[Federal Register: June 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 113)]
[Notices]
[Page 33071-33073]
[DOCID:fr11jn08-36]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

June 02, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:
    Docket Numbers: EC08-69-000.
    Applicants: Public Service Company of New Mexico.
    Description: Amendment to Application of Public Service Company of
New Mexico.
    Filed Date: 05/27/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080527-5055.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 6, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: EC08-93-000.
    Applicants: Pittsfield Generating Company, L.P., PE-Pittsfield LLC,
Pittsfield Power Holding Company LLC, Pittsfield Power GP LLC.
    Description: Pittsfield Generating Company et al. submits an
application for authorization of the disposition of jurisdictional
facilities.
    Filed Date: 05/23/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080528-0145.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 13, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER99-1757-014.
    Applicants: The Empire District Electric Company.
    Description: Empire District Electric Company submits Sixth Revised
Sheet 1 and Second Revised Sheet 1A as part of its FERC Electric
Tariff, First Volume 3 effective 9/18/07.
    Filed Date: 05/27/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080529-0055.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 17, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-9-012; ER98-2157-013.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.; Kansas Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Westar Energy, Inc. et al. submits a notice of non-
material change in status related to Westar's ownership and control of
approximately 300 MW of natural gas-fired combustion turbine generation
through the construction of new generation.
    Filed Date: 05/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080602-0110.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 19, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER03-1413-005.
    Applicants: Sempra Energy Trading Corp.
    Description: Sempra Energy Trading, LLC submits response to FERC's
4/22/08 supplemental request for additional information.
    Filed Date: 05/22/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080528-0052.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 12, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-476-002.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool.
    Description: ISO New England et al. submits proposed amendments to
the ISO Tariff in compliance with the Commission's 2/25/08 order in the
proceeding and with Order 681 and 681-A on long-term firm transmission
rights.
    Filed Date: 05/27/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080529-0054.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 17, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-1372-008.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator Inc.
submits amendments to their Balancing Authority Agreement in connection
with the establishment of Ancillary Services Markets etc.
    Filed Date: 05/23/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080528-0091.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 13, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER07-521-004.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: New York Independent System Operator Inc. submits an
errata to its 5/16/08 compliance filing.
    Filed Date: 05/23/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080528-0094.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 13, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-92-004.
    Applicants: Virginia Electric and Power Company.
    Description: Dominion Virginia Power submits revised tariff sheets
in Attachments H-16A and H-16B to PJM Interconnection, LLC's open-
access transmission tariff and on 6/2/08 submits an errata to this
filing.
    Filed Date: 05/29/2008; 06/02/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080602-0101; 20080603-0144.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 19, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-394-002.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits proposed revisions to its Open Access Transmission and Energy
Markets Tariff in compliance with the Commission's directives.
    Filed Date: 05/27/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080529-0053.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 17, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-627-002.
    Applicants: NSTAR Electric Company.
    Description: NSTAR Electric Company submits proposed clarification
and revisions to Schedule 20A-NSTAR of the ISO New England Inc. Open
Access Transmission Tariff to comply with the 30 day compliance filing
directives set forth etc.
    Filed Date: 05/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080602-0112.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 19, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-628-001.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits the instant filing in compliance with the Commission's Order
Conditional Accepting Tariff Revisions etc.
    Filed Date: 05/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080602-0111.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 19, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-961-001.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Arizona Public Service Company submits revision to its
May 15 informational filing of its Annual Update of transmission
service rates pursuant to the APS Open Access Transmission Tariff.
    Filed Date: 05/27/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080529-0052.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 17, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1004-000.
    Applicants: Global Advisors Power Marketing, LP.
    Description: Global Advisors Power Marketing, LP submits Notice of
Cancellation, a Second Revised Sheet 1 to their market-based rate
tariff.
    Filed Date: 05/23/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080527-0035.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 13, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1005-000.
    Applicants: Southern California Edison Company.
    Description: Southern California Edison Co. submits the Large
Generator Interconnection Agreement with Terra-Gen Dixie Valley, LLC et
al.
    Filed Date: 05/23/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080527-0034.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 13, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1006-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Mississippi, Inc. submits amendments to the
Amended and Restated Interconnection and Operating Agreement with
Southaven Power, LLC.
    Filed Date: 05/23/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080527-0036.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 13, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1008-000.
    Applicants: Arizona Public Service Company.
    Description: Arizona Public Service Co. submits an Interconnection
Agreement with Electrical District No. 3 of Pinal County, AZ.
    Filed Date: 05/23/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080528-0090.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 13, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1009-000.
    Applicants: Kansas City Power & Light Company.
    Description: Kansas City Power & Light Co. submits First Revised
FERC Rate Schedule 101.
    Filed Date: 05/27/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080528-0089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 17, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1010-000.
    Applicants: Commonwealth Edison Company, Commonwealth Edison Co. of
Indiana, Inc.
    Description: Commonwealth Edison Company Indiana, Inc. submits
revise Attachment H-13 (Network Integration Transmission Service for
the ConEd Zone) of the PJM Interconnection, LLC Open Access
Transmission Tariff.
    Filed Date: 05/27/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080529-0051.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, June 17, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1011-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: California Independent System Operator Corporation
submits an amendment to the CAISO's Market Redesign and Technology
Upgrade Tariff.
    Filed Date: 05/23/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080529-0050.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 13, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1012-000.
    Applicants: PPL Renewable Energy, LLC.
    Description: PPL Renewable Energy, LLC submits the Application to
sell Electric Energy Capacity and Ancillary Services at Market-Based
Rates.
    Filed Date: 05/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080529-0167.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 18, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1013-000.
    Applicants: Mirant Lovett, LLC.
    Description: Mirant Lovett LLC seeks to cancel their FERC Electric
Tariff, First Revised Volume 1, effective 7/28/08.
    Filed Date: 05/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080529-0166.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 18, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1014-000.
    Applicants: Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation.
    Description: National Grid submits First Revised Service Agreement
1163 with Fibertek Energy LLC under New York Independent System
Operator LLC open access transmission tariff, FERC Electric Tariff,
Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 05/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080529-0165.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 18, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1015-000.
    Applicants: Ameren Services Company.
    Description: Central Illinois Public Service Company submits an
executed service agreement for Wholesale Distribution Service with Mt.
Carmel Public Utility Co.
    Filed Date: 05/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080529-0164.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 18, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1016-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: PJM Interconnection LLC submits revisions to the PJM
Open Access Transmission Tariff and the Amended and Restated Operating
Agreement.
    Filed Date: 05/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080529-0163.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 18, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1017-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits Service Agreement 452 dated 4/30/08
for the provision of Long-Term Firm Point-to-Point Transmission Service
Between Powerex and PacifiCorp.
    Filed Date: 05/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080602-0109.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 19, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1018-000.
    Applicants: Bangor Hydro-Electric Company.
    Description: Bangor Hydro-Electric Company submits revisions to its
local service schedule set forth as Schedule 21-BHE in the ISO New
England Inc Transmission Markets and Services Tariff.
    Filed Date: 05/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080602-0108.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 19, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1019-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Wisconsin Electric Power Company submits Metering
Service Agreement with Alliant Energy Nennah LLC, FERC Tariff 120,
effective 6/1/08.
    Filed Date: 05/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080602-0107.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 19, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER08-1021-000.
    Applicants: CMS Distributed Power, L.L.C.
    Description: CMS Distributed Power, LLC submits cancellation of
market-based electric power tariff.
    Filed Date: 05/29/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080602-0106.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 19, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER96-780-019; ER01-1633-007; ER00-3240-010; ER03-
1383-010.
    Applicants: Southern Company Services, Inc.; Southern Company--
Florida LLC; Oleander Power Project, L.P.; DeSoto County Generating
Company, LLC.

