRM provided a 30-day review and comment period. The comment
period closed on January 25, 2019, and EPA did not receive any comments
during the public comment period.

II. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving the revision to the Ohio SIP submitted by Ohio EPA
on February 5, 2018, because the removal of remaining low RVP
requirements in OAC Chapter 3745-72 from the SIP meets all applicable
requirements and it would not interfere with reasonable further
progress or attainment of any of the national ambient air quality
standards.
    The removal of the remaining provisions in OAC Chapter 3745-72 from
the SIP are administrative in nature; will result in no emissions
increases and not have any negative impact on air quality in the
Cincinnati and Dayton areas.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond

those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by June 11, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 26, 2019.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Sec.  52.1870   [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  52.1870, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by removing
the heading entitled ``Chapter 3745-72 Low Reid Vapor Pressure Fuel
Requirements'' and the entries ``3745-72-01'' through ``3745-72-08''.

[FR Doc. 2019-07330 Filed 4-11-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7166-7167]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3096]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-D-0096]

Draft Guidance for Industry on Determining the Extent of Safety
Data Collection Needed in Late Stage Premarket and Postapproval
Clinical Investigations; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Determining
the Extent of Safety Data Collection Needed in Late Stage Premarket and
Postapproval Clinical Investigations.'' This guidance is intended to
assist sponsors of clinical investigations in determining the amounts
and types of safety data to collect in trials conducted late in the
development of a drug for marketing approval or after approval based on
what is already known about a drug's safety profile. Extensive safety
data are collected in clinical trials of investigational drugs to
support marketing approval (premarket) and trials conducted after
approval (postmarket). FDA believes that more selective or targeted
safety data collection may be possible for some late stage premarket
trials and postmarket trials because certain aspects of a drug's safety
profile will be sufficiently well-established that comprehensive data
collection is not needed. FDA believes more selective or targeted
safety data collection in appropriate circumstances may improve the
quality of the safety assessment without compromising the integrity of
the trial results.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by April 10, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave. Bldg. 51, Rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002; or
Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM-40), Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration,
1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one
self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lori Bickel, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6353, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-
0210; or Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
(HFM-17), Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite
200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Determining the Extent of Safety Data Collection Needed in
Late Stage Premarket and Postapproval Clinical Investigations.'' This
guidance is intended to assist clinical trial sponsors in determining
the amounts and types of safety data that should be collected during
late-stage premarket and postmarket clinical investigations of a drug
product based on what is already known about the safety profile of the
drug.
    To meaningfully weigh the risks and benefits of a drug, it is
important to collect a broad range of safety-related data and develop a
comprehensive safety profile of a drug. In some cases, however, certain
aspects of the safety profile may be well-established prior to the
completion of clinical trials to support marketing approval of an
investigational drug. Similarly, for a marketed drug being studied for
a new use, much of the existing safety profile for the approved use may
be relevant to the new use. If certain aspects of a safety profile are
well-established, it may not be necessary to collect certain types of
safety data in clinical trials because the data would not contribute
anything additional to the safety profile and may even have negative
consequences (e.g., serve as a disincentive to clinical investigators).
In those settings, more targeted or selective data collection can be
used to focus on collecting data that will further contribute to the
safety profile.
    The draft guidance identifies the types of safety data collected
and recommends more selective or targeted safety data collection in a
variety of circumstances, offers suggestions on methods that may be
used to conduct selective or targeted data collection where
appropriate, and highlights circumstances in which comprehensive data
collection is generally needed.
    This draft guidance is being developed consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on determining
the extent of safety data collection needed in late stage premarket and
postapproval clinical investigations. It does not create or confer any
rights for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the
public. An alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies
the

requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
either http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: February 6, 2012.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-3096 Filed 2-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 83 (Thursday, April 30, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24193-24195]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10098]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2014-1080; Special Conditions No. 25-582-SC]

Special Conditions: Airbus Model A319-151n/171n, A320-251n/271n,
and A321-251n/271n (SAneo) Series Airplanes; Transient Engine-Failure
Loads

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: These special conditions are issued for Airbus Model A319-
151n/171n, A320-251n/271n, and A321-251n/271n (collectively known as
Single Aisle new engine option (SA neo)) series airplanes. These
airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to
the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for
transport-category airplanes. This design feature is a new generation
of high-bypass engines, and the potential loads resulting from extreme
engine-failure conditions.
    The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special
conditions contain the additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety
equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: This action is effective on Airbus on April 30, 2015. We must
receive your comments by June 15, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2014-1080
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Todd Martin, FAA, ANM-115, Transport
Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue
SW., Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile
425-227-1320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice of, and
opportunity for prior public comment on, these special conditions is
unnecessary.
    The substance of these special conditions has been subject to the
public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive
comments received. The FAA therefore finds that good cause exists for
making these special conditions effective upon publication in the
Federal Register.

