[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 163 (Tuesday, August 23, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52569-52572]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21460]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0727]
RIN 1625-AA11

Regulated Navigation Area; Arthur Kill, NY and NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary interim rule with request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a Regulated Navigation Area
(RNA) on the navigable waters of the Arthur Kill in New York and New
Jersey. This temporary interim rule is necessary to enhance navigation,
vessel safety, marine environmental protection, and provide for the
safety of life on the navigable waters during drilling, blasting and
dredging operations in support of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
channel deepening project. We seek comments regarding this rule and
will consider those comments before issuing a final rule.

DATES: This rule is effective in the CFR on August 23, 2011 until 5
p.m. on April 1, 2014. This rule is effective with actual notice for
purposes of enforcement from 8 a.m. on August 12, 2011 until 5 p.m. on
April 1, 2014. Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard
on or before September 22, 2011 but will be accepted and reviewed by
the Coast Guard through April 1, 2014, that is, for as long as the RNA
is in place.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2011-0727 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this interim
rule, call or e-mail Mr. Jeff Yunker, U.S. Coast Guard Sector New York
Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-
mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Lieutenant Junior Grade Isaac Slavitt,
Coast Guard First District Waterways Management Branch, telephone 617-
223-8385, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.
    As this interim rule will be in effect before the end of the
comment period, the Coast Guard will evaluate and revise this rule as
necessary to address significant public comments. Alternatively, if the
dredging project necessitating the interim rule is completed before
April 1, 2014, and we receive no public comments that indicate a
substantive need to revise the rule, we may allow it to expire on that
date without further regulatory action.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2011-0727), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand delivery or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at

the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name
and a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the
body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2011-0727'' in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions''
column. If you submit comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in
an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and will consider those
comments before issuing a final rule.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2011-0727'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting within the meaning of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553. But you may
submit a request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe such a public meeting would
be beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we
will hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the
Federal Register. The Coast Guard has held or participated in fourteen
locally announced informal waterway user meetings where waterway
closures and restrictions were discussed. We anticipate holding
additional informal meetings, with opportunity for public questions or
comments, during this project. We will provide written summaries of any
such meetings in the docket.

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this interim rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the 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 immediate action is necessary to ensure the safety of the
public in the vicinity of the drilling, dredging and blasting
operations being conducted in the Arthur Kill. In November 2010,
Northeast Dredging Company, the contractor, advised that the Arthur
Kill Channel Deepening Project would require rolling two-week closures
of the middle third of the Arthur Kill to conduct the drilling and
blasting operations. The requested closure of the Arthur Kill would
have shut down the Arthur Kill to all deep draft vessels in the area
resulting in a long term disruption to cargo and oil terminal
facilities operations. We advised the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) and the contractor that the complete closure of the Arthur Kill
for two-week periods during the course of the deepening project would
negatively impact navigational safety on the waterway and that an
alternative proposal that would keep the channel open to vessel traffic
was necessary.
    We participated in nine initial planning meetings with the USACE,
harbor and docking pilots, tugboat operators, facility operators, and
the contractors between January and April 2011. In early April 2011 the
USACE, with the assistance of harbor and docking pilots, conducted
simulator assessments of the drilling and blasting areas. These
simulations studied the possibility of reducing the size of the
drilling and blasting areas in order to maintain one-half of the
channel open at all times for vessel transits. The results of the
simulation allowed the USACE to determine that, although it was
possible to conduct the channel deepening without completely closing
the Arthur Kill, additional coordination meetings were necessary.
    Five additional meetings were held between April and June 2011 to
discuss the results of the navigation simulations. In June the USACE
and the contractor presented a revised drilling, blasting and dredging
plan, which called for reduction in the channel width during the
deepening project. The drilling, blasting and dredging operations will
render a portion of the Arthur Kill unavailable to vessel navigation
and decrease the overall width of the navigable channel that is
available to deep draft commercial vessels. The Coast Guard initially
planned to control traffic under the auspices of the Vessel Traffic
Service (VTS) New York, but as a result of the June 2011 meeting with
the USACE, it was determined that a Regulated Navigation Area (RNA)
would be necessary. The dynamic nature of the dredging process and
multitude of drilling and blasting equipment associated with the
project necessitates that all mariners comply with this RNA, as the
drilling and blasting equipment configuration may change on a daily
basis. Immediate action is needed to control vessels operating in the
reduced waterway and protect the maritime public from the hazards
associated with drilling, blasting and dredging operations on a
constricted waterway. Publishing a NPRM and waiting 30 days for comment
would be contrary to the public interest since immediate action is
needed to restrict vessel traffic and protect the maritime public from
the hazards associated with drilling, blasting and dredging operations.
    For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) the Coast Guard
finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than
30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Basis and Purpose

    Under the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, the Coast Guard has the
authority to establish RNAs in defined water areas that are determined
to have hazardous conditions and in which vessel traffic can be
regulated in the interest of safety. See 33 U.S.C. 1231 and Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    The purpose of this interim rule is to ensure the safe transit of
vessels in the area and to protect all persons, vessels, and the marine
environment during the ongoing channel deepening project.