    Description: Alabama Power Co et al. submits a Report of Non-
Material Change In Status and Order 697 Compliance Filing.
    Filed Date: 05/23/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080528-0050.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 13, 2008.

    Docket Numbers: ER98-855-010.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Wisconsin Electric Power Co submits its Revised Rate
Schedule to comply with FERC's 4/18/08 Order and Order 697-A.
    Filed Date: 05/23/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080528-0093.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, June 13, 2008.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:

    Docket Numbers: OA07-54-005; ER07-1291-004.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: PacifiCorp submits revised business practices, in
compliance with FERC's 4/28/08 order.
    Filed Date: 05/28/2008.
    Accession Number: 20080529-0168.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, June 18, 2008.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    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 should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-13037 Filed 6-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Cleanup Program Assessment Work Group NACEPT Superfund Subcommittee March 11 12, 2003 Phoenix, AZ CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 20032 CPA Work Group Objective

Develop options and recommendations around the future role of the NPL within the context of what other federal and non

federal cleanup programs currently provide   or could provide   in the universe of NPL caliber cleanup actions CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 20033 Key Areas Considered

Other federal cleanup programs

State cleanup programs

Funding issues & efficiencies Federal Programs CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 20035 Federal Programs

Looked at 10 programs, including CERCLA Removal and CERCLA Remedial for comparison purposes

Other programs include:

BrownfieldsHUD BEDI

RCRA Subtitle CSMCRA

RCRA Subtitle DCWA

WRDA and other Corps CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 20036 Key Elements Considered

General program description

Types of sites reachable

Cleanup standards

Cost issues, including average cost of cleanup

Ability to fund: cash on hand to pay for cleanup and ability to compel PRPs to pay

Special features, pro and con CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 20037 Key Observations

Not about getting rid of CERCLA   about complementing it

No program has funding to pay for cleanup of " a lot" of additional sites

Not all about funding   programs also provide mechanisms, potential synergies and efficiencies

Generally divide along three categories:

prevention, funding, categorical ( i. e., address specific type of site) CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 20038 Recommendations   Federal Programs 1. Create a national committee to coordinate among cleanup programs and make sure all appropriate resources are brought to bear at NPL caliber sites.

2. Increase community involvement across all cleanup programs CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 20039 1. Coordinating Committee

Purpose: Direct priority sites for remediation to appropriate federal and/ or state cleanup program

Members to include: Federal agencies and state/ tribal officials

Possible functions and approach:

Serve as entry for all NPL caliber sites

Determine appropriate cleanup program and funding

Track and measure performance

Provide transparent process w/ public input CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200310 2. Community Involvement

Improve and increase across all programs

Analysis of other federal programs demonstrated need to provide opportunity for public input and comment from interested parties

Could consider program specific improvements

Could address for NPL caliber sites through open, transparent process of proposed Coordinating Committee CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200311 Next Steps / Discussion Federal Programs

Does Subcommittee support carrying these observations on Federal programs forward in its report to EPA?