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for

comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments
we receive.

Background

    On February 29, 2012, Airbus applied for amended type certificate
no. A28NM for their new Model SAneo series airplanes. Later, Airbus
requested, and the FAA approved, an extension to the application date
for FAA type certification to June 30, 2012.
    The Airbus Model SAneo series airplanes are derivatives of the
A319-100, A320-200, and A321-200 series airplanes equipped with
SharkletsTM (large winglets). The changes include
installation of new CFMTM LEAPTM A engines on the
A319-151n, A320-251n, and A321-251n series airplanes, and installation
of new Pratt & Whitney PW-1100G engines on the A319-171n, A320-271n,
and A321-271n series airplanes with larger fan diameters and reduced
fuel consumption as compared to the current engines. The changes also
include new nacelles, new pylons, new engine mounts, new bleed-air
systems, structural reinforcements, software changes for the bleed-air
system, an auto-flight system, an indicating and recording system,
flight-warning and flight-control computers, and small changes to
certified weights.
    The existing regulations are inadequate because the new high-bypass
fan engines of the Airbus Model SAneo series airplanes can cause more
damage in a failure event than could the previous engines.

Type Certification Basis

    The certification basis for the SAneo series airplanes is the
certification basis for the A319-100, A320-200 and A321-200 series
airplanes with Sharklets, as defined in type-certificate data sheet
A28NM for components or areas not affected by the SAneo change; and
sections of 14 CFR part 25 as amended by Amendments 25-1 through 25-136
(i.e., the amendment in effect on the date of the new reference date of
application, June 30, 2012) applied to the components and areas
affected by the SAneo change. Under the provisions of Sec.  21.101,
these regulations will be incorporated into type certificate no. A28NM
after type certification approval of the Airbus Model SAneo series
airplanes.
    In addition, the certification basis includes certain special
conditions, exemptions, or later amended sections of the applicable
part that are not relevant to these special conditions.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or
appropriate safety standards for the Airbus Model SAneo series airplane
because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are
prescribed under Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended
later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or
unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to
the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Airbus Model SAneo series airplanes must comply with
the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and
the noise certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19,
under Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis
under Sec.  21.17(a)(2).

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    The Airbus Model SAneo series airplanes will incorporate the
following novel or unusual design feature:
    Engines with large, high-bypass fans capable of producing much
higher failure loads than previous engine designs.
    The Airbus Model SAneo series airplanes therefore require
additional dynamic-load analyses to assess the most severe engine-
failure events. The loads resulting from these conditions would be
considered as ultimate loads, with an additional safety factor applied
to the airframe-supporting structure.

Discussion

    The size, configuration, and failure modes of jet engines has
changed considerably from those envisioned in Sec.  25.361(b), when the
engine-seizure requirement was first adopted. Engines have become
larger and are now designed with large, high-bypass fans capable of
producing much higher failure loads. Relative to the engine
configurations that existed when the rule was developed in 1957, the
present generation of engines are sufficiently different and novel to
justify special conditions for Model SAneo series airplanes and related
future airplane models. Service history has shown that the engine-
failure events that tend to cause the most severe loads are fan-blade
failures, and these events occur much less frequently than the typical
``limit'' load condition.
    To maintain the level of safety envisioned by Sec.  25.361(b), more
comprehensive criteria are required for the new generation of high-
bypass engines. These special conditions would distinguish between the
more-common engine-failure event and those rare events resulting from
structural failures. The more-common events would continue to be
treated as static torque limit-load conditions. The more-severe events
resulting from extreme engine-failure conditions (such as loss of a
full fan blade at redline speed) would be treated as full dynamic-load
conditions. These would be considered ultimate loads and include all
transient loads associated with the event. An additional safety factor
would be applied to the more-critical airframe supporting structure.
    The regulatory authorities and industry developed a standardized
requirement in the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee (ARAC) forum.
The technical aspects of this requirement have been agreed upon, and
have been accepted by, the ARAC Loads and Dynamics Harmonization
Working Group. These special conditions reflect the ARAC recommendation
and are essentially harmonized with the corresponding EASA
Certification Specifications (CS) 25. In addition, the ARAC
recommendation includes corresponding advisory material that is
incorporated into CS-25. This advisory material is considered an
acceptable means of compliance to the special conditions.
    These special conditions contain the additional safety standards
that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of
safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness
standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these special conditions apply to the Airbus
Model SAneo series airplanes. Should Airbus apply later for a change to
the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same
novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply
to that model as well.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on the Airbus Model SAneo series airplanes. It is not a rule of general
applicability.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Special Conditions