Discussion of Rule

    The RNA encompasses all waters of the North of Shooters Island
Reach, Elizabethport Reach, and Gulfport Reach in the Arthur Kill.
    Drilling and blasting operations began in the Arthur Kill on
Tuesday, August 2, 2011. The project consists of dredging, drilling and
underwater blasting of bedrock in the Arthur Kill navigable channel.
Dredging operations will encroach on portions of the navigable channel,
require the relocation of lateral aids to navigation, and create a
reduction in the width of the navigable channel.
    This interim rule seeks to enhance navigational safety and marine
environmental protection, and promote vessel movement by reducing the
potential for collisions, groundings, and the loss of lives and
property. This interim rule became effective with actual notice upon
being signed by the District Commander; however the Coast Guard would
like to receive comments before issuing a final rule.
    Any violation of the RNA described herein is punishable by, among
others, civil and criminal penalties, in rem liability against the
offending vessel, and the initiation of suspension or revocation
proceedings against Coast Guard-issued merchant-mariner credentials.
    The Captain of the Port (COTP) New York will cause notice of
enforcement, suspension of enforcement, or closure of the waterway to
be made by all appropriate means to effect the widest distribution
among the affected segments of the public. Such means of notification
may include, but are not limited to, Broadcast Notice to Mariners and
Local Notice to Mariners.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, and does not require an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it
under that Order.
    The economic impact of this rule will be severely limited for the
following reasons: (1) The RNA does not prohibit vessels from
transiting the area; (2) vessels will be allowed to safely transit
without restrictions in areas where there are no dredges or drill
barges operating; (3) vessels may be allowed to transit work areas
where dredges and/or drill barges are operating unless blasting
operations are underway; (4) delays resulting from blast operations are
expected to last no longer than 15 minutes and occur twice daily; and
(5) advance notification will be made to the maritime community via
Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on the
Internet at http://homeport.uscg.mil/newyork.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit in a portion of the Arthur Kill from August 12, 2011 until the
Arthur Kill Channel Deepening Project is completed.
    This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons:
although the regulated navigation area will apply to the entire width
of the Arthur Kill, vessel traffic will be allowed to pass through the
regulated area by coordinating with Vessel Traffic Service New York
(VTSNY). Before the effective period, we will issue maritime advisories
widely available to users of the waterway.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

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

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (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.

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of a RNA. An
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T01-0727 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T01-0727  Regulated Navigation Area; Arthur Kill, NY and NJ.

    (a) Regulated Area. The following area is a regulated navigation
area: all waters of the North of Shooters Island Reach, Elizabethport
Reach, and Gulfport Reach in the Arthur Kill; bounded in the northeast
by a line drawn from position 40[deg] 38'48.637'' N, 074[deg]
09'18.204'' W; to a point in position 40[deg]38'37.815'' N, 074[deg]
09'20.245'' W; and bounded in the southwest by a line drawn from
position 40[deg] 37'15.643'' N, 074[deg] 12'15.927'' W; to a point in
position 40[deg] 37'15.779'' N, 074[deg] 12'08.0622'' W. All geographic
coordinates are North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
    (b) Regulations.
    (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.13 apply.
    (2) All vessels must remain at least 150 feet from all drilling and
blasting equipment; if a vessel must pass within 150 feet of drilling
and blasting equipment for reasons of safety, they shall contact the
dredge and/or blasting barge on Channel 13.
    (3) No vessel shall enter or transit any work area where drill
barges and/or dredges are located without the permission of Vessel
Traffic Service New York (VTSNY) Director.
    (4) No vessel may be underway within 1,500 feet of the blasting
area during blasting operations.
    (5) No vessel shall enter an area of drilling or blasting when they
are advised by the drilling barge or VTSNY that a misfire or hang fire
has occurred.
    (6) Vessel Movement Reporting System (VMRS) users are prohibited
from meeting or overtaking other vessels when transiting alongside an
active work area where dredging and drilling equipment are being
operated.
    (7) Each vessel transiting in the vicinity of a work area where
dredges are located is required to do so at reduced speed to maintain
maneuverability while minimizing the effects of wake and surge.
    (8) The VTSNY Director may impose additional requirements through
VTS measures, as per 33 CFR 161.11.
    (c) Effective Period. This rule is effective from 8 a.m. on August
12, 2011 until 5 p.m. on April 1, 2014.

    Dated: 12 Aug 2011.
J.B. McPherson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District,
Acting.
[FR Doc. 2011-21460 Filed 8-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Kristin Fitzgerald/DC/USEPA/US

01/23/2007 02:57 PM	To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS> 	cc

	bcc

	Patricia Mercer/DC/USEPA/US@EPA; Meg McCarthy/DC/USEPA/US@EPA; James

Michael/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

	Subject

	Follow-up Question to MU's Comment

Todd Houts

Assistant Director

Environmental Health and Safety

University of Missouri - Columbia

 Thank you for your comments on EPA’s Proposed Rule: Subpart K—Standards

Applicable to Academic Laboratories (71 Federal Register 29712) on behalf

of the University of Missouri–Columbia (MU).