What are views on the coordinating committee?

How should this idea be carried forward?

What additional analysis or evaluation on Federal programs are needed in real time to support NACEPT deliberations?

What additional analysis or evaluation might be carried out longer term? State Programs CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200313 State Programs

Information sources:

Environmental Law Institute 50 state study

Analysis of state programs prepared by Chris Bryant, funded by GE, BP, WMS

Analysis of state programs relative to TRI data prepared by Grant Cope

Workgroup member papers on state programs and issues CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200314 Key Observations

State cleanup programs are an important piece of the cleanup puzzle

Effective state programs depend on effective Superfund program and vice versa   state programs won't replace the NPL; NPL won't replace state programs

Range of cleanup approaches across the states and a range of capacities in state programs CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200315 State Program Issues

Four issues:

Capacity to pay for fund lead cleanups

Capacity to oversee PRP lead cleanups

Potential for certain combinations of conditions to result in more sites being set forward for consideration for the NPL

State innovations / good practices CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200316 Next Steps / Discussion State Programs

Does Subcommittee support carrying these observations on state programs forward in its report to EPA?

Should there be further inquiry into state programs innovations / good practices? If yes,

what should be the timing of this inquiry?

What additional analysis or evaluation on state programs are needed in real time to support Subcommittee deliberations? Longer term? CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200317 Re cap: State and Federal Programs

Cleanup occurs under multiple state and federal programs   none are exactly like CERCLA

Cooperation, coordination, and collaboration are important

There may be innovative approaches and " best practice" elements that could be considered Funding & Efficiencies CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200319 Funding Site Cleanups

Two key opportunities:

Coordination / Integration / Deferral: Looking for cash in other agencies / programs and the states

Efficiency Analysis / Benchmarking: Looking for cash for cleanup within Superfund CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200320 Re cap: Funding Issues

Multiple possible sources of funding; however,

few have " cash" for cleanup as other program priorities are being funded

Generally, states lack resources to publicly fund " average" NPL cleanup ( i. e., $ 20 million)

Restrictions and/ or consequences associated with some other programs ( e. g., not available for NPL sites, affect NRD recovery efforts)

Some members question effectiveness of other programs for site cleanup; others find such programs innovative and effective CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200321 Other Ways to Increase Funds

More PRP lead cleanups   to the extent responsible parties are able but unwilling to pay their fair share

Fund Superfund at previously authorized levels

$ 1.5 billion annually

President's ' 04 budget requests an additional $ 150 million for Superfund cleanups CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200322 What Next?

Option 1: Nothing. Stop.

Option 2: In depth analysis of other program funding and potential utility of other program ( as is or modified) for NPL caliber cleanups

Option 3: Benchmarking / Efficiencies Analysis

Look to redirect more Superfund dollars from non

site specific activities to sites

Cost / benefit analysis of particular remedy action not suggested or implied as part of this presentation

Focus: achieving program goals for less ( e. g., more efficiently) CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200323 Next Steps / Discussion Funding & Efficiencies

Does Subcommittee support moving forward with further analysis and evaluation around options 2 or 3?

What additional analysis or evaluation on funding and efficiencies are needed in real time to support NACEPT deliberations?

What additional analysis or evaluation might be carried out longer term? Additional Information Slides from packet CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200325 Dividing up Federal Programs Three categories:

1. Prevention programs   keep sites from needing cleanup and conduct cleanup without needing to resort to the NPL 2. Some funding programs   provide small amounts of funding for non NPL sites 3. Categorical programs   able to address specific category of sites ( e. g., mining,

sediments), more potential but more complicated CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200326 Prevention Programs

Two, implemented by authorized states:

RCRA Subtitle C ( hazardous waste)

RCRA Subtitle D ( municipal solid waste)

Focus on making the prevention work better:

Expand to cover wastes / activities currently exempt ( e. g., mining, cement kiln, fossil fuel combustions waste / industrial D wastes, recycling facilities)

Increase enforcement of financial assurance obligations and/ or expand requirements

Also have cleanup authorities CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200327 Programs with Some Cash

Two evaluated, neither can be used at sites on the NPL

Brownfields

HUD Programs

Money provided for specific focus:

Brownfields provides seed money for cleanup and re

development of smaller, less contaminated sites

HUD provides grant money primarily for urban re

development, leverages federal investment at local level

Other programs may also have cash ( DOD site restoration) CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200328 Categorical Programs

Three looked at:

Army Corps including WRDA

Surface Mining Control & Reclamation Act or SMCRA

Clean Water Act Programs CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200329 WRDA and Army Corps

Contaminated sediments through navigation and dredging

Great Lakes Program is established cleanup program

Urban Rivers Initiative: pilot program between USACE and EPA to restore degraded urban rivers, including CERCLA caliber projects

Potential benefits include:

Leveraging of both funds and human resources

Provides means to address orphan sites

Potential barriers include:

Funds appropriated on site specific basis; need local sponsor

Complexity of projects can inhibit cleanup CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200330 SMCRA

Active and abandoned coal mines; some ability to address hard rock mines

Tax on coal production  not fully appropriated

Potential benefits include:

Has money, if the money can be accessed, and may get more

Consolidation of mine sites under one program

Potential barriers include:

Questions about cleanup standards and public involvement

Currently doesn't have ability to compel past owners/ operators to contribute to cleanup CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200331 Clean Water Act Programs

Three specific features:

Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund

TMDL Program

CWA jurisdiction over sediment cleanup

Potential benefits include:

Large amount of funding available through CWSRF

Provides prevention aspects at watershed level

Can tie penalty money to cleanup through SEPS

Potential barriers include:

Does not share CERCLA liability scheme

Permits are limited in what can be addressed CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200332 Coordinating Committee ( cont'd)

Functions and possible approach

Serve as " front door" through which all NPL caliber sites pass

Consider range of authorities to determine appropriate cleanup program

Provide transparent process/ public input

Coordinate multiple programs/ funding sources

Track and measure performance CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200333 Paying for Cleanup

Does not have to be NPL caliber to pay

Some states have multiple sources of funding

States can and do pay for cleanups at smaller low risk cleanups; however,

State programs won't provide significant source of funds to pay for big cleanups   no state has cash to pay for multiple NPL caliber orphan sites

In general, in 2003, 2004 state resources are decreasing

State decisions about funding may be influenced by local concerns CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200334 Overseeing Cleanups

States overseeing many PRP lead cleanups, most state

overseen cleanups are PRP lead

Laws and oversight approaches vary greatly

Workgroup did not see its role as evaluating:

scope of state legal authorities

quality, efficiency of oversight

complexity of cleanups

cleanup costs

( And did not evaluate) CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200335 Sending More Sites Forward

Certain situations may create potential to send more sites to the NPL in the future, including

Historically list lots of sites

Not big listers but that may have sites unaddressed

Not using prevention or enforcement authorities effectively

Lack mature or effective cleanup program( s)

Did not see task as evaluating whether these situations are occurring now or likelihood they may occur in the future ( and did not evaluate) CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200336 Innovations / Good Practices

States develop state specific approaches / innovations

Some of these have the potential to be good practices and may be transferable or otherwise relevant to other programs

Subcommittee should recommend an independent study to identify and evaluate state innovations and potential good practices.

Evaluation should look at:

Strengths & weaknesses of approaches

Potential transferability CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200337 Examples to Consider

Long term stewardship and institutional control databases

Elimination of the petroleum exclusion

Site specific community involvement plans

Triggering site assessment or cleanup upon property transfer

Third party certification for cleanup oversight

Streamlined approval processes

Cross program coordination approaches CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200338 Examples ( cont'd)

Tiered approach for selecting cleanup goals

Tiered approaches to public participation

Ground water management zones

Conceptual site models

Pay for performance

Closed landfill program ( Minnesota)

O & M Monitoring approaches ( Wisconsin) CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200339 Re cap ( cont'd)

Use restrictions / consequences on other monies include:

Some cannot be used on NPL sites

Could affect NRD recovery efforts

Source of funding could cause tax " burden" shift

Other programs may already be overburdened

Some members believe use of other programs could trigger CERCLA provisions limiting recovery / contribution efforts CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200340 Option 1   Do Nothing CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200341 Option 2   Look At Other Programs

Further in depth analysis of funding authorities, expenditures and actual reserves in other programs

SMCRA

Ongoing action on the Hill to get fully appropriated, if potential to use " new funds" for cleanup of sites ( competing priorities)

Concerns about cleanup standards, liability, public involvement

WRDA & Army Corps

Potential to leverage ongoing, funded dredging activities

Potential for special appropriates for specific projects   can be large sums,

but need local sponsor and Congressional sponsor

Clean Water Act

Can bring money forward in two ways   through SEPs to settle penalties for violations of CW permits and through special appropriates under Section 115 ( seldom used to date) CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200342 Option 2   Other Programs ( cont'd)

Analysis of " barriers' to use of funds on NPL sites to determineaction /

options for barrier removal

Related tools / action analysis

Additional appropriations

Fully funding current appropriations

Budget stabilization / risk capitalization devices ( insurance)

Assessment of " cost" to access the other programs and actual benefits.

Would require greater detailed analysis of class / type of site on the list and screening for other program qualifications CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200343 Option 3   Get more out of Superfund, Efficiencies

Looking to redirect more Superfund dollars from non site specific activities to sites.

Two types of analyses:

Qualitative / Programmatic

Quantitative CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200344 Qualitative / Programmatic

Evaluate use of " Best practices" in the Superfund program

Compare Superfund program structure to those practices of other agencies and private sectors

Need to determine what portions of the programs are analogous to others to set " benchmark"

Suggested items for review:

Project management structures ( set up; periodic review; etc)

Use of requests for information to refine solicitations

Use of guaranteed fixed price contracting vehicles ( insurance or guarantees)

( Review of ultimate costs of each remedy option is suggested by a member as a subset of this recommendation) CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200345 Quantitative

Use expenditures data to identify opportunities for improvement

Attempt to identify " unit price" analogues

Compare rate of remediation by cost type to other programs, with " allowances" for additional costs inherent in community outreach and other CERCLA unique requirements

Comparisons could be to other federal, state or private sector programs

Would require lots of additional cost data from the agencies CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200346 Quantitative   Where Does the Money Go Now?