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of
the type certification basis for Airbus Model SAneo series airplanes.
    In lieu of Sec.  25.361(b), the following special conditions apply:
    1. For turbine engine installations, the engine mounts, pylons, and
adjacent supporting airframe structure must be designed to withstand 1g
level flight loads acting simultaneously with the maximum torque limit
loads imposed by each of the following:
    a. Sudden engine deceleration due to a malfunction that could
result in a temporary loss of power or thrust; and
    b. the maximum acceleration of the engine.
    2. For auxiliary power-unit installations, the power-unit mounts
and adjacent supporting airframe structure must be designed to
withstand 1g level flight loads acting simultaneously with the maximum
torque limit loads imposed by each of the following:
    a. Sudden auxiliary power-unit deceleration due to malfunction or
structural failure; and
    b. the maximum acceleration of the power unit.
    3. For engine supporting structure, an ultimate loading condition
must be considered that combines 1g flight loads with the transient
dynamic loads resulting from:
    a. The loss of any fan, compressor, or turbine blade; and
separately,
    b. where applicable to a specific engine design, any other engine
structural failure that results in higher loads.
    4. The ultimate loads developed from the conditions specified in
Special Conditions 3.a. and 3.b., above, are to be multiplied by a
factor of 1.0 when applied to engine mounts and pylons; and multiplied
by a factor of 1.25 when applied to adjacent supporting airframe
structure.
    5. The airplane must be capable of continued safe flight
considering the aerodynamic effects on controllability due to any
permanent deformation that results from the conditions specified in
Special Condition 3, above.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 19, 2015.
Victor Wicklund,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-10098 Filed 4-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation Approval of Analytical Methods Aeromonas ( W 01 13 II) National Primary an Secondary Drinking Water Regulations: Approval of Analytical Methods for Chemical and Microbiological Contaminants; Final Rule Volume 67 Number 209 October 29, 2002 A. Federal Register Notice B. References C. Comment Response Document W 01 13 II Aeromonas II A A. Federal Register Notice 1. USEPA. 2002. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation Approval of Analytical Methods Aeromonas National Primary an Secondary Drinking Water Regulations: Approval of Analytical Methods for Chemical and Microbiological Contaminants; Final Rule. October 29, 2002. Vol. 67 No. 209. 65888 65902.

2. USEPA. 2002. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation Approval of Analytical Methods Aeromonas National Primary an Secondary Drinking Water Regulations: Approval of Analytical Methods for Chemical and Microbiological Contaminants. Correction. November 13, 2002 Vol. 67, No. 219. Page 68911. W 01 13 II Aeromonas II B B. References Cited 1. US EPA. 1997. Manual for the Certification of Laboratories Analyzing Drinking Water; Criteria and Procedures Quality Assurance. Fourth Edition. March 1997. EPA Number 815 B 97 001. 186 pp.

2. U. S. EPA. 2001. Method 531.2 Measurement of N Methylcarbamoyloximes and N Methylcarbamates in Water by Direct Aqueous Injection HPLC with Postcolumn Derivatization. Revision 1.0 September 2001. EPA Number 815 B 01 002. 38 pp.

3. US EPA. 2002. Memorandum from David Munch dated September 17, 2002 to the U. S. EPA Water Docket on meeting with three representatives of EM Science. 1 pp. W 01 13 II Aeromonas II C.

1. U. S. EPA. 2002. Public Comment and Responses for the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation: Approval of Analytical Method for Aeromonas. National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations: Approval of Analytical Methods for Chemical and Microbiological Contaminants. September 2002. 78 pp.