In response to MU’s comments (Docket Number EPA-HQ-RCRA-2003-0012-0159.1),

EPA has a follow-up question.  In the preamble to the proposed rule (page

29720), EPA estimated that hazardous laboratory waste constitutes 9% of

the annual hazardous waste generated by college and university large

quantity generators.  EPA based this number on data submitted to EPA by

colleges and universities that are large quantity generators, as part of

the 2001 Biennial Report.

In contrast, on page 2 of MU’s comments to the docket, you commented that,

“In an informal survey on the Campus Safety Health and Environmental

Management Association (CSHEMA) listserv, it was apparent that laboratory

waste averages 60-75% at most universities.  At MU this number was 78% in

FY04 and 68% in FY05.”  EPA is very interested in any additional data that

MU has and can provide to support this assertion.  This information would

be beneficial to EPA in its development of the final rule, in order to

have a fuller understanding of the laboratory waste generation patterns at

colleges and universities.  Unfortunately, this comment is not useful to

EPA without supporting data that can substantiate or validate MU’s waste

generation.  EPA would find it helpful if you could provide an explanation

of the origins of the data (e.g., what is included/excluded in the

categories of laboratory waste and hazardous waste), and how or why the

data may differ from the Biennial Report data we relied on.  In addition,

we would appreciate a timely response to allow us to incorporate any

information you may provide into the decision-making process, as

appropriate.   Please provide a response by the end of February 2007.  If

you are unable to provide a response by then, please contact us to let us

know if and when you could provide a timely response.

Any supporting information you provide to EPA will be made publicly

available in the docket for the rulemaking, unless the information is

claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). Therefore, if you

submit any information that you claim as CBI, clearly mark all of the

information that you claim to be CBI.  Information so marked will not be

disclosed, except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part

2.  Please do not fax any information claimed as CBI.  For additional

information on how to submit CBI, refer to page 29713, of the May 23,

2006, Federal Register, proposed rule for academic laboratories, or

contact LaShan Haynes, the Office of Solid Waste CBI contact, at (703)

605-0516<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Again, thank you for your comments on the proposed standards for academic

laboratories.  Please direct any questions or response to this letter to

any member of EPA’s labs team:

Patricia Mercer,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Meg McCarthy,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Kristin Fitzgerald,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS> **************************************************************

Kristin Fitzgerald

US EPA - Office of Solid Waste

mail code:  5304P

phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS> work schedule:  Tuesday/Thursday


[Federal Register: May 1, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 83)]
[Notices]
[Page 23809-23810]
[DOCID:fr01my07-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-179-001]

Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Notice of Compliance Filing

April 24, 2007.
    Take notice that, on April 19, 2007, Gulf South Pipeline Company,
LP submitted a compliance filing pursuant to the Commission's order
issued March 30, 2007 in Docket No. RP07-179, Gulf South Pipeline
Company, LP, 118 FERC ] 61,262 (2007).
    Gulf South states that copies of the filing were served on parties
on the official service list in the above-captioned proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests
must be filed in accordance with the provisions of Sec.  154.210 of the
Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing a protest must
serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the proceeding.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is 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 docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8217 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 231 (Monday, December 6, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 68937-68939]
[FR Doc No: 2021-26326]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2021-1019; Project Identifier 2020-CE-006-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Gliders

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD)
for all Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Model Ventus-2a and Ventus-2b
gliders. This proposed AD was prompted by mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as severe
corrosion on the inboard flaperon actuation push rods and ball bearing
connecting the flaperon push rod to the bell crank inside the wing.
This proposed AD would require inspecting the affected parts of the
flaperon control in the wings and taking corrective actions if
necessary. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition
on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 20,
2022.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12 140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Schempp-
Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH, Krebenstrasse 25, 73230 Kirchheim/Teck,
Germany; phone: +49 7021 7298-0; fax: +49 7021 7298-199; email:
hirth.com">[email protected]hirth.com; website: https://www.schempp-hirth.com. You may
view this referenced service information at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901 Locust, Kansas City,
MO 64106. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1019; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this NPRM, the MCAI,
any comments received, and other information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Rutherford, Aviation Safety
Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section, International
Validation Branch, FAA, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2021-1019; Project Identifier
2020-CE-006-AD'' at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful
comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposal because of those comments.
    Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in
the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
https://www.regulations.gov, including any

personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report
summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

Confidential Business Information

    CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily
and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public
disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial
or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that
you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to
this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted
comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing
CBI as ``PROPIN.'' The FAA will treat such marked submissions as
confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public
docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Jim
Rutherford, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, General Aviation &
Rotorcraft Section, International Validation Branch, FAA, 901 Locust,
Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106. Any commentary that the FAA receives
which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the
public docket for this rulemaking.