Superfund appropriations have been $ 1.27B a year for the past few years

Approximately 55% goes to " cleanup"

$ 648M to Superfund Regional Response activities such as: removals, sites studies and remedy design,

implementation of cleanup, EPA staff time and travel,

and lab support

$ 64M to site specific enforcement activities. CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200347 Where Does the Money Go Now ( cont'd)

The remaining $ 560M is distributed as follows:

$ 292M to regional activities not charged to specific sites

$ 163M to Headquarters related " response" activities

$ 76M to management and support activities NOT in OSWER

$ 20M to enforcement activities not charged to specific sites

In addition to the $ 1.27B

$ 37M goes to ORD and

$ 12M goes to OIG CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200348 Quantitative   Getting More Cleanup for the Money

Evaluate the $ 560 million   can more funds be directed to physical cleanup?

Three key questions:

How much of all Superfund dollars are going to site specific activities ( vs. non site specific activities?)

Are there efficiencies to be gained in either or both category that would result in more dollars going to cleanup?

What kinds of activities are being conducted by " other" ( non

OSWER) offices that are being paid for with Superfund dollars? CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200349 Information Needed from EPA

For each EPA Office:

Total number of staff (" FTE or full time equivalents)

Total dollars ( inc. cost of staff) separated into:

Extramural dollars ( dollars going outside of EPA to contractors,

states and tribes)

Intramural dollars ( dollars going to cover staff payroll and benefits,

rent, etc.)

For intramural and extramural dollars separate into dollars going to site specific activities and dollars going to non site specific activities CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200350 Information Needed ( cont'd)

For site specific activities separate into dollars going to physical cleanup and dollars going to study, oversight,

monitoring and review

EPA offices include:

OSWER, OA, OAR, OARM, OIG, OGC, OPEI, OW, OCFO

All regional offices

EPA Laboratories

EPA Headquarters Additional Information EPA Acronyms CPA Work Group Presentation March 11 12, 200352 Acronyms for EPA Offices

OA   Office of the Administrator

OARM   Office of Administration and Resource Management

OAR   Office of Air and Radiation

OCFO   Office of the Chief Financial Officer

OECA   Office of Environment and Compliance Assurance

OEI   Office of Environmental Information

OGC   Office of General Counsel

OIG   Office of the Inspector General

ORD   Office of Research and Development

OPEI   Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation

OSWER   Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

OW   Office of Water


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 18, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2550-2552]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00792]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2022-0006]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; St. Clair Icy Bazaar Fireworks, St. Clair River, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters within a 50-yard radius of a portion of the St. Clair
River, St. Clair, MI. This zone is necessary to protect spectators and
vessels from potential hazards associated with the St. Clair Icy Bazaar
Fireworks.

DATES: This temporary final rule is effective from 6 p.m. on January
22, 2022, through 6:30 p.m. on January 23, 2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0006 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
temporary rule, call or email Tracy Girard, Prevention Department,
Sector Detroit, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) (B), the Coast Guard finds that

good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be
impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive the final details of
this fireworks display in time to publish an NPRM. As such, it is
impracticable to publish an NPRM because we lack sufficient time to
provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments
before issuing the rule. To provide such a comment period would prevent
the Coast Guard from enforcing the safety zone at the time of the
event, leaving the public in danger from the hazards associated with a
firework display.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP) has determined that
potential hazard associated with fireworks from 6 p.m. on January 22,
2022, through 6:30 p.m. on January 23, 2022, will be a safety concern
to anyone within a 50-yard radius of the launch site. This rule is
needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the
navigable waters within the safety zone while the fireworks are being
displayed.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 6 p.m. on January 22,
2022, through 6:30 p.m. on January 23, 2022. The safety zone will be
enforced from 6 p.m. until 6:30 p.m. on January 22, 2022. In the case
of predicted inclement weather on January 22, 2022, this safety zone
will be enforced from 6 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on January 23, 2022. The
safety zone will encompass all U.S. navigable waters of the St. Clair
River, St. Clair, MI, within a 50-yard radius of position
42[deg]49.477' N, 082[deg]29.107' W (NAD 83). No vessel or person will
be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will
impact a small designated area of the St. Clair River from 6 p.m. until
6:30 p.m. on January 22, 2022, or January 23, 2022. Moreover, the Coast
Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNM) via VHF-FM marine
channel 16 about the zone and the rule allows vessels to seek
permission to enter the 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 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
Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in

complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category
of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone
lasting less than one hour that will prohibit entry into a designated
area. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
L60(a) in Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning
Implementing Procedures 5090.1. A Record of Environmental Consideration
supporting this determination is available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

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 record
keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0006 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0006   Safety Zone; St. Clair Icy Bazaar Fireworks, St.
Clair River, MI.

    (a) Location. A safety zone is established to include all U.S.
navigable waters of the St. Clair River, St. Clair, MI, within a 50-
yard radius of position 42[deg]49.477' N, 082[deg]29.107' W (NAD 83).
    (b) Enforcement period. The regulated area described in paragraph
(a) of this section will be enforced from 6 p.m. until 6:30 p.m. on
January 22, 2022. In the case of inclement weather on January 22, 2022,
this safety zone will be enforced from 6 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on January
23, 2022.
    (c) Regulations. (1) No vessel or person may enter, transit
through, or anchor within the safety zone unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Detroit (COTP), or his on-scene representative.
    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or his on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of COTP is any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant or petty officer or a Federal, State, or local
law enforcement officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the
Port Detroit to act on his behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators shall contact the COTP or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to enter or operate within the
safety zone. The COTP or his on-scene representative may be contacted
via VHF Channel 16 or at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Vessel operators given
permission to enter or operate in the regulated area must comply with
all directions given to them by the COTP or his on-scene
representative.