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 232 (Friday, December 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 75543]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30972]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13254-001]

Castle Creek Hydroelectric Project; Notice of Preliminary Permit
Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions To
Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On November 1, 2011, the City of Aspen, Colorado, filed an
application for a successive preliminary permit, pursuant to section
4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility
of the Castle Creek Hydroelectric Project to be located on Castle
Creek, near the town of Aspen, Pitkin County, Colorado. The project
would affect federal lands administered by the Forest Service. The sole
purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project would consist of the existing Thomas
reservoir, Castle Creek and Maroon Creek diversions, a recently
constructed penstock, and a 25-kilovolt transmission line. The
reservoir, formed by a 13-foot-high upstream heel and 30-foot-high
downstream toe, has a total storage capacity of 15 acre-feet and a
water surface area of 0.6 acre at full pool elevation of 8,175 feet
above mean sea level. The penstock consists of a 42-inch-diameter,
4,000-foot-long pipeline connecting the reservoir to the proposed
powerhouse.
    The proposed powerhouse would be located adjacent to the original
hydroelectric plant, with a single shaft Pelton turbine, producing
1.175 megawatts of generating capacity. The annual energy output would
be approximately 7.7 gigawatthours.
    Applicant Contact: David Hornbacher, The City of Aspen, 130 South
Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611; phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Brian Csernak; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information
at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-(866) 208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission strongly encourages
electronic filing, documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file,
mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-13254-001) in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: November 25, 2011.
 Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-30972 Filed 12-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 107 (Wednesday, June 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32265-32266]
[FR Doc No: 2014-12882]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14616-000]

Oregon State University; Notice of Intent To File License
Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, and Approving Use of
the Alternative Licensing Procedures

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Request to Use the Alternative Licensing Procedures.
    b. Project No.: P-14616-000.
    c. Dated Filed: April 15, 2014.
    d. Submitted By: Oregon State University.
    e. Name of Project: Pacific Marine Energy Test Center South Energy
Test Site.
    f. Location: Pacific Ocean--Outer Continental Shelf off central
Oregon coast near city of Newport, Oregon.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Belinda Batten, Oregon State
University, 350 Batcheller Hall, Corvallis, OR 97331;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    i. FERC Contact: Jim Hastreiter at<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Oregon State University filed its request to use the Alternative
Licensing Procedures on April 15, 2014. Oregon State University
provided public notice of its request on May 8, 2014. In a letter dated
May 27, 2014, the Director of the Office of Energy Projects approved
Oregon State University's request to use the Alternative Licensing
Process.
    k. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item o below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    l. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries under section
7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations
thereunder at 50 CFR, Part 402; (b) NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
implementing