Background

    The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the
Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued
EASA AD 2020-0063, dated March 18, 2020 (referred to after this as
``the MCAI''), to address an unsafe condition on Schempp-Hirth
Flugzeugbau GmbH Models Ventus-2a, Ventus-2b, Ventus-2c, Ventus-2cM,
and Ventus-2cT gliders. The MCAI states:

    Severe corrosion has been found on the inboard flaperon
actuation push rod of some sailplanes. Subsequent investigation
determined that, when water ballast is dumped in flight, some water
may be sucked into the wing upper side and enter the wing via the
flaperon push rod. Intruding water may cause corrosion especially on
the ball bearing connecting the flaperon push rod to the bell crank
inside the wing.
    This condition, if not detected an[d] corrected, could lead to
hard steering (when the ball bearing is damaged) or increased play
(when the ball bearing has failed), possibly resulting in reduced
control of the (powered) sailplane.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, Schempp-Hirth
Flugzeugbau GmbH issued the [technical note] TN to provide
inspection and replacement instructions.
    For the reason described above, this [EASA] AD requires
repetitive inspections of the affected parts, as identified in the
TN, and, depending on findings, replacement with serviceable parts.

    You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-
1019.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Working
Instructions for Technical Note No. 349-42/825-57, Revision 2, dated
February 24, 2020. This service information contains procedures for
inspecting the pushrod, joint head, and bell crank of the flaperon
control of the wings for corrosion or other damage, and replacing or
servicing (repair) if necessary. This service information is reasonably
available because the interested parties have access to it through
their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
ADDRESSES section.

Other Related Service Information

    The FAA also reviewed Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Technical Note
No. 349-42/825-57, Revision 2, dated February 24, 2020. This service
information specifies inspecting the pushrod, joint head, and bell
crank of the flaperon control of the wings by following Schempp-Hirth
Flugzeugbau GmbH Working Instructions for Technical Note No. 349-42/
825-57, Revision 2, dated February 24, 2020.

FAA's Determination

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority,
it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI
and service information referenced above. The FAA is issuing this AD
because it evaluated all information provided by the State of Design
Authority and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to
exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information already described, except as described under
``Differences Between this Proposed AD and the MCAI.''

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI

    The MCAI applies to Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Model Ventus-2c,
Ventus-2cM, and Ventus-2cT gliders, and this proposed AD would not
because they do not have an FAA type certificate.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would
affect 33 gliders of U.S. registry. The FAA also estimates that it
would take about 1 work-hour per glider to comply with the inspection
that would be required by this proposed AD. Based on these figures, the
FAA estimates the inspection cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators
to be $2,805 or $85 per glider, per inspection cycle.
    In addition, the FAA estimates that each repair or replacement
action required by this proposed AD would take up to 8 work-hours and
require parts costing up to $800. Based on these figures, the FAA
estimates the repair or replacement cost of this proposed AD on U.S.
operators to be up to $1,480 per glider.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.
Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight
of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for
practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary
for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

    (3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

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

Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH: Docket No. FAA-2021-1019; Project
Identifier 2020-CE-006-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive
(AD) by January 20, 2022.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Model Ventus-
2a and Ventus-2b gliders, all serial numbers, certificated in any
category.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2700, Flight Control
System.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and address an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as severe corrosion
on the inboard flaperon actuation push rods and ball bearing
connecting the flaperon push rod to the bell crank inside the wing.
The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent hard steering and increased
play. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in
reduced control of the glider.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspections and Corrective Actions

    Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD and
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 12 months, inspect the
pushrod, joint head, and bell crank of the flaperon control of the
wings for corrosion and other damage in accordance with Action 1 in
Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH Working Instructions for Technical
Note No. 349-42/825-57, Revision 2, dated February 24, 2020, and
before further flight, repair or replace the affected part, as
applicable, in accordance with Action 2 in Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau
GmbH Working Instructions for Technical Note No. 349-42/825-57,
Revision 2, dated February 24, 2020.