    Dated: January 5, 2022.
Brad W. Kelly,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2022-00792 Filed 1-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 100 (Friday, May 23, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29661-29662]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11976]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2013-0729; Airspace Docket No. 13-AEA-14]
RIN 2120-AA66

Modification and Establishment of Restricted Areas; Aberdeen
Proving Ground, MD

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes a new restricted area, designated R-
4001C, within a part of the existing restricted areas R-4001A and R-
4001B, at the U.S. Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland. The
purpose of the new area is to contain two moored balloons, called
Aerostats, operating continuously at approximately 10,000 feet MSL.
This action segregates nonparticipating aircraft from a hazard to
navigation in Aberdeen Proving Ground airspace.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, July 24, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy and
Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On October 1, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to establish a new restricted area,
designated R-4001C, within a portion of existing restricted areas R-
4001A and R-4001B, at the U.S. Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground in
Maryland (78 FR 60238). The U.S. Army requested this action to contain
two moored Aerostat balloons that will be operated at approximately
10,000 feet MSL, without lights, and therefore must be contained within
restricted airspace.
    Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal. No comments were
received.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending 14 CFR part 73 by creating a new restricted
area, designated R-4001C, within a part of existing restricted areas R-
4001A and R-4001B at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD. R-4001C is a
rectangular area, approximately 4.5 nautical miles (NM) by 2 NM in
size, that extends from the surface to 10,000 feet MSL. The time of
designation for R-4001C is ``continuous.'' Because the moored balloons
contained in the area will be airborne 24 hours per day (except for
periods when maintenance is required, or the winds exceed 60 knots), R-
4001C is not a joint-use restricted area. R-4001A and R-4001B continue
to be joint-use areas, meaning that they may be released, in whole or
in part, to the FAA controlling agency when the airspace is not needed
by the using agency. During times when the airspace

is released to the controlling agency, air traffic may be cleared
through R-4001A and/or R-4001B. In addition, an editorial change is
made to the using agency name for R-4001A and R-4001B by adding ``U.S.
Army'' at the beginning of the agency name for format standardization
purposes.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so
minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic
procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, does not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it modifies restricted area airspace to support military
requirements at Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.

Environmental Review

    In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, paragraphs 402 and 404d, the
FAA has conducted an independent evaluation of the United States Army's
Final Environmental Assessment for the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile
Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS) at Army Garrison Aberdeen
Proving Group, Maryland, dated February 2014 (hereinafter ``the FEA'')
regarding the construction of sites for the operational exercise of the
JLENS at Aberdeen Proving Ground. The FAA adopted the FEA and prepared
a Finding of No Significant Impact/Record of Decision dated May 2014.
The FAA has determined that no significant impacts would occur as a
result of the Federal action and therefore that preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement is not warranted and a Finding of No
Significant Impact in accordance with 40 CFR Part 1501.4(e) is
appropriate.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

0
1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  73.40  [Amended]

0
2. Sec.  73.40 is amended as follows:

R-4001A Aberdeen, MD [Amended]

0
By removing the current boundaries and using agency and adding in their
place:
    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 39[deg]30'30'' N., long.
76[deg]09'59'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]29'00'' N., long. 76[deg]07'59'' W.;
to lat. 39[deg]29'30'' N., long. 76[deg]04'59'' W.; to lat.
39[deg]27'00'' N., long. 76[deg]00'29'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]19'47'' N.,
long. 76[deg]11'33'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]17'30'' N., long.
76[deg]12'58'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]16'24'' N., long. 76[deg]16'17'' W.;
to lat. 39[deg]17'13'' N., long. 76[deg]18'48'' W.; to lat.
39[deg]18'42'' N., long. 76[deg]18'48'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]20'03'' N.,
long. 76[deg]20'30'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]19'56'' N., long.
76[deg]21'02'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]20'39'' N., long. 76[deg]21'59'' W.;
to lat. 39[deg]22'00'' N., long. 76[deg]21'59'' W.; to lat.
39[deg]23'28'' N., long. 76[deg]20'39'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]26'10'' N.,
long. 76[deg]14'49'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]27'00'' N., long.
76[deg]12'29'' W.; to the point of beginning, excluding R-4001C.
    Using agency. U.S. Army, Commander, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.

R-4001B Aberdeen, MD [Amended]

0
By removing the current boundaries and using agency and adding in their
place:
    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 39[deg]17'30'' N., long.
76[deg]12'58'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]12'10'' N., long. 76[deg]16'29'' W.;
to lat. 39[deg]12'45'' N., long. 76[deg]22'29'' W.; to lat.
39[deg]17'30'' N., long. 76[deg]19'44'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]18'30'' N.,
long. 76[deg]21'59'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]20'39'' N., long.
76[deg]21'59'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]19'56'' N., long. 76[deg]21'02'' W.;
to lat. 39[deg]20'03'' N., long. 76[deg]20'30'' W.; to lat.
39[deg]18'42'' N., long. 76[deg]18'48'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]17'13'' N.,
long. 76[deg]18'48'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]16'24'' N., long.
76[deg]16'17'' W.; to the point of beginning.
    Using agency. U.S. Army, Commander, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.