regulations at 50 CFR 600.920; and (c) the Alaska State Historic
Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historical
Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR. 800.2.
    m. With this notice, we are designating Oregon State University as
the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out informal
consultation, pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and
section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
Act; and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
    n. Oregon State University filed a Pre-Application Document (PAD;
including a proposed process plan, schedule, and communications
protocol) with the Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the
Commission's regulations.
    o. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    p. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: May 27, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-12882 Filed 6-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 83 (Tuesday, April 30, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25324-25325]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10147]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 0-2; OMB Control No. 3235-0636, SEC File No. 270-572.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the
collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to
submit this existing collection of information to the Office of
Management and Budget for extension and approval.
    Several sections of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'' or
``Investment Company Act'') \1\ give the Commission the authority to
issue orders granting exemptions from the Act's provisions. The section
that grants broadest authority is section 6(c), which provides the
Commission with authority to conditionally or unconditionally exempt
persons, securities or transactions from any provision of the
Investment Company Act, or the rules or regulations thereunder, if and
to the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-6(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 0-2 under the Investment Company Act,\3\ entitled ``General
Requirements of Papers and Applications,'' prescribes general
instructions for filing an application seeking exemptive relief with
the Commission for which a form is not specifically prescribed. Rule 0-
2 requires that each application filed with the commission have (a) a
statement of authorization to file and sign the application on behalf
of the applicant, (b) a verification of application and statements of
fact, (c) a brief statement of the grounds for application, and (d) the
name and address of each applicant and of any person to whom questions
should be directed. The Commission uses the information required by
rule 0-2 to decide whether the applicant should be deemed to be
entitled to the action requested by the application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 270.0-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applicants for orders can include registered investment companies,
affiliated persons of registered investment companies, and issuers
seeking to avoid investment company status, among other entities.
Commission staff estimates that it receives approximately 110
applications per year under the Act. Although each application
typically is submitted on behalf of multiple entities, the entities in
the vast majority of cases are related companies and are treated as a
single respondent for purposes of this analysis.
    The time to prepare an application depends on the complexity and/or
novelty of the issues covered by the application. We estimate that the
Commission receives 15 of the most time-consuming applications
annually, 75 applications of medium difficulty, and 20 of the least
difficult applications. Based on conversations with applicants, we
estimate that in-house counsel would spend from ten to fifty hours
helping to draft and review an application. We estimate a total annual
hour burden to all respondents of 3,200 hours [(50 hours x 15
applications) + (30 hours x 75 applications) + (10 hours x 20
applications)].
    Much of the work of preparing an application is performed by
outside counsel. The cost outside counsel charges applicants depends on
the complexity of the issues covered by the application and the time
required for preparation. Based on conversations with attorneys who
serve as outside counsel, the cost ranges from approximately $10,000
for preparing a well-precedented, routine application to approximately
$150,000 to prepare a complex and/or novel application. This
distribution gives a total estimated annual cost burden to applicants
of filing all applications of $8,450,000 [(15 x $150,000) + (75 x
$80,000) + (20 x $10,000)].
    We request written comment on: (a) Whether the collections of
information are necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the
information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
estimate of the burdens of the collection of information; (c) ways to
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected;
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an
email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: April 24, 2013.
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-10147 Filed 4-29-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 19 (Monday, January 30, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 5872]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01855]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER23-912-000]

Sun Streams Expansion, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Sun Streams Expansion, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is February 13, 2023.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at [email protected] or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: January 24, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-01855 Filed 1-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46901-46902]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18908]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2014-0075]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), this document provides the public notice that by a document
dated July 18, 2014, BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) petitioned the Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain
provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49
CFR Part 232, Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and Other Non-
Passenger Trains and Equipment; End-of-Train Devices. FRA assigned the
petition Docket Number FRA-2014-0075.
    Specifically, BNSF seeks a waiver of compliance from 49 CFR 232.15,
Movement of defective equipment. The current rule provides that ``a
railroad car or locomotive with one or more conditions not in
compliance with this part may be used or hauled without civil penalty
liability under this part only if all of the following conditions are
met [including] the location to which the car or locomotive is being
taken for repair is the nearest available location where necessary
repairs can be performed on the line of the railroad where the car or
locomotive was first found to be defective.'' BNSF requests relief to
allow it to operate single cars with air brakes cut out and a crew
inspection through to the destination or the next inspection point as
opposed to the current ``nearest available location where necessary
repairs can be performed.''
    BNSF states that it firmly believes that granting the requested
relief will not

negatively impact safety, and will actually improve the safety and
working conditions of BNSF employees who are conducting these setouts
on line and making the field repairs. By granting this request, these
cars, which do not compromise the safety of the operating train once
the air is cut out and they have been evaluated by the crews, will move
to locations where BNSF facilities are designated to perform quality
repairs and where such repairs are routinely made; thus removing the
variability and exposure to risks associated with performing the
inspections and repairs in less than ideal field conditions.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's (DOT) Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations
Facility is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by September 10, 2014 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered as far as practicable.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the
name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document,
if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
See http://www.regulations.gov/#!privacyNotice for the privacy notice
of regulations.gov or interested parties may review DOT's complete
Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 5, 2014.
Ron Hynes,
Director, Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2014-18908 Filed 8-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 39 (Monday, February 29, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 10358]
[FR Doc No: 2016-04460]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of
Directors

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors
meeting.

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

    Time and Date: The meeting will be held on March 17, 2016, from
12:00 Noon to 3:00 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time.
    Place: This meeting will be open to the public via conference call.
Any interested person may call 1-877-422-1931, passcode<PHONE_NUMBER>, to
listen and participate in this meeting.
    Status: Open to the public.
    Matters to be considered: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan
Board of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and
implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to
that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.
    For further information contact: Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair,
Unified Carrier Registration Board of Directors at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 17, 2016.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-04460 Filed 2-25-16; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P