(h) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the
authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the
procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19,
send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send
it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of
this AD and email to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(i) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact Jim Rutherford,
Aviation Safety Engineer, General Aviation & Rotorcraft Section,
International Validation Branch, FAA, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas
City, MO 64106; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].
    (2) Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD
2020-0063, dated March 18, 2020, for more information. You may
examine the EASA AD in the AD docket at https://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2021-1019.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Schempp-Hirth Flugzeugbau GmbH, Krebenstrasse 25, 73230 Kirchheim/
Teck, Germany; telephone: +49 7021 7298-0; fax: +49 7021 7298-199;
email: hirth.com">[email protected]hirth.com; website: https://www.schempp-
hirth.com. You may view this referenced service information at the
FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 901
Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on the availability
of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued on November 24, 2021.
Lance T. Gant,
Director, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2021-26326 Filed 12-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60013-60014]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24885]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4307-001.
    Applicants: Green Mountain Energy Company.
    Description: Green Mountain Energy Company submits tariff filing
per 35.17(b): Amendment--docket number inserted 09192011 to be
effective 10/11/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/19/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110919-5106.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4308-001.
    Applicants: Reliant Energy Northeast LLC.
    Description: Reliant Energy Northeast LLC submits tariff filing per
35.17(b): Amendment--docket number inserted 09192011 to be effective
10/11/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/19/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110919-5107.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4558-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: PJM Queue No. NQ-047; Original Service Agreement No.
3055 to be effective 8/19/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/19/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110919-5061.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4559-000.
    Applicants: Black Hills/Colorado Electric Utility Company.
    Description: Black Hills/Colorado Electric Utility Company, LP
submits tariff filing per 35: OATT Compliance to be effective 8/16/
2011.
    Filed Date: 09/19/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110919-5065.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4560-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.
    Description: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2011-9-19--CAPX--Fargo--
Phase-2--TCEA--Agmt to be effective 8/12/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/19/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110919-5089.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4561-000.
    Applicants: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation.
    Description: Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: 2011-9-19--CAPX--Fargo--
Phase-2--OMA--Agmt--0.1.0 to be effective 8/12/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/19/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110919-5091.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4562-000.
    Applicants: Hawkeye Energy Greenport, LLC.
    Description: Hawkeye Energy Greenport, LLC submits tariff filing
per 35.12: Hawkeye Energy Greenport, LLC Baseline MBR Tariff to be
effective 9/19/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/19/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110919-5094.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4563-000.
    Applicants: CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC.
    Description: CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC submits
tariff filing per 35.13(a)(1): TFO Tariff Interim Rate Revision to
Conform with PUCT-Approved ERCOT Rate to be effective 9/6/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/19/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110919-5098.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4564-000.
    Applicants: Bollinger Energy Corporation.
    Description: Report/Form of Bollinger Energy Corporation, Request
to cancel market-based rate tariff in response the letter regarding
Order No. 714 dated August 31, 2011.
    Filed Date: 09/19/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110919-5104.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4565-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: R34 Amended GIA (R65 and
J191) to be effective 9/20/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/19/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110919-5115.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4565-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits tariff filing per 35.13(a)(2)(iii: R34 Amended GIA (R65 and
J191) to be effective 9/20/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/19/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110919-5116.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4566-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection, LLC submits tariff filing per
35.13(a)(2)(iii: Queue Position T133 & T134; Original Service Agreement
No. 3049 to be effective 8/19/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/19/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110919-5117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4567-000.
    Applicants: Pypha Energy LLC.
    Description: Pypha Energy LLC submits tariff filing per 35.1:
Baseline MBR Tariff Filing to be effective 9/20/2011.
    Filed Date: 09/20/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110920-5000.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    Docket Numbers: ER11-4568-000.
    Applicants: PacifiCorp.
    Description: Termination of PacifiCorp Rate Schedule FERC No. 276,
Nevada Power Interconnection Agreement in ER11-4568.
    Filed Date: 09/19/2011.
    Accession Number: 20110919-5131.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, October 11, 2011.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: September 20, 2011.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-24885 Filed 9-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 112 (Friday, June 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35540-35541]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12542]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP22-467-000]

Texas Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request Under Blanket
Authorization and Establishing Intervention and Protest Deadline

    Take notice that on May 27, 2022, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC
(Texas Gas), 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046, filed
in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to
sections 157.205 and 157.216(b) of the Commission's regulations under
the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Texas Gas' blanket certificate issued in
Docket No. CP82-407-000, for authorization to (i) plug and abandon
Injection/Withdrawal Well Number (I/W Well No.) 16949 and I/W Well No.
17040 located within Texas Gas' existing Midland Storage Field, (ii)
plug and abandon I/W Well No. 15875 located within Texas Gas' existing
West Greenville Storage Field, (iii) abandon by removal the surface
components associated with each well, and (iv) abandon in place a
combined total of approximately 1,630 feet of 4.5-inch diameter storage
well lateral lines, all located in Muhlenberg County, Kentucky.
    Texas Gas also states that the plugging and abandonment of these
wells will have no effect on the certificated physical parameters,
including total inventory, reservoir pressure, reservoir and buffer
boundaries, and certificated capacity (including injection and
withdrawal capacity) of either storage field, all as more fully set
forth in the application, which is on file with the Commission and open
to public inspection.
    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://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 FERC at
[email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    Any questions regarding this prior notice request should be
directed to J. Kyle Stephens, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, Texas
Gas Transmission, LLC, 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas
77046, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email to [email protected].

Public Participation

    There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review
of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a
motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the
project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to
intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to
intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 5, 2022.
How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained
below.