R-4001C Aberdeen, MD [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 39[deg]21'50'' N., long.
76[deg]21'59'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]23'01'' N., long. 76[deg]16'35'' W.;
to lat. 39[deg]21'04'' N., long. 76[deg]15'52'' W.; to lat.
39[deg]19'56'' N., long. 76[deg]21'02'' W.; to lat. 39[deg]20'39'' N.,
long. 76[deg]21'59'' W.; to the point of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. Surface to 10,000 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. Continuous.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Potomac TRACON.
    Using agency. U.S. Army, Commander, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 20, 2014.
Colby Abbott,
Acting Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2014-11976 Filed 5-22-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 237 (Monday, December 10, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 73398-73400]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29684]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0003; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1085]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On February 5, 2010, FEMA published in the Federal Register a
proposed rule that contained an erroneous table. This notice provides
corrections to that table, to be used in lieu of the information
published at 75 FR 5909. The table provided here represents the
flooding sources, location of referenced elevations, effective and
modified elevations, and communities affected for Webster County,
Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas. Specifically, it addresses the
following flooding sources: Bailey Ditch (backwater effects from Green
River), Deer Creek (backwater effects from Green River), East Fork Deer
Creek Tributary 1 (backwater effects from Green River), Green River,
Green River Tributary 219 (backwater effects from Green River), Groves
Creek (backwater effects from Green River), Knoblick Creek (backwater
effects from Green River), Mock Roy Creek (backwater effects from Green
River), and Pitman Creek (backwater effects from Green River).

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before March 11, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
1085, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER> or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) publishes proposed determinations of Base (1% annual-chance)
Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs for communities participating
in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), in accordance with
section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C.
4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are minimum requirements.
They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any
existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain
management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter
requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other
Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are
used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and
also are used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium
rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final,
and for the contents in those buildings.

Corrections

    In the proposed rule published at 75 FR 5909, in the February 5,
2010, issue of the Federal Register, FEMA published a table under the
authority of 44 CFR 67.4. The table, entitled ``Webster County,
Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas'' addressed the following flooding
sources: Bailey Ditch (backwater effects from Green River), Deer Creek
(backwater effects from Green River), East Fork Deer Creek Tributary 1
(backwater effects from Green River), Green River, Green River

Tributary 219 (backwater effects from Green River), Groves Creek
(backwater effects from Green River), Knoblick Creek (backwater effects
from Green River), Mock Roy Creek (backwater effects from Green River),
and Pitman Creek (backwater effects from Green River). That table
contained inaccurate information as to the communities affected for the
flooding sources Green River and Mock Roy Creek (backwater effects from
Green River). In this notice, FEMA is publishing a table containing the
accurate information to address these prior errors. The information
provided below should be used in lieu of that previously published.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             * Elevation in feet (NGVD)  +
                                                          Elevation in feet (NAVD)
                                 Location of referenced   Depth in feet above ground  [caret]     Communities
       Flooding source(s)               elevation              Elevation in meters (MSL)            affected
                                                        --------------------------------------
                                                             Effective           Modified
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Webster County, Kentucky, and Incorporated Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bailey Ditch (backwater effects  From the confluence                  None               +387  Unincorporated
 from Green River).               with Knoblick Creek                                           Areas of Webster
                                  to approximately 0.93                                         County.
                                  mile upstream of the
                                  confluence with
                                  Knoblick Creek.
Deer Creek (backwater effects    From the confluence                  None               +387  Unincorporated
 from Green River).               with East Fork Deer                                           Areas of Webster
                                  Creek to                                                      County.
                                  approximately 1.5
                                  miles upstream of the
                                  confluence with East
                                  Fork Deer Creek.
East Fork Deer Creek Tributary   From the confluence                  None               +387  Unincorporated
 1 (backwater effects from        with Deer Creek to                                            Areas of Webster
 Green River).                    approximately 2.7                                             County.
                                  miles upstream of the
                                  confluence with Deer
                                  Creek.
Green River....................  At approximately 1.5                 None               +386  City of Sebree,
                                  miles downstream of                                           Unincorporated
                                  the confluence with                                           Areas of Webster
                                  Groves Creek.                                                 County.
                                 At approximately 5.2                 None               +388
                                  miles upstream of the
                                  confluence with Deer
                                  Creek.
Green River Tributary 219        From the confluence                  None               +387  Unincorporated
 (backwater effects from Green    with the Green River                                          Areas of Webster
 River).                          to approximately 1.5                                          County.
                                  miles upstream of the
                                  confluence with the
                                  Green River.
Groves Creek (backwater effects  From the confluence                  None               +386  Unincorporated
 from Green River).               with the Green River                                          Areas of Webster
                                  to approximately 5.9                                          County.
                                  miles upstream of the
                                  confluence with the
                                  Green River.
Knoblick Creek (backwater        From the confluence                  None               +387  Unincorporated
 effects from Green River).       with Deer Creek to                                            Areas of Webster
                                  approximately 2.8                                             County.
                                  miles upstream of the
                                  confluence with Deer
                                  Creek.
Mock Roy Creek (backwater        From the confluence                  None               +386  City of Sebree,
 effects from Green River).       with the Green River                                          Unincorporated
                                  to approximately 2.5                                          Areas of Webster
                                  miles upstream of the                                         County.
                                  confluence with the
                                  Green River.
Pitman Creek (backwater effects  Approximately 1,690                  None               +388  Unincorporated
 from Green River).               feet upstream of KY-                                          Areas of Webster
                                  370.                                                          County.
                                 At approximately 3.8                 None               +388
                                  miles upstream of the
                                  confluence with the
                                  Green River.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+North American Vertical Datum.
Depth in feet above ground.
[caret]Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream
 reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at
 the community map repository (see below) for exact locations of all BFEs to be changed.