Protests

    Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under
the NGA,\1\ any person \2\ or the Commission's staff may file a protest
to the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed or if a
protest is filed and then withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed
time for filing a protest, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for protest. If a
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request for authorization
will be considered by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 157.205.
    \2\ Persons include individuals, organizations, businesses,
municipalities, and other entities. 18 CFR 385.102(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section
157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,\3\ and must be submitted by
the protest deadline, which is August 5, 2022. A protest may also serve
as a motion to intervene so long as the

protestor states it also seeks to be an intervenor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 18 CFR 157.205(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interventions

    Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this
proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of
Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently
challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
    To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the
Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure \4\ and the regulations under the NGA \5\ by the
intervention deadline for the project, which is August 5, 2022. As
described further in Rule 214, your motion to intervene must state, to
the extent known, your position regarding the proceeding, as well as
your interest in the proceeding. For an individual, this could include
your status as a landowner, ratepayer, resident of an impacted
community, or recreationist. You do not need to have property directly
impacted by the project in order to intervene. For more information
about motions to intervene, refer to the FERC website at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/how-to/intervene.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 18 CFR 385.214.
    \5\ 18 CFR 157.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically
granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are
filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied.
Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late
and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide
justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the
Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status
will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.

Comments

    Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The
Commission considers all comments received about the project in
determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your
comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments
on or before August 5, 2022. The filing of a comment alone will not
serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party,
you must intervene in the proceeding.

How To File Protests, Interventions, and Comments

    There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and
comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number
CP22-467-000 in your submission.
    (1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by
using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the
Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to Documents and
Filings. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking on
``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you are
making; first select General'' and then select ``Protest'',
``Intervention'', or ``Comment on a Filing''; or \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Additionally, you may file your comments electronically by
using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's
website at www.ferc.gov under the link to Documents and Filings.
Using eComment is an easy method for interested persons to submit
brief, text-only comments on a project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to
the address below.\7\ Your submission must reference the Project docket
number CP22-467-000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Hand-delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be
delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue,
Rockville, Maryland 20852.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option
1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-
8258 or [email protected]
    Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant
either by mail at: 9 Greenway Plaza, Suite 2800, Houston, Texas 77046,
or email (with a link to the document) at:
[email protected]. Any subsequent submissions by an
intervenor must be served on the applicant and all other parties to the
proceeding. Contact information for parties can be downloaded from the
service list at the eService link on FERC Online.

Tracking the Proceeding

    Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project
will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at
(866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the
``eLibrary'' link as described above. The eLibrary link also provides
access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the Commission,
such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. For more information and to register, go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.

    Dated: June 6, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-12542 Filed 6-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 7, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 25)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6238-6241]
[DOCID:fr07fe06-13]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 268

[FRL-8027-7; EPA-HQ-RCRA-2005-0015]

Site-Specific Variance From the Land Disposal Restrictions
Treatment Standard for 1,3-Phenylenediamine (1,3-PDA)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revise the waste treatment standard for
1,3-phenylenediamine (1,3-PDA) for a biosludge generated at DuPont's
Chambers Works facility in Deepwater, New Jersey. This variance is
necessary because the facility is unable to measure compliance with the
previously promulgated 1,3-PDA treatment standard in its multisource
leachate biosludge matrix. As a practical matter, therefore, the
facility cannot fully document compliance with the requirements of the
treatment standard. For the same reason, EPA cannot ascertain
compliance for this constituent. Furthermore, faced with the inability
to demonstrate treatment residual content through analytical testing
for this constituent, this facility faces potential curtailment of 1,3-
PDA production operations. This site-specific variance will provide
alternative technology treatment standards for 1,3-PDA in multisource
leachate that do not require analysis of the biosludge matrix to
determine whether the numerical treatment standard is being met, thus
ensuring that treatment reflecting performance of the Best Demonstrated
Available Technology occurs and that threats to human health and the
environment from land disposal of the waste are minimized.
    In the ``Rules and Regulations'' section of the Federal Register,
we are revising the 1,3-PDA multisource leachate (F039) treatment
standard for the DuPont Chambers Works facility in Deepwater, New
Jersey without prior proposal because we view the revision as
noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse comment. We have explained
our reasons for this approach in the preamble to the direct final rule.
If we receive adverse comment on this revision, however, we will
withdraw the direct final action for that portion of the variance and
it will not take effect. We will address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. We will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting on any amendment must do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received by March 9, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
RCRA-2005-0015, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: RCRA Docket (5305T), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please
include a total of 3 copies.
     Hand Delivery: 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Room B102,
Washington, DC. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's
normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No EPA-HQ-RCRA-
2005-0015. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

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

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

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

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

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

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

ID No EPA-HQ-RCRA-2005-0015, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the RCRA Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. A reasonable
fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information on this proposed
rulemaking, contact Rhonda Minnick, Hazardous Waste Minimization and
Management Division, Office of Solid Waste (MC 5302 W), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. What Is the Basis for LDR Treatment Variances?

    Under section 3004(m) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), EPA is required to set ``levels or methods of treatment, if
any, which substantially diminish the toxicity of the waste or
substantially reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous
constituents from the waste so that short-term and long-term threats to
human health and the environment are minimized.'' We interpret this
language to authorize treatment standards based on the performance of
the Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT). This interpretation
was upheld by the DC Circuit in Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v.
EPA, 886 F. 2d 355 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
    We recognize that there may be wastes that cannot be treated to
levels specified in the regulations (see 40 CFR 268.40) because an
individual waste matrix or concentration can be substantially more
difficult to treat than those wastes we evaluated in establishing the
treatment standard (51 FR 40576, November 7, 1986). For such wastes,
EPA has a process by which a generator or treater may seek a treatment
variance (see 40 CFR 268.44). If granted, the terms of the variance
establish an alternative treatment standard for the particular waste at
issue.

B. What Is the Basis of the Current 1,3-PDA Treatment Standard?

    The treatment standard for 1,3-PDA was promulgated in the Dyes and
Pigments (K181) hazardous waste listing on February 24, 2005 (70 FR
9138) and it became effective on August 23, 2005. The 1,3-PDA treatment
standard was placed in the Table of Treatment Standards (see 40 CFR
268.40) under ``K181'' (the waste code for the Dyes and Pigments
listing) and under ``F039'' (the waste code for multisource leachate).
It is the F039 treatment standard for 1,3-PDA that is addressed in this
site-specific variance. We also added this constituent to the Universal
Treatment Standard Table (see 40 CFR 268.48), which means that when
1,3-PDA is reasonably expected to be present in a characteristic waste
at point of generation it must be considered an underlying hazardous
constituent requiring treatment.
    In the final rule, we set a numerical nonwastewater treatment
standard of 0.66 mg/kg for 1,3-PDA, based on use of the best
demonstrated available technology (BDAT) of combustion. For purposes of
establishing the treatment standard, we grouped 1,3-PDA with other
waste constituents (notably 1,2-PDA, but also including o-Anisidine, p-
Cresidine, 2,4-dimethylaniline, aniline and 4-chloroaniline). No actual
treatment data were available for 1,3-PDA. However, the 0.66 mg/kg
treatment standard was based on: (1) The thermal stability index
ranking system and incinerability index (if the most difficult to treat
constituents can be destroyed via incineration, then all less stable
constituents can also be destroyed); and (2) similar chemical
structures and chemical and physical properties that are exhibited by
the constituents in each treatability group (incineration should be
able to destabilize and destroy each of the compounds in a similar
fashion). See the ``Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT)
Background Document for Dyes and Pigments Production Wastes,'' December
2004, section 2.2.3.

II. What Is the Basis for Today's Determination?

A. What Criteria Govern a Treatment Variance?

    Facilities can apply for a site-specific variance in cases where a
waste that is generated under conditions specific to only one site
cannot be treated to the specified levels. In such cases, the generator
or treatment facility may apply to the Administrator, or a delegated
representative, for a site-specific variance from a treatment standard.
One of the demonstrations that an applicant for a site-specific
variance may make is that it is not physically possible to treat the
waste to the level specified in the treatment standard (40 CFR
268.44(h)(1)). This is the criteria pertinent to today's variance, in
that it is not technically possible to measure the constituent in
DuPont's biosludge treatment residual, as explained below.

B. What Does DuPont Request?

    DuPont contacted EPA about an analytical problem it is having with
1,3-PDA in their multisource leachate (F039) treatment biosludge. The
facility produces 1,3-PDA in their plant and then pipes the wastewaters
from manufacturing 1,3-PDA to an onsite biological wastewater treatment
plant. DuPont ultimately disposes of the biosolids containing 1,3-PDA
into their hazardous waste landfill. The mass loading levels of the
waste 1,3-PDA do not trigger the K181 listing, so such placement is not
considered land disposal of a hazardous waste. However, the landfill is
permitted to accept biosolids with several listed hazardous waste and,
as a result, generates F039 (a hazardous waste), which is reasonably
expected to contain 1,3-PDA. The F039 is introduced by pipeline into
DuPont's biological treatment system, a two-step biological process
that includes the use of activated carbon. Biodegradation reduces
organics in this system by approximately 99%. The treatment residual is
a F039 biosludge that is high in carbon. It is this biosludge that is
the basis of the requested treatability variance.
    DuPont has sent the biosludge to several commercial laboratories
for analysis to see if it met the treatment standard and could be
legally land disposed. The laboratories have consistently been unable
to detect 1,3-PDA in this high carbon matrix. When asked if they could
develop a new detection method for this constituent, only one
laboratory was interested in attempting to do so, but indicated that it
could take a year to develop and it likely would have a detection limit
around 13 mg/kg (the detection limit for a similar compound, 1,4-PDA).
This detection limit is much higher than the 1,3-PDA treatment standard
of 0.66 mg/kg.
    DuPont pointed out that when the treatment standard for a similar
compound, 1,2-PDA (1,2-phenylenediamine, o-phenylenediamine), was
promulgated in the dyes and pigments listing rule, we set a treatment
standard expressed as specified technologies because of method
detection problems: we specified that combustion (CMBST), or chemical
oxidation (CHOXD) followed by biodegradation (BIODG) or carbon
adsorption (CARBN), or a treatment train of BIODG followed by CARBN are
the treatment standard. DuPont requested that we provide a variance
that would set specified technologies as the treatment standard for
1,3-PDA at their Chambers Works facility, as we did for 1,2-PDA. We
believe that this is a reasonable request because when we evaluated the
waste constituents to determine the original treatment standards, we
grouped 1,3-PDA with 1,2-PDA (and other constituents) because they are
similar in chemical structure and physical properties.