Send comments to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation
 Administration, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472.

                                                    ADDRESSES
City of Sebree
Maps are available for inspection at 36 South Spring Street, Sebree, KY 42455.

                                     Unincorporated Areas of Webster County

Maps are available for inspection at 35 South U.S. Route 41A, Dixon, KY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: November 8, 2012.
James A. Walke,
Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-29684 Filed 12-7-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: November 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 229)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 67587-67588]
[DOCID:fr29no07-12]

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

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

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2007-0091; Airspace Docket No. 07-AWP-5]

Proposed Modification of Class E Airspace; Hollister, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to modify the Class E airspace area at
Hollister, CA. Establishment of an Area Navigation (RNAV) Global
Positioning System (GPS) Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP)
at Hollister Municipal Airport, Hollister, CA, has made this proposal
necessary. Additional controlled airspace is needed for the safety and
management of aircraft executing the new RNAV (GPS) SIAPs at Hollister
Municipal Airport, Hollister, CA.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 14, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC, 20590.
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2007-
0091; Airspace Docket No. 07-AWP-5, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, System Support Group, Western Service Area, 1601 Lind
Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2007-0091 and Airspace Docket No. 07-AWP-5) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for address
and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov.

    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2007-0091 and Airspace Docket No. 07-AWP-5.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://.

www.faa.gov or the Federal Register's Web page at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html
.

    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Regional Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation
Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Area, System
Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace at
Hollister, CA. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft
using the new RNAV (GPS) SIAP to Runway 31 at Hollister Municipal
Airport. Additional controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet
or more above the surface is necessary for the safety and management of
aircraft operations at Hollister Municipal Airport, Hollister, CA.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007, and effective September 15,
2007, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in this Order.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44
FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a
regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since
this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code.

Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace.
    This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it
establishes additional controlled airspace at Hollister Municipal
Airport, Hollister, CA.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

    1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order
7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, signed August 15,
2007 and effective September 15, 2007, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005--Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

AWP CA E5 Hollister, CA [Amended]

Hollister Municipal Airport, CA
    (Lat. 36[deg]53[min]36[sec] N., Long. 121[deg]24[min]37[sec] W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Hollister Municipal Airport and within 2
miles each side of the 142[deg] bearing from the airport extending
from the 6.5-mile radius to 13.5 miles southeast of the airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on November 13, 2007.
Clark Desing,
Manager, System Support Group, Western Service Area.
[FR Doc. E7-23173 Filed 11-28-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


			  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

		        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

			  OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

			          WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on November 28, 2003

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKET OST 1999-6626

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

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

Applicant:  AERONAVES del NORESTE, S.A. de C.V.
                Date Filed:  November 6, 2003

Relief requested:  Exemption from 49 USC section 41301 to permit the
applicant to continue to conduct passenger charter operations between
Mexico and the United States, and other passenger charters in accordance
with 14 CFR Part 212, using small equipment.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  November 15, 2002, in
this Docket.

Applicant representative:  Eugene E. Smith,<PHONE_NUMBER>         DOT
analyst:  Allen Brown,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved
                                            Action date:  November 28,
2003

Effective dates of authority granted:  November 28, 2003, through
November 28, 2004

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity):  United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement of August 15, 1960, as
amended and extended (Agreement).

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations indicated:

     X  Standard exemption conditions.

Special conditions/Partial grant/Denial basis/Remarks:  In the conduct
of these operations, the carrier must adhere to all applicable
provisions of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement.  In the conduct of these
operations, the carrier may only use aircraft capable of carrying no
more than 60 passengers and having a maximum payload capacity of no more
than 18,000 pounds (small equipment).  The above grant includes
authority to conduct Third and Fourth Freedom charter operations.  While
we have subjected, consistent with the provisions of the Agreement,
Mexican carriers conducting charter operations with large aircraft to
prior approval or submission of notice for their Third and Fourth
Freedom charters, we determined that any such requirement was not
necessary on public interest grounds in this case, since the carrier
will be conducting these operations solely with small aircraft.  (Other
charter operations to/from the United States under this authority,
however, are subject to prior approval under 14 CFR Part 212.)  Further,
we are continuing to allow Mexican carriers conducting passenger
charters using small equipment to make stopovers in the United States in
the conduct of such operations.

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director

		      Office of International Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition
f牯爠癥敩⁷楷汬渠瑯愠瑬牥猠捵晥敦瑣癩湥獥⹳഍
湁攠敬瑣潲楮敶獲潩景琠楨⁳潤畣敭瑮椠⁳癡楡慬
汢湯琠敨圠牯摬圠摩敗瑡ഺ瑨灴⼺搯獭搮瑯朮癯
⼯敲潰瑲⽳敲潰瑲彳癡慩楴湯愮灳