C. New Treatment Standard for 1,3-PDA

    We are granting DuPont's request in today's site-specific variance.
Under one of the criteria for a variance from the treatment standard,
the applicant must demonstrate that it is not physically possible to
treat the waste to the level specified in the treatment standard. We
believe that today's variance falls into this category, in that it is
technically

impossible for DuPont to demonstrate that it complies with a treatment
level when laboratories have not been able to detect the waste in
DuPont's particular, site-specific biosludge matrix.\1\ Therefore,
certification that this constituent has been treated in the F039
biosludge matrix is not possible, and without the certification,
disposal of the F039 biosludge cannot legally occur. This situation may
impede production of 1,3-PDA at the facility, because legal disposal of
this waste would no longer be available. See Steel Manufacturers
Association v. EPA. 27 F.3d 642, 646-47 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (absence of a
treatment standard providing a legal means of disposing of wastes from
a process is equivalent to shutting down that process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This finding is similar to a previous LDR determination. We
originally promulgated a numerical treatment standard for 1,2-PDA
(o-phenylenediamine) on April 8, 1996 (61 FR 15583). However, we
subsequently withdrew the treatment standard because of poor method
performance on September 4, 1998. We stated at that time that
treatment of other constituents would provide adequate treatment for
o-phenylenediamine (63 FR 47409)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The alternative treatment standard established by today's site-
specific variance is: Combustion (CMBST), or chemical oxidation (CHOXD)
followed by biodegradation (BIODG) or carbon adsorption (CARBN), or a
treatment train of BIODG followed by CARBN, the same treatment standard
we set in the K181 listing rule for a similar constituent, 1,2-PDA. By
altering the treatment standard for 1,3-PDA to allow certification of
compliance based on the use of specified treatment technologies without
constituent-specific testing, we can ensure that effective treatment
occurs without delay and can also assure that threats to human health
and the environment are minimized. We believe that DuPont's two-step
biological treatment system that includes the use of activated carbon
effectively treats 1,3-PDA in the F039 multisource leachate waste.\2\
And, as mentioned in footnote 1, we made a similar finding that
treatment of other carbamate waste constituents would adequately treat
1,2-PDA, when we withdrew it as a constituent of concern in 1998.
Likewise, we believe that treatment of the other constituents of
concern in DuPont's F039 multisource leachate waste will serve as a
surrogate for 1,3-PDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ When we originally promulgated treatment standards for F039,
we stated that constituents on the BDAT list serve as surrogates for
those constituents that may be present in the multisource leachate
that cannot be adequately analyzed (55 FR 22622, June 1, 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Administrative Requirements

    For a complete discussion of all of the administrative requirements
applicable to this action, see the direct final rule in the Rules and
Regulations section of today's Federal Register.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    This treatment variance does not create any new regulatory
requirements. Rather, it establishes an alternative treatment standard
for a specific waste stream that replaces a standard already in effect,
and it applies to only one facility. Therefore, I hereby certify that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This rule, therefore, does not
require a regulatory flexibility analysis.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 268

    Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 27, 2006.
Susan Parker Bodine,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 268--LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 268 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, and 6924.

    2. Section 268.44, the table in paragraph (o) is amended by adding
in alphabetical order an additional entry for ``DuPont Environmental
Treatment Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ'' and adding a new footnote 13
to read as follows:

Sec.  268.44  Variance from a treatment standard.

* * * * *
    (o) * * *

                                        Table.--Wastes Excluded From the Treatment Standards Under Sec.   268.40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Wastewaters                      Nonwastewaters
                                                                      Regulated    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Facility name \1\ and address    Waste code        See also          hazardous       Concentration                       Concentration
                                                                     constituent         (mg/L)             Notes            (mg/kg)           Notes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
DuPont Environmental Treatment-           F039  Standards under   1,3-phenylenedia- NA..............  NA..............  CMBST; CHOXD fb           (\13\)
 Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ.                  Sec.   268.40.    mine (1,3-PDA).                                       BIODG or CARBN;
                                                                                or BIODG fb
                                                                                CARBN.

                                                                     * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A facility may certify compliance with these treatment standards according to provisions in 40 CFR 268.7.
* * * * * * *
\13\ This treatment standard applies to 1,3-PDA in biosludge from treatment of F039.
Note: NA means Not Applicable.

[FR Doc. 06-1072 Filed 2-6-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P